Mark 3

CHAPTER III

Mark 3:1

1 The first clash regarding Sabbath observance (2:23–28) is at once followed by another. All the synoptists narrate these clashes in succession.

And he again went into the synagogue. And there was there a man having his hand withered. And they kept covertly watching him whether he would heal him on the Sabbath in order that they might accuse him.

This was not the Sabbath that is mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, for Matthew states that Jesus departed thence, i. e., from the neighborhood where the disciples had plucked the ears of grain. He again entered a synagogue as in 1:21, and as his custom was generally, 1:39. The name of the town is not mentioned. Luke adds that Jesus engaged in teaching. Sitting somewhere among the auditors was a man who had a withered hand; Luke specifies that it was his right hand. The participle is placed forward for the sake of emphasis, it is predicative (R. 656) and equal to a relative clause: “which had been withered.” The perfect tense indicates that something had happened to the hand, and that it was now in this pitiful condition.

Mark 3:2

2 Mark and Luke say only that they kept watching him whether he would heal on the Sabbath, Luke naming the scribes and the Pharisees. The tense of the direct is retained in the indirect question: “Will he heal him?” Their purpose was “in order to accuse him,” the genitive αὐτοῦ after a verb of accusing. Luke states that Jesus knew the thoughts of these opponents of his. From Matthew, however, we learn that Jesus did not allow these thoughts to remain unspoken. In some way Jesus made these men speak out. They, of course, hide their evil intention to secure a legal charge against Jesus. All they say is that they would like to know whether it is lawful (εἰἔξεστι) to heal on the Sabbath. Note that this is all they think of: “Is it lawful?” never for a moment: “Is it merciful?”

Mark 3:3

3 And he says to the man having the hand withered, Stand up in the midst!

The man had been sitting quietly among the other auditors, but when these scribes and Pharisees make an issue of healing on the Sabbath, Jesus orders the man to stand up in the midst of the assembly, right where he had been sitting. Luke uses two verbs: “Rise and stand forth in the midst!” but the sense is the same. Mark now writes the adjective ξηρά for “withered.” The man is not told to come to the place where Jesus stood; the healing will be performed by a word and not by a touch. The man appears passive throughout the account; in the issue with the scribes and Pharisees he is only an example of what they thought wrong, and Jesus thought right. Jesus wants him to stand up so that all can see him and his pitiful hand. The scene thus becomes dramatic. The aorist imperative ἔγειραι denotes the single act of standing up, and εἰςτὸμέσον is an idiomatic phrase which is but awkwardly reproduced in English.

Mark 3:4

4 And he says to them, Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath or to do harm; to save life or to kill? But they were silent.

According to Matthew, Jesus said more; he first used the illustration of a sheep that had fallen into a pit on the Sabbath, which the owner would certainly lift out though it was the Sabbath; yet how much better than a sheep is a man? Then Matthew restates the substance of the questions asked in Mark and in Luke in declarative form: that it is certainly lawful to do good on the Sabbath. The Greek uses either the plural (Matthew and Mark) or the singular (Luke) for the word Sabbath.

The questions asked by Jesus intend to correct that asked by the scribes and Pharisees. In many instances the real issue is twisted or entirely perverted by putting the question in a wrong way. In a number of instances Jesus answered, not what is asked, but what should be asked. He does so here. These Jews made the alternative either “to do” or “not to do on the Sabbath” and then decided that lawfulness required the latter and disregarded everything else and entirely misconceived the purpose of the Sabbath. They made it a law that was strictly imposed on man instead of a blessing bestowed on man.

They thus allowed no work of mercy for suffering man on the Sabbath although they would inconsistently work to save a sheep on the Sabbath, for they would not want to lose the sheep. But some man they would treat heartlessly—his suffering meant no loss to them. So Jesus restates the question in the way in which it ought to be put: “Is it lawful to do good, namely what is morally excellent, on the Sabbath or to do harm, what is morally base?” Thus put, the question answers itself. Deeds that are morally excellent would only grace and honor the old Jewish legal Sabbath.

The second alternative: “to save life or to kill, i. e., destroy life,” carries the question to its ultimate extreme. The highest moral excellence would be actually to save life, and the basest deed would be to destroy life, either by killing outright or by killing indirectly, refusing to rescue from mortal danger. The ultimate always includes all that is less but of the same nature. Thus in Matt. 5:21, etc., murder includes the lesser sins that Jesus names; and in v. 27, etc., adultery includes all the less gross sins that violate the chastity of the heart. Jesus covers the whole question at issue, of which the healing of a withered hand on the Sabbath is only a part. A blessing like this certainly went well with the Sabbath, which was intended as a blessing for man.

To leave the man unhealed would be morally base—the greatest desecration of the Sabbath. But could Jesus not wait and do his healing on a weekday? To have waited would have left a totally wrong impression on the people—as if it were really unlawful to heal on the Sabbath. This was the very error Jesus wanted to eradicate. The simple primer question of Jesus, which any child should have answered on the instant, these Jews answer with silence. Significant silence—so shall they be dumb in the judgment when they are confronted with their sins.

Mark 3:5

5 And having looked around upon them with anger, being grieved over the hardness of their hearts, he says to the man, Stretch out thy hand! And he stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored.

Matthew says nothing about the emotions of Jesus on this occasion, Luke mentions only that he looked around. Mark states that he did this μετʼ ὀργῆς. The middle περιβλεψάμενος accents the movement of the eyes or the concern expressed in the look, R. 813. Jesus let his eyes pass over the scribes and Pharisees (αὐτούς) to see whether at least one man among them would make a response. They all remained silent, and this explains his anger.

That God or that Jesus should ever become angry has been passionately denied. This denial is, however, based on the common conception of human anger, a passionate flaring up which is always sinful. The divine anger is far different; it is the holy reaction in the heart of God or of Jesus against man’s hardness of heart. God and Jesus are not impassive; man’s sin and wicked resistance stir them most deeply. Anger, in this sense, is ascribed to God throughout the Scriptures. Only wrong conceptions of both God as a person and of what holy anger really is can lead to the denial of the divine anger. The fact that even in the case of Christians anger may be a holy indignation, without sin, we see in Eph. 4:26 (rightly interpreted, the grammars are misleading).

