Mark 3

Mark 3:1-6

V “And the Pharisees went out, and straightway with the Herodians took counsel against Him, how they might destroy Him.”- Mark 3:6. Mark 2:13-28 - Mark 3:1-6. THIS is a singularly sad text. It is the record of the climax of a hostile movement manifest throughout the paragraph of our reading.

In our consideration of the early morning communion of Jesus with His Father after the first Sabbath in Capernaum, we turned to the prophecy of Isaiah, and saw the picture there presented of the Servant of God, wakened by His Lord to hear the secrets of His will. In that picture we saw also, the Servant of God resolutely giving His back to the smiters, and His cheek to them that plucked off the hair, going forward with courage to face all opposition in order to accomplish the will of His God. The suggestiveness of that picture of Isaiah is illustrated in the paragraph. Jesus, passing down from the place of solitude, went throughout all Galilee, followed by great multitudes of people. Mark briefly records that fact; and gives two illustrative incidents, those of the leper and the palsied man.

That ministry was exercised in the face of constant opposition. This was first manifested in the reasoning of the scribes when He pronounced the sins of the palsied forgiven. Now, following the chronological sequence, Mark records four incidents specially revealing the growth and the nature of that opposition.

Each of these incidents has values beyond those now to occupy our attention. Each conveys messages of truth concerning the Lord Himself in His dealings with men. We propose now to observe that opposition which found its climax, as the text declares, when “the Pharisees went out, and straightway with the Herodians took counsel against Him, how they might destroy Him.”

Let us then observe this opposition, in order that we may consider the attitude of Jesus in the presence thereof.

The opposition is at once clearly revealed in the four words of criticism which were uttered. Observe how these words advance to the climax of the text.

“He eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners” (Mark 2:16). “Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but Thy disciples fast not?” (Mark 2:18). “Why do they on the Sabbath day that which is not lawful?” (Mark 2:24). “They watched Him . . . that they might accuse Him” (Mark 3:2). The first criticism was spoken, not to the Lord, but to His disciples concerning Him. The next two words were spoken, not concerning the Lord, but to the Lord concerning His disciples, and were undoubtedly intended to reflect upon Him for the influence He had been exerting upon them. In the last sentence there is no record of any word spoken; but a graphic fact is presented. Again they were in the synagogue,-a week later, as Luke declares,-and these men were silently and malevolently watching Him to see whether He would heal, that they might accuse Him.

With regard to the first of these criticisms, the occasion was that of the call of Levi, and the feast that followed. Jesus, passing along saw Levi (or Matthew) sitting at the receipt of custom, and said to him, “Follow me.” Immediately he followed Him. Whether on the same day, or later, cannot be stated with any certainty, but the fact is recorded definitely that Matthew gathered together a number of people of his own order, and made a feast that they might have the opportunity of meeting with Jesus. Our Lord is seen accepting that hospitality of Matthew, and Himself becoming a veritable Host in the midst of these men, the gathered publicans and sinners, old friends of Matthew, a class held in supreme contempt by the religious men of the time. The Pharisees charged Him with entering upon a fellowship with sinning men, which was defiling.

While recognizing the fact of the traditions by which these Pharisees were bound, it must also be recognized that theirs was a very sincere difficulty in this regard, and in all probability their philosophy was perfectly sound, had they applied it to any other than Jesus. This was one of those occasions when our Lord made Himself, without patronage and without any appearance of contempt for the men among whom He sat, the common Friend of publicans and sinners. From the criticism of the Pharisees upon this occasion, and also upon other occasions, we have a picture which is still a startling one. Jesus is seen sitting at the feast with these men, without taking up toward them anything of the attitude of superiority, patronage, or contempt. They charged Him with cultivating a friendship with sinning men which, as it seemed to them, must be defiling.

In the second of the scenes, the occasion was the observance of some fast. The tenses warrant the declaration that it was not a general question merely, but that at the time some fast was being observed, which the disciples of John and the disciples of the Pharisees observed, but which the disciples of Jesus did not observe. The enemies of Christ came to Him thus again still strangely perplexed, and asked Him a general question, which nevertheless had a particular and immediate application. They charged Him and those associated with Him, with an absence of seriousness and solemnity. There were evidences on the part of His disciples of joyfulness and happiness. They were neglecting to fast, and were rather given to feasting. That was the second criticism.

The third incident was in the cornfields. His disciples began, not to pluck merely, but as they moved forward other evangelists tell us that they rubbed the ears of corn in their hands, and ate. That was the occasion for the third criticism. They charged our Lord with permitting His disciples to do secular things on a sacred day.