Back of the holy indignation of Jesus lies another feeling: his grieving over the hardness of their hearts. Jesus was distressed to see this πώρωσις. This word is used in Rom. 11:25 regarding Israel and really means the process by which something becomes more and more like stone; according to Armitage Robinson, in M.-M., the ancient translators and commentators described it as “obtuseness or intellectual blinding.” It is the obdurate and wilful resistance of the heart to the divine truth. To see it in the hearts of these scribes and Pharisees saddened Jesus. We catch a glimpse of the emotional life of Jesus. With indignation and sadness in his heart he wrought this miracle, not with joy.

He labored to make these men understand; he made the truth about the Sabbath so plain that a child could see it. But it was all in vain.

But Jesus, ever true to the Sabbath, heals the man. He orders him to stretch out his hand so that all in the synagogue may see it. He did so. It was shriveled and dried up. While the people looked on, that hand was completely restored in an instant. All three evangelists write ἀποκατεστάθη, “brought back to its former condition,” and the passive points to Jesus as the agent.

It was a resplendent deed of omnipotence. Let modern healing cults equal it. The notable thing is that Jesus did nothing; he did not even say that the hand should be healed; all he asked the man to do was to stretch out his hand. It was healed by the almighty volition of Jesus. This made the case difficult for the enemies of Jesus. What could they fasten on to accuse Jesus of doing a “work” on the Sabbath?

Even their crooked minds would have a hard time to establish the charge that Jesus had worked on the Sabbath. It was surely not wrong, even according to their legalism, to form volitions on the Sabbath. That is all that Jesus had done, and that had healed the blasted hand.

Mark 3:6

6 And having gone out, the Pharisees immediately began taking counsel with the Herodians against him that they might destroy him.

The enormity of this reaction speaks for itself. Luke adds that the Pharisees were filled with madness. We need not assume that they got up and left the synagogue the moment the man was healed; the service was at an end, and everybody left the building. But in their rage the Pharisees proceeded at once to take measures against Jesus. They met with the Herodians, some of the Jews who supported the rulership of Herod Antipas under the dominion of the Roman emperor. This faction was comparatively small and was considered unpatriotic by the other Jews, who desired complete independence and no imperial dominance.

Yet this political difference did not deter the Pharisees from enlisting the Herodians in their plan to destroy Jesus. In Galilee the Pharisees could do nothing by themselves; in Jerusalem they had their Sanhedrin. So the Pharisees stir up the following of Herod who ruled Galilee, hoping that he would take sides with them at the solicitation of his followers. Mark alone reports this coalition with the Herodians.

We regard ἐποίουν as conative (R. 885): “they began to take counsel.” Mark has συμβούλιονποιεῖν whereas Matthew has λαμβάνειν, but the sense is quite the same, both state that an actual resolution was passed. The ὅπως clause is like an infinitive (B.-P. on the word) and states what the conspirators actually began to resolve, namely to destroy Jesus. R. 994 makes the clause an indirect deliberative question, but only, it seems, because he regards the verb as denoting the discussion or counselling between the two parties. To heal on the Sabbath—a mortal crime; to plot to kill—a perfectly lawful act! Matthew adds that when Jesus realized what was going on he withdrew to other places.

Mark 3:7

7 And Jesus in company with his disciples withdrew to the sea; and a great crowd from Galilee followed him; and from Judea, and from Jerusalem, and from Idumea, and beyond the Jordan, and around Tyre and Sidon, a great crowd, hearing what great things he was doing, came to him.

The withdrawal of Jesus from the plotting of the Pharisees and Herodians was not due to fear but to the prudence which Jesus used in this as well as in other instances. To what locality Jesus withdrew is not recorded, it is stated only that it was near the sea (πρός). The Twelve were with him.

Mark 3:8

8 In 1:39 Jesus went out to preach in Galilee, but now a great crowd from Galilee followed him. He did not need to go to them, they came and followed him. In fact, a great crowd came to him from all the other localities that Mark names. These were attracted by the great deeds they kept hearing (durative present participle) that Jesus was doing (the imperfect for continuous doing). The phrases περὰντοῦἸορδάνου and περὶΤύρονκαὶΣιδῶνα are names of countries, Perea and Phœnicia; because each begins with a preposition, ἀπό is not repeated. Some make a difference between the crowd that “followed” Jesus and the other that “came” to him; we see no reason for stressing the verbs in such a way.

The greater the distance that men had to come to reach Jesus, the more they would desire to follow him for a time. Note that Mark uses πλῆθος, “crowd,” and not the more usual ὄχλος or ὄχλοι, “multitude or multitudes.”

Mark 3:9

9 And he said to his disciples that a small boat should be constantly attending him on account of the multitude lest they should be pressing upon him, for he healed many so that they fell upon him in order to touch him, as many as had scourges.

The first ἵνα clause is subfinal, the object of εἶπε, and states what Jesus said. The fishermen among his disciples could attend to the boat. Προσκαρτερῇ is the durative present, “to attend upon him constantly,” so that at any time he might escape from the crowd by entering the boat and having it rowed out from the shore. Mark does not say that this was to be done for the purpose of preaching to the crowd on the shore although we may assume that this was what Jesus did frequently; but to escape the pressure of the crowd.

Mark 3:10

10 This is explained by the clause with γάρ. Jesus healed many so that the result (ὥστε with the infinitive) was that they literally fell upon him in order to touch him (the genitive αὐτοῦ after a verb of touching) and thus to receive healing like the woman mentioned in 5:26, 27. The subject clause is placed emphatically at the end: “as many as had scourges.” This implies that πολλούς, “many,” includes all of the number, which was great. Like a magnet, Jesus drew the sufferers from all these countries, and none reached him in vain. The word μάστιγας is strong, “scourges,” metaphorical for divine inflictions, compare Heb. 12:6. Thus it was that “they pressed upon him” (durative present) and “fell on him” (again durative to express repeated action). Jesus was willing to heal them all, but he desired to do this in an orderly fashion.

The question is raised regarding the language in which Jesus spoke to all these people since some came from Idumea and from the country of Tyre and Sidon. It is a fair conclusion that not all understood Aramaic, and that Jesus must thus have spoken in Greek, R. 28. The evidence that Jesus used either language as occasion required is quite sufficient.

Mark 3:11

11 And the unclean spirits, whenever they would see him, fell down before him and yelled, saying, Thou art the Son of God! And he kept rebuking them severely that they should not make him known.

Among the sufferers were those who were possessed with demons. On the subject of possession and on “unclean” see 1:23. In the Koine ὅτσν appears frequently with the imperfect, which is iterative (R. 884), or with the aorist; with the imperfect we have indefinite repetition (R. 973). The action of these demoniacs is always the same: they fall down before Jesus, conscious of his power over them, and, as if driven to do so, yell out: “Thou art the Son of God!” We have a sample in 1:24.

Mark 3:12

12 Jesus invariably rebuked and silenced these demons; the imperfect ἐπετίμα indicates repetition, and the adverbial πολλά the severity of the rebuke. Why Jesus did not want to be made φανερός by these evil spirits is shown in 1:25.

As Mark closed the first subsection with a general survey of Jesus’ activity, so he closes also the second (3:7–12). Yet some begin the third subsection with v. 7 by making it introductory to the appointment of the apostles. We prefer to make the incision at v. 12.

Mark 3:13

13 And he goes up into the mountain and calls to him whom he himself would. And they came away to him. And he made twelve to be in company with him and to commission them to act as heralds and to have authority to cast out demons.

The time had come for the appointment of the Twelve as apostles. A little less than a year remained for their training. The two present tenses are historical but more vivid than matter-of-fact aorists. Τὸὄρος is, of course, a definite mountain although we do not know its name and its location. Some think “the mountain” was near the place where Jesus was at this time; others think of the mountain on which Jesus preached the Sermon on the Mount, which is correct.

“Whom he himself (αὐτός) would” emphasizes the point that it was the will of Jesus himself to call to him only certain men; it was not their will that brought them to Jesus on this occasion. But from Luke 6:13 we learn that the men thus called were those who had become disciples of his. There was, no doubt, a goodly number, and from these Jesus appointed twelve as his apostles, Matt. 10:2 using this term. These twelve had already been attached to Jesus, Matthew apparently having been the last to join them (2:14). The appointing of the Twelve was so important for Jesus that, according to Luke, he spent the preceding night on the mountain in prayer. All the disciples whom Jesus called to him “came away” from their other interests and attended to what Jesus was now about to do.

Mark 3:14

14 The appointment of the Twelve as apostles was thus a public act, done in the presence of all these other disciples, but in the presence of these alone, the multitudes being absent. Jesus was in the midst of his church, and the world was far away, and he now gave to his church these apostles (Eph. 4:11). Since Jesus called the Twelve in his own person, we usually say that their call was immediate, not mediate through the church, which was as yet unorganized and not able to function. It seems best to take ἐποίησε in its ordinary sense: “he made,” and to regard the two ἵνα clauses as the equivalents of infinitives that state what Jesus made the Twelve to be.

“Twelve” has no article, which means that up to this time no one knew how many were to become apostles; but Jesus now selected twelve. The number recalls the twelve patriarchs of Israel and the twelve tribes. In Rev. 7:4 the two twelves (the twelve patriarchs and the twelve apostles) are multiplied and raised to 1, 000 (ten times ten times ten indicating the greatest completeness), which makes the symbolical number 144, 000 (compare Rev. 14:1 and 3) to designate the sum total of all believers of all time and indicates the two sources from which the church has come in the two covenants. The Eisenach Epistles, 1141.

Jesus made twelve “to be in company with him” (μετά). Others might come and go again, but not these twelve. They were not as yet ready to be sent out; their present place was with Jesus so that they might complete their training under him. “And to commission them to act as heralds” reaches farther. They were to receive a preliminary commission (6:7–13; Matt. 10:7–15) as part of their training; and we learn of their return (6:30, etc.; Luke 9:10) and of their quiet conference with Jesus. But Jesus would eventually commission them to act as heralds in all the world; on κηρύσσειν see 1:4.

Mark 3:15

15 It is a mere variation when we have the infinitive instead of ἵνα for the third clause: “and to have authority to cast out demons.” Mark mentions only the supreme part of the authority which Jesus gave to the Twelve and takes it for granted that his readers would understand that this meant that they had also the lesser power to heal diseases. Matthew 10:8 gives us all the specifications in this regard. The fact is that Jesus empowered the Twelve to work all the different kinds of miracles which he himself wrought. He omitted only those that were performed in the world of nature like stilling the tempest, walking on the sea, and blasting the fig tree. The ἐξουσία refers to both the power and the right to do a thing. On demoniacal possession see 1:23.

Mark 3:16

16 (And he bestowed on Simon a name) Peter; and James, the son of Zebedee; and John, the brother of James (and he bestowed on them as names Boanerges, which is Sons of Thunder); and Andrew; and Philip; and Bartholomew; and Matthew; and Thomas; and James, the son of Alphaeus; and Thaddeus; and Simon, the Cananæan; and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

Mark joins the names rather loosely by adding each with καί and making no divisions in the list. Matthew divides them into pairs, Luke does the same as Mark, but in Acts he has 4, plus 2, plus 2, plus 3 (Judas being omitted). In all the lists Peter is named first, Judas Iscariot last. If we make three groups of four, the lists show the same four names in each group but not always in the same order; yet the same name heads each of the three groups.

Since Mark is evidently making a list of the apostles, the names are in the accusative, in apposition with δώδεκα in v. 14. Because this is a list which has all the names in the same case, “Peter” must be the first name in this list and cannot be in apposition to ὄνομα. That means that the words “and he bestowed on Simon a name” constitute a parenthesis, and this is the more likely the case since the statement in v. 17, which is worded in the same way, is undoubtedly parenthetical. It may seem peculiar that Mark should start with a parenthesis, but any other reading (our versions) spoils the list. Only the fact is stated that Jesus bestowed “a name” on Simon, ὄνομα without the article, which makes this statement complete in itself. The occasion when Jesus renamed Peter is recorded in John 1:42.