In the last picture the occasion was again a Sabbath day in the synagogue. In that synagogue was a man with a withered hand. Here occurs one of those incidental things, which are so full of beauty in these narratives. Seeking to find an accusation against Him, His enemies nevertheless all unconsciously paid Him a supreme compliment. They associated Him immediately, not with the chief seat in the synagogue, but with the most needy man in the crowd. They expected He would do something for that man with the withered hand. They hated Him, but they were quick to know Him, and they watched Him that they might have their opportunity to accuse Him:

There was a new element of rooted objection to Himself now entering into their criticism. This opposition expressed itself in the most startling way, startling because the Pharisees took counsel with the Herodians. Here were two political parties in the State, always bitterly opposed to each other, now brought together. The Herodians believed in the government of Rome, in order that Herod’s jurisdiction might be maintained. The Pharisees were against the yoke of Rome. Many and bitter were the disputes and quarrels between them. But the Pharisees went out and took counsel with the Herodians; they sank their political differences in their mutual hostility to Jesus; and they took counsel how they might destroy Him.

Now let us watch the Lord, and observe His attitude toward all this opposition; how He opposed Himself, His mission, and the meaning of His ministry, against every successive form of criticism; until when these men went out to take counsel against Him, He withdrew, and left them. A fourfold charge had been made against Him; first, that of a moral carelessness, in that He sat to eat with publicans and sinners; secondly, that of lack of seriousness, in that He encouraged His disciples to violate a tradition by not observing a fast; thirdly, failure to differentiate as between the sacred and the secular, in that He allowed His disciples to do a thing, not in itself wrong, but purely secular, upon a sacred day, in plucking the ears of corn; and finally, by their very silence, and the malevolence of their intention, these men declared their conviction of His utter worthlessness, and that He merited destruction.

First with regard to the charge of moral carelessness, our Lord admitted at once, by the figure of speech that He used, the moral maladies of the men among whom He sat that day as Guest, or among whom He sat as Host. That is seen in the answer He gave: “They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick.” He thus immediately revealed Himself as conscious of the spiritual and moral disease of the men among whom He sat. His sense of evil was not less acute than that of His enemies. This was His answer. He knew these men, their nefarious tricks, and their gross life. There is no doubt that there was a good deal of ground for the opposition of the Pharisees to these men.

They were debased men. Jesus admitted their moral maladies, and then quietly, and without any argument, assumed for Himself the authority and the ability of the physician.

Thus He denied the charge of moral carelessness by declaring that He cared so much, that He was there to cure these men of their spiritual sicknesses. He revealed the fact that the reason why He sat familiarly at the board and condescended to the level of these men, assuming no attitude of superiority, patronage, or of contempt, was that He was against the very things to which the Pharisees objected, but that He was there as the Pharisees never could be, with the healing power of the physician. He declared in effect when they criticized Him for moral carelessness, that there had been committed to Him the cure of souls, and that in order to cure them, it was necessary to come into contact with them.

Observe our Lord’s method in dealing with the second of these criticisms. I have named this the charge of lack of seriousness. Surely this is what these men meant. The observance of the fast was always the time of solemnity, and fasts had been multiplied far beyond those commanded in the Law; occasions when men wore sackcloth, put ashes upon their heads, did not anoint their faces, and appeared in the garments of mourning, in sorrowful and solemn silence. They were doubtless observing such a fast on this particular occasion. But the disciples of Jesus were not wrapped in sackcloth, nor had they scattered ashes upon their heads.

They were not abstaining from food, but were filled with gladness and joy. When they asked the question why His disciples did not fast, these men were thus charging Him with failure to realize the seriousness and solemnity of life.

In reply to this criticism, He at once adopted the figure of the wedding, spoke of Himself as the Bridegroom, and declared that these men could never be sad while the Bridegroom remained with them. The adoption of the figure was in itself a vindication of the right of His disciples to be joyful. In those Eastern lands during a period of seven days, all the friends of the bridegroom were full of joy and merriment and laughter and songs and gladness. When these men questioned the disciples’ attitude toward fasting, suggesting thereby that they had no sense of the seriousness and solemnity of life, He did not deny it. He admitted it, and said, “As long as they have the Bridegroom with them, they cannot fast.” Then in an aside, He recognized the fact that there were days coming to these men when the Bridegroom should be taken away;-lifted away, snatched away, for such is the word, a very significant word, having in it an element of tragedy, a suggestion of violence. The choice of the word was in itself a recognition of the purpose which was already in the hearts of the men who were watching Him.

There was a reference to what He knew would be the ultimate of their hostility, His taking away, His lifting up, and that by violent and evil men. Looking at these men who were criticizing Him, and knowing whereunto their hostility would grow, He said: These men will have their day of fasting presently when the Bridegroom is taken away from them. This declaration was an aside, and not the declaration of a final truth, for spiritually we have no place in that sadness, for the Bridegroom is not taken away from us. He abides with us. Therefore our whole attitude toward life should be that, not of men who fast, but of men who sit at the eternal feast.