There now follows the list with the new name bestowed on Simon at the head of it. The fact that Peter is always first in the four lists, Matthew even calling him πρῶτος, does not place the others under Peter as the pope but names him as primus inter pares; he was not even the first to come to Jesus (John 1:41, 42). His brother Andrew is not associated with him in Mark’s list, James and John are described as brothers but not Peter and Andrew. In the narration which Mark heard from Peter this apostle would naturally name himself first because it was customary to place “I” or “me” first in the Greek. Beyond saying that Jesus gave him another name, Peter said nothing about himself or his brother.

But Peter named the father of James and John, stated even that they were brothers, and then added the name Jesus gave to both of them, even translating it for his Greek hearers, all of which Mark faithfully preserved by repeating these features as he had heard them from Peter. The plural “as names” refers to these two disciples. The Aramaic root of “Boanerges” has not as yet been cleared up; linguists hold various opinions. But Peter and Mark understood the name to mean “Sons of Thunder,” and they knew both Aramaic and Greek. It is not reported on what occasion Jesus bestowed this name. Thunder cannot refer to the eloquence of these two brothers as has been supposed and would hardly fit the idea of powerful faith, the supposition of others.

It is best to make the name designate the fiery zeal which they manifested for their Lord as this is exemplified in Luke 9:54; Mark 9:38; and elsewhere. John is often pictured as being sweet and mild, but his symbol is the eagle, and his entire character is marked by power.

Mark 3:18

18 Bartholomew is a patronymic: son of Tolmai (Ptolomy), the Nathanael of John 1:45, etc. Also Philip bears a Greek name. The second apostle who has the name James is identified, like the first, by the name of his parent. Thaddeus seems to have had two other names: Lebbeus and Judas (John 14:22). This last name would naturally be dropped after the betrayal of Judas Iscariot. The second Simon is distinguished as the Cananæan, which has nothing to do with Canaan but is a transcription of the Aramaic term which means ὁΖηλωτής; Simon was a former adherent of the Jewish party of “the zealots” (Acts 5:37; Josephus, Ant. 18, 1, 1 and 6; Wars 2, 8, 1).

Mark 3:19

19 Judas is identified by the second noun that is added to his name: “Iscariot,” which most likely means “the man of Kerioth” and names him from his home town in Judea, he being the only one from that country. In John 6:70 his father Simon bears that appellation. In the Gospels he is always designated by some modifier that marks him as the traitor who betrayed Jesus, the aorist to express the fact as such.

Mark 3:20

20 Mark again breaks the τάξις or order of events. That he does this repeatedly is the statement of the evangelist John as reported by his pupil Papias. Some time elapsed between the appointment of the Twelve and what is now told. Jesus empowers the Twelve to cast out demons, and here he himself is accused of being in league with the chief of the demons.

And he comes home. And the multitude comes together again so that they were not able even to eat bread. And when his kinsmen heard it they went cut to lay hold of him, for they went on to say, He lost his mind!

Mark alone reports these details. But Matthew and Luke inform us that a demoniac was brought to Jesus, and that Jesus freed the man. This makes clear how the scribes could charge Jesus with working through Beelzebul. Jesus was back in Capernaum, back even in his own home, for εἰςοἶκον without the article does not mean to some house, Peter’s for instance as is supposed, but is like our “home.” It must have been almost immediately that the crowd “gathered together again” just as it did when Jesus was at home on a previous occasion (2:1, 2). At that time the crowd was so dense that no one could get through the door, now it interfered so badly that Jesus and his disciples (αὐτούς, plural) could not even eat bread. This hints at the fact that Jesus and his disciples had come some distance, were hungry from their travels, and would like to have eaten something. The crowd rendered this impossible.

Mark 3:21

21 Whether the demoniac was healed at once, before the kinsmen of Jesus tried to lay hold of him, or after that, is not indicated; he was perhaps healed at once, and the bringing him to Jesus may have helped to cause the crowd. Οἱπαρʼ αὐτοῦ means “one’s family or kinsmen,” R. 614, those who constituted the household of Jesus. One opinion is that they were sons born to Joseph and Mary, the so-called “brothers” of Jesus (v. 31); another view is that they were sons of Joseph by a former marriage; and a third that they were cousins of Jesus, Mary’s sister’s sons, and that she and they lived together with Mary in the home of Jesus. The question of the relationship cannot be convincingly decided from the records we possess. These relatives of Jesus “went out to lay hold of him.” From the aorists we might suppose that they succeeded, but what follows shows that they failed. The aorists thus express what the intention of these kinsmen was: they actually went out literally to get him into their power. From John 7:5 we learn that they did not as yet believe in him.

They were greatly concerned about this their kinsman. They knew how he was spending himself in his labors and his privations. Here he was now after an arduous trip, weary from his work, not having eaten for some time, and the multitude was again upon him. Not believing in him as the Messiah, they had only one explanation for his actions, namely: Ἐξέστη, “He lost his mind!” he is beside himself. The Greek uses the aorist whereas the English would have the perfect tense. Compare Acts 26:24; 2 Cor. 5:13. We picture the scene as taking place at the entrance to the house and not as taking place inside as has been supposed by making ἐξῆλθον refer to a room which had a door that led into the courtyard.

Mark 3:22

22 And the scribes that were come down from Jerusalem were saying, He has Beelzebul! and, In connection with the ruler of the demons does he cast out the demons.

These are the scribes who were mentioned in 2:6, of whom Luke 5:17 says that some came from Jerusalem, a fact that Mark reports in the present connection. These Pharisaic scribes had probably been sent from the capital by their party; they were to spy upon Jesus and to secure firsthand evidence against him on some infraction of the law. They had not succeeded thus far.

One always “goes up” to Jerusalem and on leaving the city always “comes down.” This elevation is ethical because of the Temple and Sanctuary of God. In the present case the coming down was also literal, the Sea of Galilee lying 600 feet below sea level. These Pharisaic scribes were not present at the home of Jesus when the crowd assembled there and Jesus healed the blind and dumb demoniac, they heard about it afterward, Matt. 12:24.

Mark does not record the reaction of the multitude to this miracle even as he makes no mention of the miracle itself; but from Matthew (12:23) we learn that the people began to ask whether, after all, this was not “the Son of David,” namely the Messiah. Their unbelief was breaking before this exhibition of Jesus’ power. This, too, the scribes heard, and this drove them to counteract the conviction that was growing among the people. They felt that they must furnish an adequate contrary explanation for these expulsions of demons by Jesus. So they come with the blasphemous assertion: “He has Beelzebul!” to which they then add: “In connection with the ruler of the demons does he cast out the demons.” They intend to say that Jesus is so far from being the Messiah that he is in league with Satan himself. Ἔλεγον indicates that they spread this report.

Ἐν is usually called “instrumental”: “by” (our versions) or “through,” which, however, changes the thought. R. 590 makes ἐν locative which is hard to visualize. The preposition has its usual meaning: “in connection or in union with Beelzebul,” meaning that Jesus and “the ruler of demons” work together. This slander had been used by the Pharisees at an earlier time (Matt. 9:34) but is now spoken with great boldness. It is now, therefore, that Jesus crushes this blasphemy in the most effective way.

The derivation of “Beelzebul” is as yet not clear; the term is not found in the old Jewish literature. It is supposed to mean “Lord of the dwelling” and was used as a designation for Satan. It was originally the name for the Philistine god Baal, to whom Ahaziah applied to have his disease healed. In some manner at which linguists thus far only guess the Jews picked it up as a vile term for Satan. Some think that they corrupted it to “Beelzebub,” meaning “Baal of flies” and thus “Baal of dung” in which flies are hatched; but this is not certain, being due, perhaps, only to a variation in pronunciation.

Mark 3:23

23 And having called them to him, he proceeded to say to them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? And 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 did rise up against himself and was divided he cannot stand but has an end.

An interval ensued which was long enough for the scribes to hear about the healing of the demoniac and to utter their blasphemous slander against Jesus. Matthew and Luke state that Jesus knew their thoughts; he thus did not need to be told what they were saying. Jesus does not wait until they come to him but formally summons them into his presence, προσκαλεσάμενος. It was an unusual proceeding on Jesus’ part.

Ἔλεγε is used regularly as a descriptive introduction to an address; εἶπε would state only the fact of speaking. B.-D.329. Mark draws attention to the parabolic form of the address which Jesus now makes. The situation was dramatic, the scribes wondered for what purpose they had been summoned, the crowd of people was attracted by what was about to happen, and Jesus faced these scribes and answered them to their very faces in the most crushing way.

Mark alone has the opening statement: “How can Satan cast out Satan?” This is what the scribes had asserted with their claim that Jesus was casting out demons in conjunction with Beelzebul. Jesus raises the pertinent question as to how he could do this. By making it a question he asks them calmly to think about what they had been saying. Was such a thing possible, that Satan would cast out Satan? Jesus does not say, cast out demons; he identifies the demons with their ruler Satan. They and he are one.

Without them he would not be a ruler. Already this question exposes the ridiculousness of the assertion of the scribes. No sensible man would say that Satan casts out Satan. The thing is contradictory in itself. And these scribes claimed to be learned men. Even common people who have no learning could see that the scribes were talking without good sense.

Mark 3:24

24 Jesus begins to illustrate by using two examples which clearly show how impossible it is for Satan to cast out Satan. “If a kingdom is divided against itself that kingdom cannot stand.” Jesus speaks of a kingdom because the scribes had referred to Beelzebul as “the ruler of the demons.” What Jesus asserts is the universal experience of men, which no man would think of contradicting. With ἐάν (also in v. 25) Jesus assumes a case in which a kingdom becomes divided against itself, the aorist pointing to actual division, one part fighting against another (the same in v. 25). The result is devastation, ruin: “that kingdom cannot stand.” This illustration, like the next, is really an understatement of the case in hand but, as so many understatements of this kind, the stronger for saying less than really could be said. When a kingdom (or house, v. 25) is split in two, one half destroys the other, and both end in ruin. But the assertion of the Jews expects people to believe something that is more impossible, namely that the ruler of a kingdom is himself divided from his kingdom, Satan helping to drive out his own demon subjects from their possessions. If Satan keeps that up, his kingdom will certainly go to ruin. In this illustration Jesus generalizes; what he says is true of all kingdoms, and Satan’s is no exception.

Mark 3:25

25 The generalization must, however, go much farther. That is the force of the second illustration about a divided house, which means those who form a family and live together. The point in adding this second illustration is not so much to apply house to Satan’s household but to open the vista to all the other illustrations that might be used, for any organization or organism that wars with itself destroys itself. “Cannot stand” is thus a litotes, a putting into negative form the positive idea of self-destruction.

Mark 3:26

26 The two illustrations used in v. 24, 25 form the major premise of an ordinary syllogism. The minor premise now follows: “and if Satan did rise up against himself and was divided.” Because this is the minor premise in the reasoning of Jesus, the condition is one of reality. The tenses are aorists because they state what, according to the scribes, must have already occurred while in the illustrations we have ἐάν with the subjunctive, B.-D.372, 1b. For the sake of the argument and to convince his opponents Jesus for the moment admits what they really claim, namely that Satan (we should use perfects) has risen up against himself, has been divided. Two verbs are used in order to give greater force to the idea of division in Satan’s realm. Now there follows the inescapable conclusion of the syllogistic reasoning: “he cannot stand, on the contrary, he has an end.” Here, too, the statement is doubled by adding the positive to the negative to lend it full weight.

Opposition to Jesus upsets men’s logic. Proud of their superiority, they put forth as being convincingly sound what is absolutely unsound and advances to the point of being even ridiculous. The view that as a ruse and to gain other evil purposes Satan might tell his demons to leave on the orders of Jesus is an unwarranted assertion. What would the ruse gain, and what purpose would Satan attain beyond the terrible one that he has already attained in demoniacal possession?