Our Lord immediately proceeded to illustrate this by the figures of the cloth and the wine skins. New cloth cannot be put into old. It will tear it. New wine cannot be put into old skins. It will burst them. In that word our Lord claimed that He had come to initiate an entirely new order of religious life and experience, which would make necessary new methods of expression; instead of the fast, the feast; instead of the sackcloth, the purple; instead of the perpetual and solemn melancholy, a perennial and glad joyfulness. Thus, recognizing and understanding the meaning of their criticism of the men who were about Him, for the gladness of their lives, and their refusal to fast, recognizing also that days of sorrow were coming to them, He indicated in a prophetic and illuminative figure the fact that presently there would be for men the joy of gladness and song, and the necessity for sackcloth would forever pass away; the sackcloth in that day would be transfigured, metamorphosed into the purple of royalty; all the underlying reason for the fast being destroyed, the eternal feast would begin.

The third charge against Him was that of failure to distinguish between sacred and secular. “Why do thy disciples on the Sabbath day that which is not lawful?” The plucking of the ears of corn was not wrong in itself. The rubbing of them, and the eating of the corn, was not sinful. The wrong as these men saw it, was that the disciples failed, under the influence of Jesus, to distinguish between that sacred day and that secular act; and failed to realize the fact that the sacred must ever be kept separate from the secular; that the secular, however proper it may be, must be left when the sacred precincts are entered. That was their criticism. I believe that view still holds captive a great many to-day who think they understand Jesus Christ, and His teaching.

Let us therefore carefully see how He answered them. Incidentally, by the illustrations He used, He recognized the reason of His disciples’ action. They were hungry, they had need of food. “David, when he … was hungry. . . entered into the house of God . . . and ate the shewbread . . . and gave also to them that were with him.” In that illustration there was first of all a careful understanding and recognition of the fact that the reason why His disciples had plucked these ears of corn, and rubbed them and eaten them on the Sabbath day, was that of the perfectly natural hunger of the men. Only as we see this aspect of this story do we reach the real teaching of Christ on this occasion.

Then, by the two illustrations which He gave, which flashed their light upon His disciples’ action, and explained that action, He revealed the falseness of the divisions these men were making. Man is sacred in all his being; sacred not merely in his spiritual nature; but sacred as certainly in his moral and mental capacities; and sacred also in his physical life. A call for food is a healthy call, and a healthy call is a holy call; for health and holiness are identical terms. In our perpetual use of them we have divided between material and spiritual, but we of the Anglo-Saxon tongue have derived them both from the old word Halig, which means whole, complete. A cry for food is a sign of health, therefore it is holy. Anything that the physical demands is essentially holy.

The wrong of life begins when men answer a perfectly healthy call in ways forbidden. A cry for food is holy, it is sacred! Were it not so, in the economy of God He would provide that men never become hungry on the Sabbath day. The fact that hunger crosses the threshold on the Sabbath day demonstrates its sacredness, and no man can escape from that. Our Lord recognized the sacredness of man; and then particularly, condensed into brief words the whole law of the Sabbath day. The Sabbath is indeed sacred, but wherein lies its sanctity?

It is sacred because it is made for man. Man was not made for it. It was made for man, to minister to his needs. Therein lies the sanctity of the Sabbath day. The ultimate and final sanction of Sabbath observance is that of its service to humanity. It is indeed sacred.

It was made for man; it retains its sanctity as it serves man.

So the Son of man, Who came not to be ministered unto but to minister, is Lord of the Sabbath; and the Sabbath must serve Him as He serves humanity, and consequently must be compelled to the service of humanity. The hunger of the disciples on the Sabbath day was healthy, was holy, and therefore the Sabbath must not be allowed to interfere with the supply of the need.

Of course all intelligent beings will discriminate between the doing of that which is the answer to a need, and the doing of that which is the answer to a desire which is not created by essential need. We must distinguish for evermore between that which is right and that which is wrong on the Sabbath day, whether it be the seventh day of the week, or the first day set apart for worship and rest.

Our Lord however answered the charge of failure to distinguish between the sacred and the secular, by enlarging the area of the sacred, and bringing into it man with all his essential needs; for the sanctity of man is the final secret of the sanctity of the Sabbath. Therefore whatever is necessary for holiness and health, is sacred as is the hour of worship, and must be observed.

Finally we look at that synagogue scene, at the antagonism which no longer finds expression in words, but which was all the more dangerous because it had become silent; the antagonism which sought an opportunity for attack, watching Him, knowing that the man with the withered hand was in the synagogue, to see if He would heal, that they might find an occasion of accusation (a legal term), in order to His arrest, and that they might encompass His destruction. How did our Lord deal with this?

Let it be observed first of all that He gave them the opportunity they sought, and healed the man. Then notice that He compelled them to face actual and startling contrasts of motive, startling even until this hour if quietly considered. Observe then, with real care, the alternatives He suggested to these men. He said to them, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath day to do good, or to do harm? to save a life, or to kill?” The startling nature of the enquiry is only revealed when we begin to ask ourselves the question. We might be inclined to say, But are we forced to that alternative? Is there not a middle position we could occupy?