Mark 3:27

27 Matthew has recorded a reference of Jesus to the Jewish exorcists, whom the scribes would certainly not denounce as being allied with the devil; they will judge these slanderers. In Matthew this threat is followed by the gospel assurance that by expelling demons by the Spirit of God Jesus is bringing the kingdom of God to these scribes. Luke agrees with Matthew and calls the Spirit the finger of God. From this point onward the synoptists’ report is the same save that Luke’s account is fuller than the accounts of the other two.

On the contrary, no one is able to go into the house of the strong to plunder his goods unless he first bind the strong, and then shall he plunder his house.

This is again parabolic language (v. 23). The illustration seems to have been suggested by Isa. 49:25. The tertium comparationis is the thought that complete victory must precede the act of plundering. God’s kingdom must first have come in its fulness before demoniacs could be liberated as Jesus was liberating them. “The strong” is Satan although the statement is general and the article is generic (R. 757 on Matt. 12:29). Satan is like any powerful brigand or robber. His οἰκία or “house” is his lair or dwelling where he stores his plunderings.

The kingdom of Satan is referred to in which he is ἀρχών or ruler (v. 22). Luke adds the detail about his being armed and guarding his ὑπάρχοντα or “possessions,” Matthew and Mark have σκεύη, “goods.” These are the demoniacs whom Satan has in his power. Now, no one can do what Jesus is doing right along: go in and “plunder” the goods of the strong, take them away from him, snatch demoniacs out of Satan’s power, without first actually “binding” (δήσῃ) this strong bandit. This binding was the victory recorded in 1:12, 13. The objection that this was moral while the power over the demoniacs was physical is unwarranted since Satan gained his physical power to hurt by means of his moral victory in tempting man into sin. Satan’s victory was reversed when Jesus vanquished him in another temptation.

General statements use the present tense, R. 1019 (δύναται); the doubling of negatives strengthens the negation in the Greek (οὐ—οὐδείς); the aorist δήσῃ denotes the one act of binding. “And then shall he plunder his house,” i. e., at pleasure, just as Jesus is taking the demoniacs from Satan at will. All that Jesus says would be farcical and senseless if Satan were not the personal being he is represented to be throughout the Scriptures from Gen. 3 onward, and if demoniacal possession were ordinary mental ailments.

28, 29) At this point Matthew and Luke add the word about being against Jesus and about scattering, and Luke adds the account of the demon who returns with seven others who are worse than himself. Thus far the reply to the scribes has been strictly objective in correcting their wrong thoughts about Jesus and about Satan. While Mark continues in the third person, what he reports of the rest of the discourse takes on a more subjective tone, a direct threat to these blasphemous Jews.

Amen, I say to you, that all sinful acts shall be remitted for the sons of men and the blasphemies, as many as they may blaspheme; but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit has no remission for the eon but is guilty of an eternal sinful act; because they were saying. He has an unclean spirit.

What Jesus says in solemn warning he seals in advance with the formula: “Amen, I say to you.” “Amen” is the seal of verity, and “I say to you” the seal of authority. “Amen” is the transliterated Hebrew word for “truth” or “verity,” an adverbial accusative in the Greek which is equal to ἀληθῶς, “verily.” In Hebrew it appears only at the end of a statement or of an obligation much like our liturgical Amen. “All search in Jewish literature has not brought to light a real analogy for the idiomatic use of the single or the double ἀμήν on the part of Jesus.” Zahn. This refers to its use at the head of a statement. The best one can say is that Jesus used the double “amen” when he spoke Aramaic as John reports, and that the synoptists, when converting this into Greek, deemed the single ἀμήν sufficient for their readers. The supposition that John’s double amen is intended to reproduce the sound of the Aramaic words for “I say” is unlikely and leaves unexplained why John adds to the double amen the words: “I say to you.” The entire formula is always solemn and introduces only statements of great weight.

The blasphemous slander of the scribes makes it necessary for Jesus to tell them about the limitations in regard to finding remission. The range for pardon is indeed great since it extends over every sin, no matter what it may be, and includes even blasphemy, mocking, and vicious utterances that are directly against God or holy things that are connected with God. But the scribes must be warned that one exception exists, namely the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit—in that case even the possibility of remission is excluded. On ἀφίημι, “to send away” sins so that they shall never be found again, also on ἄφεσις, “remission,” see 2:5. The future tense “shall be remitted” is predictive, R. 873 on Matt. 12:31. Mark writes πάντατὰἁμαρτήματα, “all sinful acts”; Matthew Writes πᾶσαἁμαρτία, “every sin.”

Ὅσαἄν is the indefinite relative, R. 733; and the neuter is used, the antecedents being ἁμαρτήματα and βλασφημίαι, R. 732. The Greek negates the verb: οὐκἔχει whereas we negate the noun: “no remission.” Note τὸΠνεῦματὸἍγιον, the adjective added by a second article, thus emphasizing both the noun and the adjective equally and making the latter a kind of climax in apposition to the former: “the Spirit, the Holy One,” R. 776, last paragraph. The αἰών is a vast period of time that is marked by the form and condition of things that fill it. Here the “eon” is the one in which we live, and not to have remission for this eon is “never” (our versions) to have it; “neither in this eon nor in the one to come” (the one in heaven), Matt. 12:32. To express the impossibility of remission in the eon to come Mark writes: “He is guilty of an eternal sinful act,” of one that lasts forever and cannot be removed. The adjective αἰώνιος, literally “lasting for an eon,” is the Greek equivalent of eternal.

Jesus is speaking to the Pharisaic scribes who never believed in him. Hence the unpardonable sin or the sin against the Holy Ghost may be committed, not only by former believers (Heb. 6:4–6; 10:26–31; 1 John 5:16), but also by men who have never believed. Zahn’s effort to make all sins in which men persist impenitently to the end the sin against the Holy Ghost is contradicted by the entire Scripture teaching on sin. The distinctive mark of this one is blasphemy, and that blasphemy directed against the Holy Spirit. The fact that any number of other sins fail of pardon and bring damnation, and that in varying degrees, is shown, for instance, in Matt. 11:21, 24.