We do not want to do good to that man because it is the Sabbath, but sincerely we do not want to harm him. We have no desire to kill that man, but we do not feel that to-day we ought to stretch out the hand to save him. Is there not a middle position?

Christ in effect said, There is no middle position in the face of human disability and need. We do good to the man when he is in need, or we do him harm; we help to save him, or we help to kill him,

It is a stern, hard, and yet necessary standard. Is it not still a startling one? There lies the man upon the highway that runs from Jerusalem to Jericho, bruised by the robbers. Take up a negative position; look at him, and pass by on the other side. The man who does so perpetuates his pain, and is guilty of the continuity of his suffering. In the presence of human pain, in the presence of limitation like this, there is this one alternative.

In effect Jesus said, Which shall I do? You are watching to accuse Me. Shall I do that man good, or shall I harm him by leaving him for another twenty-four hours in that limitation, when I have the power to help him? Shall I save him or kill him? Which shall I do? His action did not depend upon their decision.

He did him good, He saved him. By so doing He separated between Himself and them. He did good to that man, He saved him. They, even though it was the Sabbath day, were trying to do Him harm, and to kill Him. Even though it was the Sabbath, presently they crossed the synagogue threshold, and entered into unholy coalition in order to destroy Him. The alternatives of Heaven admit of no compromises.

Thus our Lord opposed to their criticism, the real meaning of His mission from beginning to end. He had come for the cure of spiritual malady. He had come to create the reason for abiding and abounding joyfulness. He had come to enlarge the area of the sacred, and to reveal to men that man is sacred, and that the sanctions of all ordinances are to be found in their ministry to the well-being of humanity. He had come to men, to save them; not to harm and kill them.

Such a meditation as this opens the door for much investigation by way of application. Are these criticisms ever made of us, that were made of the Lord? The question needs safeguarding by another. If they are made, are they made for the same reason?

Are we ever charged with moral carelessness because we are consorting with sinners? I am constrained to say that I believe at this very hour one of the secrets of arrest, and one of the reasons for the condition of things in the Christian Church that is troubling us in many ways, is the aloofness of the Christian Church from sinning men and women. We still build our sanctuaries, and set up our standards, and institute our arrangements, and say to the sinning ones: If you will come to us, we will help you! The way of the Lord is to go and sit where they sit, without patronage and without contempt. We may run great risks if we begin to do it. If we will dare to do it some one will say that we are consorting with sinning men, and that we are in moral and spiritual peril. I am afraid, however, that the Church is not often criticized on these lines.

Are we ever criticized to-day for lack of seriousness because we are joyful in the Lord? Ah yes, we may be criticized for lack of seriousness because we are joyful in other ways, and I am not sure that such a criticism is not well deserved. There is a sense in which I fear that we do lack seriousness. These men were not glad because they were sharing in the frivolity of an age. They were glad because they were with Jesus. That was the gladness which made men criticize them for lack of seriousness.

Are we ever so criticized to-day? How little we really seem to know of the joy of the Lord. I asked Dan Crawford what impressed him most forcibly when he got back to London after twenty-three years in the long grass of Central Africa. He said, “The fact that London had lost its smile. I stood on the bridges, and walked along the thoroughfares, and looked at the hurrying peoples, and they all looked so sad.” Is not that also true of the Church? Would not the fairer criticism of those who name His name to-day be not lack of seriousness born of joyfulness in the Lord, but lack of joyfulness in the Lord, expressing itself in depressing seriousness in the things of life?

Once again, are we ever criticized for our failure to distinguish between the sacred and the secular, because we are sanctifying the secular? We are criticized for neglecting the Sabbath, and rightly so perchance. I cannot tell. I cannot judge. You tell me of men who spend their Sabbath, and week-ends, motoring and playing golf. I say frankly, I have nothing to do with legislating for these men. I can pity them honestly and kindly and without patronage. I can pray for them. But unless there is the expulsive power of a new affection, I do not wonder that they do it.

My trouble is not with these men outside the Christian Church. My trouble is with men inside the Christian Church. Is there a sanctification of the secular that makes other men criticize us, or are we secularizing the sacred? Along these lines of investigation I think we may profitably press forward alone; and that for the correction and inspiration of our own lives.

Or once more, are men of the world ever saying that we are worthless because we rebuke their worthlessness? That is the story of the Son of God. The very character of Christ, the very attitude of Christ, the known purpose of Christ toward that man with the withered hand, made these men hate Him. They called Him worthless because they themselves were worthless. Are we ever criticized for worthlessness for these reasons?

A real fellowship with Christ must bring us into a partnership with Him in expression and experience. If by diligence we add to faith all the things implicated therein, we shall go with Him where He goes, do with Him what He does, for our emotional nature will be mastered by His compassions. That will inevitably mean that we are misunderstood as He was, hated as He was, and persecuted as He was. But it will also mean that through us needy humanity will be served and saved, as it was through Him.

The supreme value of our meditation is that of its revelation of the glory of Christ, the Servant of God; and in proportion as we desire to serve as we should, we must come into line, in fellowship with Him:

“O Who like Thee, so calm, so bright, Thou Son of man, Thou Light of light! O Who like Thee did ever go So patient through a world of woe! “O Who like Thee so humbly bore The scorn, the scoffs of men before; So meek, forgiving, Godlike, high, So glorious in humility. “O in this light be mine to go, Illuming all my way of woe; And give me ever on the road To trace Thy footsteps, O my God.”

Mark 3:7-19

VI “He appointed twelve.”- Mark 3:14. Mark 3:7-19a. THE opposition to the Servant of God was by no means universal, nor indeed at the time was it general. Our Lord attracted men irresistibly, and among them He exercised a ministry of mighty and prevailing power. When the coalition of Pharisees and Herodians took counsel to destroy Him, He withdrew to the sea f and here again Mark summarizes the story of very much service in a few sentences. The multitudes grew in number, and gathered from all quarters. Not only did the Galilean crowds go after Him. There were also those who had travelled north from Judaea, and among them were some from Jerusalem itself.

They came moreover from Idumsea, that is from Edom; from the region beyond Jordan, that is the region usually described as Persea; and from Tyre and Sidon. From all these places they came, the fame of Jesus having travelled far and wide; they came to hear His words, observe His works, and share in the benefits which He was so lavishly conferring upon men. Those with plagues pressed upon Him, in order that they might touch Him, and receive His healing; wherever He went, unclean spirits recognizing His presence, confessed Him Son of God, only to be silenced and cast out from their possession of men. In order to escape a while from the pressure of these crowds, He secured a little boat from which, in all probability, He taught the people, and in which He may have sailed away to some other place. That, I think, is the inference of the story.

At this juncture He selected His apostles. Going up into a mountain He called twelve from among His disciples. This was action in advance, preparatory to a wider ministry, before the hour of His arrest and passion. Hostility had manifested itself to Him in Judaea, and He had left that region when John was imprisoned, and had begun His ministry in Galilee. Hostility manifested itself to Him in Nazareth, as He passed on His way to Capernaum. In Capernaum itself it had already been manifested when the scribes and Pharisees criticized Him for forgiving sins, and it had grown until now the Pharisees and Herodians were taking counsel to destroy Him.

He knew that the hour would come when they would be successful; for that was by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God; and ere that hour arrived He would increase the scope of His own ministry. This He did by calling into yet closer cooperation with Himself a certain number of men in order that they might exercise an immediate ministry, and thus be prepared for that larger ministry which should follow His exodus, and the coming of the Holy Spirit.

The story then of this paragraph is full of value in this matter of His appointment of some within the circle of discipleship, to special relationship with Himself, and to special service in fellowship with Himself. Already all His disciples were witnesses to Him. Those who had yielded their allegiance were those who spread His fame far and wide as they told the story of what He had done for them. It was His intention, as we know full well, that to the end of time all His disciples should be witnesses for Him. Nevertheless, it was necessary, within the circle of those earliest disciples, to call some into special relationship, and into special fellowship in service. Let us observe three things; first, His election of the twelve, “He calleth unto Him whom He Himself would: and they went unto Him”; secondly, His appointment of those whom He elected, “He appointed them that they might be with Him, and that He might send them forth to preach, and to have authority to cast out demons”; and finally, His distinctions within the circle of the twelve; three He surnamed, and the rest He did not.

First then as to this matter of our Lord’s election of the twelve. I have most resolutely chosen the word “election” for it brings us face to face with the central fact, a fact which is of supreme importance. The words of Mark read thus, “He goeth up into the mountain, and calleth unto Him whom He Himself would, and they went unto Him.” Now if we put that statement into the order of its procedure, we must begin at the centre first, “Whom He Himself would”; secondly, “He calleth unto Him,” that is those already chosen; and finally, “they went unto Him,” that is those chosen and called.

“Whom He Himself would”; that is, those whom He preferred. The word suggests an active option resulting from a subjective impulse. There is another word in our New Testament which might be translated in the same way, but which does not at all mean the same thing. There is a verb which we translate “to will” which suggests passive acquiescence, the decision of the mind which is the result of objective considerations, the thought being that of disposition toward a certain action as the result of facts without. That is not the word of Mark here. This word suggests self-determining sovereignty, choice based upon reason within personality. “Whom He Himself would.” He was entirely uninfluenced by temporary appeals.

No appeal that any man might have made to Him would have influenced Him in the least. No protests of inability that any man might have suggested would have changed His purpose. His choosing was choosing from within, the choosing of His own sovereignty; a choosing therefore in which He assumed all responsibility for what He did. “He called unto Him twelve, whom He Himself would.” That is the fundamental fact.

His choice proceeded out of His infinite wisdom and understanding. When He called them, it was not because they had asked to be called; and when He called them, there was no room for protests of inability. He assumed responsibility.