It is rationalizing to assert that “for this eon” leaves the way open for remission after this world-age. Efforts to have αἰώνιος mean only “a very long time” end in proving that the Greek has no word for “eternal.” The sense of what Jesus says is that any man who blasphemes the Spirit thereby and at that moment places himself where God’s pardon cannot reach him. After that he is in the same absolutely hopeless position in which the devils are. Jesus already now pronounces upon him the verdict of damnation. Jesus knows of no purgatory when, in Matthew, he mentions “the world to come” as though some sins which are less fatal could find remission in the hereafter. The only judgment that is valid in the other world is the one that is spoken at the last day, and this pronounces in public what God judges regarding every man at the hour of his death.

Mark 3:30

30 Jesus does not state in so many words what lends such an exceptional quality to blasphemy against the Spirit. Jesus was expelling the demons, as Matthew states, “in connection with God’s Spirit,” and the scribes attributed this work to Beelzebul, “they were saying, He has an unclean spirit.” Where the Holy Spirit was active these Jews saw the devil. So close were these people to committing the unpardonable sin. The pardon of all other sins is due to repentance, i. e., contrition and faith. But when the Holy Spirit is pronounced a devil, “an unclean spirit,” repentance is no longer possible. The Spirit alone works repentance, and when he is made a demon, his work ceases, Heb. 6:4–6, “impossible to renew them again unto repentance”; there is no sacrifice for sins but only a frightful looking for judgment and fiery indignation. This explains why other blasphemies may be pardoned: they do not render repentance “impossible.”

Because of his divine powers Jesus was able to see how close the scribes were to this state. With our powers we are never able to judge thus. Hence we can never declare of any man, however blasphemous he may be, that he has committed the unpardonable sin; that verdict belongs to God alone. The words of Jesus and of Hebrews we are able to use only in warning, which is enough. Yet we may say that whoever fears that he has committed the unpardonable sin thereby furnishes evidence that he has not done so. Nor can any man commit it inadvertently or unconsciously.

Its commission is possible only when the Spirit, through the Word, has come to a man and has been clearly recognized as God’s Spirit with his divine power and grace to save. When a man deliberately answers him with blasphemy he forever nullifies even the Spirit’s power to change him. His condition is then unalterable like that of the devils and the damned in hell. It constitutes his character indelebilis.

Mark 3:31

31 And there come his mother and his brothers and, standing on the outside, send to him, calling him. And a multitude was sitting around him. And they say to him, Lo, thy mother and thy brothers on the outside are seeking thee.

Mark joins his narratives with καί irrespective of their chronology. Matthew tells us that shortly after the warning against the unpardonable sin the scribes and Pharisees asked for a sign, and Jesus promised them the sign of Jonah and then characterized this evil generation. While he was speaking the incident with regard to his mother and his brothers occurred.

It is certainly strange to find the mother of Jesus participating in this affair. Though she is mentioned first as being the nearest relative of Jesus, we cannot think that she was the instigator but prefer to believe that she permitted herself to be drawn into it by the fears and the urgings of the others. Even so, this is a picture of Mary that is far different from the legendary image of “the Mother of God” in medieval and Romish tradition. She is carried along by a mistaken movement. On the other hand, we decline to charge Mary with unbelief (John 7:5) and opposition to her son; she grew in faith like others.

“His brothers” have been discussed in connection with οἱπαρʼ αὐτοῦ in v. 21. It is the writer’s opinion that the problem in regard to these brothers has not been solved and will probably never be solved. The prevailing opinion is that these brothers of Jesus—and sisters, 6:3; Matt. 13:56—were children of Joseph and Mary who were born after Jesus and were younger than he. But here they act as though they were decidedly older than he; the same attitude appears in John 7:3, etc. In 6:3 Jesus is called “the son of Mary” in a marked way (compare John 19:26) and is kept distinct from the brothers and the sisters. If Mary had other sons and daughters, why did Jesus set aside their filial obligations and place his mother in charge of John? These objections are not answered by stressing οἱἀδελφοὶαὐτοῦ as is generally done.

The Latin church since the time of Jerome, the older Protestants, and some students today think of the sons of Clopas, a brother or certainly a brother-in-law of Joseph, and thus first cousins of Jesus. The wife of Clopas is also the sister of the Virgin. Both have the same name Mary, which seems strange but means only that the two were children of different marriages. The fact that they have the same name is quite assured apart from the problem of the brothers of Jesus. Note that Luke always calls the Virgin Μαριάμ, 1:27, etc. The difficulty with regard to this view is to prove that ἀδελφός may properly include the relationship of cousins.

This is the case with regard to each explanation, each runs foul of objections, and none can be conclusively established. The interest of Romanism to the effect that Mary had no other children and lived a celibate life with Joseph, semper virgo as the older Protestants say, for instance in the Formula of Concord, no longer affects Protestant theologians, which, however, in no way proves that Mary did have other children.

The little company of relatives “were standing on the outside,” the perfect participle ἑστῶτες is always used as a present. Since no house is mentioned in any of the accounts, we take ἔξε to mean “on the outside of the crowd.” Jesus was out-of-doors, sitting on a raised place where all could see and hear him, and the crowd sat cross-legged all around him so densely packed that no one could get through. So the relatives send word to Jesus and call him to come to them.

Mark 3:32

32 The crowd was sitting around him. Mark says that “they say to him” while Matthew reports that “someone” spoke to Jesus. This would mean that while Jesus was speaking word was passed on through the crowd until someone close to Jesus finally told him. The exclamation “lo” draws attention to the strangeness of the circumstance. Mark says only that the mother and the brothers on the outside “are seeking thee”; Matthew, “are seeking to speak with thee”; Luke, “are standing on the outside, desiring to see thee.” Note the variations in expression, each writes in his own way, and yet all say the same thing. The fact that they had the same document before them, from which they copied, or that one copied from the other seems improbable. They merely restated the oral tradition which had been passed down with some variety in phraseology.

What these relatives wanted of Jesus has been indicated already in v. 21. They thought that Jesus was losing his mind, i. e., was using himself up in his excessive labors like one who is no longer acting rationally. While they had failed to make him stop (cf. v. 21) they hope to succeed with this their second effort. Their object was to bring him away to a place where he could be undisturbed and rest. Their intentions were of the best and were dictated by solicitous affection. It is difficult to decide whether the charge of the Pharisees that Jesus was possessed precipitated this effort of his relatives in that they assumed that the charge had so much truth back of it that Jesus was acting unnaturally by consuming himself with his labors as he did.