Those whom He Himself had thus chosen He called unto Himself, and by that call first set them free from all responsibility; and secondly, imposed upon them serious responsibility. He set them free from all responsibility. If there were any mistake, He made it. They were not responsible. If there were defects in them, He must deal with them and remedy them. They were not responsible.

They did not choose to be His apostles, and at the last, in the Paschal discourses He said to them with infinite tenderness, and yet with wonderful illumination, “Ye did not choose me, but I chose you, and appointed you, that ye should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should abide.” That was surely a word of infinite comfort to those men to the end of their ministry. There is an infinite ease in doing things He gives us to do, when we can say to Him, Lord, we did not choose this. Thou art responsible!

And yet that call brought them into a place of very definite and real responsibility. It called them to confidence in the wisdom of His choice. How much these men must have needed this, in subsequent hours of fear and failure, of faltering and denial. It called them also to obedience to His commands, and therefore to yield to His power.

Think of the comfort of all this. Truly it was a strange and mixed group of men; not many mighty, not many wise; some of them full of that human force which compels attention, some of them unobtrusive and willing to be obscure. Yet they were His choice, and He chose them in the interest of the work. He had chosen them because they already had powers which He needed. He had chosen them because they were capable of appropriating the power He supplied.

In his Theological Essays R. H. Hutton has this most interesting paragraph:

“The chosen apostles themselves misunderstand and misinterpret their Master. Peter, after being told that his confession is the rock on which the Church should be built, is spoken of as a tempter and an offence to his Master, as one who savours not of the things which are of God, but of those which are of men. John is twice rebuked, once for his revengeful spirit, once for his shortsighted ambition. Judas’s treachery is predicted. All the twelve are warned that they will fail at the hour of Christ’s trial, and that warning, like the more individual prediction addressed to Peter, is certainly most unlikely to have been conceived after the event. In a word, from beginning to end of the Gospels, we have evidence which no one could have managed to forge, that Christ deliberately chose materials of which it would have been impossible for any one to build a great organization, unless he could otherwise provide, and continue to provide, the power by which that organization was to stand.”

All that is true. When He chose those men He did indeed choose men utterly inadequate to the doing of His work, knowing that He Himself could empower them to do it; but it is also true that He chose men in whom there were capacities which He would sanctify and employ. That is a principle never to be forgotten. I sometimes hear it said that God chooses men entirely unfitted for certain work by nature, and fits them by grace. I deny it absolutely. There is no such discord between God’s original creation of a man, and His use of him for the purposes of His work.

How often have I heard it said that D. L. Moody was a man with no natural gift of speech. I deny it. Those who knew Moody best would agree that had he never been a Christian man he would yet have been a master of assemblies, an orator, sweeping and swaying men by the force of his natural eloquence. Upon that capacity God fastened, sanctified it, cleansed it, filled it with the true fire, gave him the godly vision, and made him the mightiest evangelist of the last century.

So, when our Lord chose these men, He chose them, knowing His power and their powers; and knowing that in the fact of their cession to Him, and His cession of Himself to them in the Spirit’s fellowship, He had found the men best suited to the doing of His work.

Let us proceed to consider what Mark tells us concerning the appointment of the men thus elected. He appointed them to two things; first to be with Him; and secondly that He might send them forth to preach and to have authority to cast out demons.

The first was initial, preparatory, fundamental, and necessary. He appointed them to be with Him. The immediate application of the words undoubtedly was, that He called them at this time in some senses-all the details of which we cannot explain, for we have no record-into closer association with Himself. He called them to a special training which was to consist of more intimate nearness to Himself. I am inclined to think that from this hour, He spent a great deal of time in private with them, gave Himself to them more completely than He had done before, and began that process which was so marked in the latter part of His ministry, of withdrawing Himself from the multitudes, and devoting Himself more and more to them. He appointed them to be with Him.

This, however, does not for a moment exhaust the meaning of the phrase. The very preposition made use of is illuminative. The preposition with indicates the very closest association, an association which inevitably and invariably issues in resemblance, and consequently in true instrumentality. They became men through whom He could act unhindered. In the mystic mystery of Pentecost they became actual members of His body, mastered by His intelligence, driven by His emotions, governed by His volitions. In this sense also He appointed them to be with Him.

In the last great prayer of Christ He made use of this same preposition several times. First, “And now, Father, glorify Thou Me with Thine own Self, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was.” That threefold use of that particular preposition illuminates its value in my text, “He appointed them to be with Him.” Again, “While I was with them, I kept them in Thy name which Thou hast given Me: and I guarded them, and not one of them perished, but the son of perdition.” And yet once more: “Father, I desire that they also whom Thou hast given Me be with Me where I am; that they may behold My glory, which Thou hast given Me.”

I know how unsafe it may be to build doctrines upon prepositions, but there is much of suggestiveness in this; and in our Lord’s use of this one in that great prayer, we have a revelation of union with His Father, of His giving of Himself to His disciples in the days of His flesh, and of His perpetual purpose for them that they should be with Him to behold His glory not in heaven only, but here in travail with Him, and presently in triumph.

Having appointed them to be with Him, He appointed them also to go forth to preach and to have authority to cast out demons. In a flash their relationship to Himself, to men, and to the underworld of evil is revealed. Their relationship to Himself was that He appointed them as His apostles. Originally the word means those who are set apart. Resultantly it means those who are sent forth. The suggestiveness of the word is that He only sends forth those whom He has set apart. This was their relationship to Himself. Wherever they went, and whatever they did, and whatever they said, they were His apostles, set apart to Him, and in the power of that setting apart, sent forth.

They were sent forth to preach. The word made use of here suggests that preaching which is the work of the herald. It was a common word in the Greek language, and from Homer was used to describe the work of the messengers of kings, magistrates, princes, military commanders, those vested with public authority. The word always suggests formality, gravity, an authority that must be listened to and obeyed. He sent that strange group of men, so mixed and so varied and so lacking in strength and wisdom, to preach.

He sent them, moreover, to have authority over demons; authority, not power; power was always His. They had authority to speak in His name, so that His power might become operative for the casting out of demons, and the mastery of the underworld of evil.

He appointed them, and the very word made use of here is poetic and beautiful with the poetry and the beauty of Greece. Paul writing his Ephesian letter, said, “We are His workmanship.” That is the same root idea, and might be translated, We are His poems. His work is always a thing of beauty and a thing of use. His appointments are of the same character. Their appointment was infinitely more than official. It was an enabling. His appointment is His workmanship.

This was the secret of strength in both applications. He appointed them to be with Him, and because He appointed them to be with Him, they must be fitted for the fellowship. Because He appointed them to service, they must be strengthened for the service, difficult as it inevitably would be.

Thus we come to the last matter, one of interest and suggestiveness, that of His distinctions. He surnamed three of them, Peter and James and John. Our word surnamed is the translation of a phrase, which quite literally means He imposed a name upon them; the phrase itself suggesting a naming indicative of His authority, and the outcome of their character.

With His naming of Peter, we are all familiar. It has been the subject of many a consideration. He surnamed him prophetically when He first met him. That was Peter’s introduction to Jesus. It came in that hour when Jesus, looking into his eyes said, “Thou art Simon the son of John: thou shalt be called rock.” Later at Caesarea Philippi, when Peter made his great confession, Jesus looked again into his eyes and said, “Blessed art thou, Simon son of Jonah.” He named him rock-the symbol of strength and solidity-the most changeable and vacillating man among them.

Now let it be observed that He did not name him something that he could not be. There was no contradiction of the true nature of this man in this name. It was a contradiction of the experience of the man, but not of his nature. Peter stands out on the New Testament page as the elemental man, the man in whom all elemental forces were found. He was a man of intellectual strength; a man of emotion; a man of marvellous volitional powers; strong-willed and yet weak and frail; all the elemental forces there, but lacking cohesion, consistency, because lacking a principle, which would weld them into strength. To him Jesus said, I have chosen you, Simon, and I have appointed you to be with Me, and to preach, and to cast out demons, and I impose a name upon you that will indicate what you will become.

Peter would never have become rock apart from Christ, but the capacities that became rock were in his nature. What Christ did was to take hold of the elemental capacities which were in him by his first birth, and by supplying the one thing he lacked, to weld them into strength.

James and John He surnamed Boanerges. Now it is generally imagined that Jesus called these men Boanerges because of what they were. As a matter of fact, exactly the same principle obtained in their case, as in that of Peter. He named them for what He would make them, Boanerges, sons of Thunder; a poetic description of force and high enthusiasm. The capacities were there, and yet how different these brothers were. John was poet, dreamer, and visionary.

Of James we know little, and in that fact there is a revelation of the man; he was quiet and retiring. Christ saw the capacities of the men, and named them Boanerges, sons of Thunder. James, when for loyalty to his Lord, he yielded himself and died by the sword of Herod; and John, when in the Isle of Patmos, he saw his visions and wrote, were true sons of Thunder.

There were a number not surnamed. Some of them we know. Andrew, the first enquirer; Philip, the first whom Jesus really called; Bartholomew, undoubtedly Nathanael, the guileless; Matthew, the publican. Here are also some new names. We have not met them before in our study of this Gospel. Thomas, we shall find him presently, the magnificent sceptic; another James, about whom we know nothing; Thaddseus or Jude, whom we shall hear speak once in the upper room; Simon the Canaanean, that is, the Zealot, a member of a very troublesome political party who had now become a Christian and doubtless would bring his enthusiasm into Christianity, as he ought to do. That is all we know about these men.