This created a delicate and trying situation for Jesus, but he meets it with perfect mastery. He shows no impatience with his relatives—his mother should have known better. He is absolutely truthful and resorts to no equivocation before either the people or his relatives. He utilizes the untimely and ill-advised interruption for defining and impressing a most momentous truth.

Mark 3:33

33 And answering he says to them, Who is my mother and my brothers? And having looked around on those sitting about him in a circle, he says, See, my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.

Mark omits a dramatic feature that Matthew has preserved. The question as to who are Jesus’ mother and brothers is directed to the man who told Jesus that his relatives were seeking him; then, looking around on all those seated in a circle about him, he tells them all who his relatives really are, and Matthew adds the dramatic feature that Jesus said this with outstretched hand. The aorist participle ἀποκριθείς agrees in time with the historical vivid present λέγει and is added to mark the reply as being important. But it is rather exaggerated to put too much into this participle as if it intended to convey the fact that Jesus was lifted above family and human life as the Son of God and was no longer a son of Nazareth, of Mary, of Israel, and that his Messianic feeling was wrestling with his filial feeling. The question Jesus asks intends to fix the attention of the man and of the others present on the thing that Jesus asks. All are to pause and to think who is really his mother and his brothers, who is really closest to him. The dramatic question, thus put, automatically lends a deeper significance to “my mother” and “my brothers.” While men’s minds are still searching, and before they can give a wrong answer, Jesus himself gives the terse, striking, perfect answer, which, because of the way in which it is introduced, will remain fixed in the memory the more certainly.

Mark 3:34

34 After he had asked the question Jesus looked around on those sitting about him in a circle (κύκλῳ an adverb, R. 521, 524). This refers to the narrower circle which was composed of the disciples of Jesus, Matt. 12:49. And after this significant look Jesus announces: “See, my mother and my brothers!” and with the outstretched hand he points to his disciples, who included more than just the Twelve. Ἴδε with the regular verb accent is not the interjection but the regular aorist imperative. Jesus distinguishes the disciples from the rest of the ὄχλος or crowd. His gesture is like his action on the last day when that same hand shall separate the disciples (believers) from all others, whoever they may be.

But does Jesus exclude his own mother from his spiritual family? Nothing in his action or his words says so. The dramatic gesture matches the dramatic word, which reduces the answer to the fewest words: “See, my mother and my brothers!” The disciples who were sitting around Jesus were chiefly men. When Jesus calls them “my mother and my brothers” he indicates that he is speaking of something that is higher than ties of blood.

Mark 3:35

35 With the γάρ clause he explains his meaning. Jesus confesses his disciples before men as he will confess them at that day before his Father and the holy angels. But he does it in a way that opens the blessed relationship to all who may desire to enter it. “Whoever—he”; ὅςἄν (ἐάν)—οὗτος; universal—yet particular; open to all and excluding none (“whoever”)—yet embracing only those who become truly his (“he,” i. e., “he alone”). What really makes us one with Jesus is stated most exactly: our doing the will of God. The futuristic subjunctive ποιήσῃ is constative and sums up into one point the person’s entire life of doing God’s will.

The will of God (θέλημα) is what God wills. This will Jesus reveals, and he invites, draws, and enables us to perform it. This is the good and gracious gospel will of God, the will which itself, unlike the will that is revealed in the law, furnishes us the power whereby we may truly do it. The Scriptures are full of statements declaring this will. Read John 6:29, 40, 47; 2 Pet. 3:9; 1 Tim. 2:4. The Baptist proclaimed it, 1:4 and 7:8; Matt. 3:2; Jesus repeated the proclamation, 1:15; Matt. 4:17; the Twelve were to do the same, Matt. 10:7, and did it in Acts 2:38, etc.

God’s will is that by his grace we repent and believe, turn from our sins, and by faith receive his pardon in Christ Jesus. His will is our regeneration, James 1:18; John 3:3, 5; Eph. 2:1–5; our restoration to childhood and heirship, Gal. 3:26–29. We do this will of God when we let Jesus work all this in us and bestow all this upon us.

The grossest perversion of this θέλημα and ποιῆσαι (God’s will and our doing it) is that of Pelagianism and synergism together with all Pharisaism and work-righteousness which call on us and our natural powers to do the works of the law and thus ourselves to earn heaven, or of our own natural powers to believe in Christ and to obey him or at least to aid in our repentance and conversion. “To do” is, indeed, an activity but one that is wrought in us wholly by grace, Phil. 2:13.

Οὗτος is emphatic and picks up all that has just been said about this person: “he” and he alone. “He is my brother and sister and mother” welds all three into one concept, that of the most intimate spiritual relationship. As Jesus came to do his Father’s will, the will that meant our salvation, so his disciples do the Father’s (Matthew uses Father) will, that same will regarding their salvation, and are thus one with Jesus. Yet we are not to do over again what Jesus did; we are to let him bestow on us all that he did for us. Whereas in v. 34 “mother” is properly put first it is now placed emphatically last; and Jesus adds in the middle “my sister” and thus the more wipes out any distinction and brings out the thought that the one true relationship of spiritual connection is referred to. “Sister” and “mother” no more refer to women disciples than “brother” refers only to men, Gal. 3:28. All believers are of the household of God (Eph. 2:19), of the household of faith (Gal. 6:10). To them all others are “strangers and foreigners,” who, indeed, now have the opportunity of becoming disciples and relatives, but who, if they remain as they are, are sundered forever from the divine family of believers.

To Jesus this tie is supreme. Alas, the earthly tie has often been placed above the heavenly, men have loved wife, child, father, mother more than Christ, Matt. 10:37. Did Mary and the brothers get to speak with Jesus as they desired? The evangelists have no interest in telling us. In his Messianic work Jesus allowed no dictation or interference even from his mother (John 2:4). Yet from Matt. 13:1 we conclude that Jesus finally went home with them, soon, however, to leave and to preach once more.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

M.-M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.

B.-P. Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handwoerterbuch, etc.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.