Yes, but there is one other, a tragic figure, Judas. As the rest, he was chosen, called, appointed to be with Him and to preach and to have power over demons. And as God is my witness I hardly know how to speak of this thing, this appallingly solemn fact that He appointed one to be with Him who never by any means came into that close and mystic association which was his appointment; appointed one to preaching, whose preaching if it ever began, ceased, and changed into betrayal; that He appointed one to cast out demons, who so failed to respond, that Satan entered into him. I do not think any words of mine are necessary. The appalling fact is one to be faced alone; and I resolutely leave it there for myself when I am alone, for you when you are alone.

The same Lord is still directly, immediately, choosing, calling, appointing. We cannot choose to be His apostles. We must be His chosen or we can never serve. I cannot choose to be a missionary or a Christian minister. I must be chosen. The restfulness of this consideration lies in the fact that His choices are right choices, and that His calls are vindications. If He has called me I know it, and if He has called me. He has chosen me.

Every day I live I wonder more why He called me; but I know He did, and therein is my rest, my peace.

Now for a solemn enquiry. I have emphasized the fact that none can choose to be minister or missionary. He must choose. This, however, leads on to the solemn enquiry as to whether perchance He has called and chosen, and there has not been obedience. I think this is a question that young men should be asking very seriously today everywhere. I cannot go to young men and ask them to become missionaries.

They cannot choose to be ministers or missionaries. But I can and I do ask them whether the call has come to them. It may have come in some early morning hour of quiet communion, or in the appalling solemnity of some great convocation of the people of God; and yet they may have been busy ever since trying to persuade themselves that it was no call, listening to the voices of time and of the world and of earthly advantage.

Young men my brothers within the Christian Church, young women, my sisters within the Christian Church, you cannot elect to serve. But if He has elected and called you, how solemn the responsibility that rests upon you. I pray you, be of good cheer, for if He calls it is because He has chosen, and your responsibility is only that of yielding. He is responsible. If it is a mistake it is His mistake. If there are difficulties in you, He knows them, He is responsible, He will deal with them. Blessed be God, He is able to deal with them; for He takes the weak things to confound the mighty, and the foolish to bring to naught the wise, and the things that are not, in order that He may destroy the things that are.

Mark 3:20-35

VII “And He cometh into a house.”- Mark 3:19 b. Mark 3:19b-35. (Mark 3:19-35) THESE words separate and connect two paragraphs, the first recording the special setting apart of the twelve, and the second telling of some things following thereupon.

The twelve had been chosen, called, and appointed by the Lord. They were now to be with Him in a new and special sense before being sent forth to preach and to have authority to cast out demons. From this time there was most evidently a deeper note in His teaching, and His operations brought out into greater clearness the forces which were against Him, and His power over them. From this point in the narrative of Mark, to the sixth verse of the sixth chapter, (after which follows the account of the sending forth of the twelve), we find recorded, in sequence, some of the events in which these twelve were “with Him.”

After the solemn ordination on the mountain, the Lord and the twelve entered a house, probably still that of Simon and Andrew, which He seems to have made His home and headquarters. The marginal reading of the Revised Version, suggesting that these words should be translated, “And He cometh home,” is indeed an illuminative one, for the phrase literally translated is, “He cometh into house”; not the house, or a house, but into house, It is a phrase suggesting the idea of home. The Greek word here translated “house” is one never used of a building merely. It was always used of a building inhabited; sometimes of the Temple as inhabited by God, sometimes of the dwellings of men as inhabited by men.

So the suggestion here is that He came home, and immediately the crowds congregated, and their demands were such that He and His disciples could not so much as eat bread. In that statement of Mark a there is a wonderful revelation, first of the attractiveness of Jesus; and then also, of His self-surrender. Wherever He was, they came with their sick and suffering, their sad and sorrowing; and He gave Himself to them.

Mark has not recorded for us all that transpired at that time. Other of the evangelists give more of His teaching. But Mark has given us the account of two matters which illustrate the opposition which Jesus encountered, on the one hand from His friends, well-meaning but nevertheless opposition; and on the other hand from His foes, by no means well-meaning, and quite definitely hostile.

It is important, therefore, in order to an intelligent study of the story that we observe the method of Mark, and the order of events. He records the fact that His friends, hearing of His doings, started out to find Him, and to put Him under restraint (verses 20, 21) [Mark 3:20-21]. This is a reference, undoubtedly, to His mother and His brethren. The literal translation of the words rendered “His friends” is, “They who were from beside Him”; that is, those who were related to Him. They, hearing of the unstintedness of His giving of Himself to the crowding multitudes, said, “He is beside Himself”; and they started to find Him, and to restrain Him; started probably from Nazareth, whither the news of Him and of His immediate activities had reached.

In the meantime, while they travelled toward Capernaum, both Matthew and Luke state that, there in the house, He healed a demoniac-Mark making no reference to the healing-and that gave occasion for the criticism of Himself and His work by the Jerusalem scribes, in which they declared that He had Beelzebub, and that by the prince of the demons He cast out demons. Then in the midst of His teaching, consequent upon that criticism, His mother and His brethren arrived. Matthew says “While He was yet speaking” His mother and His brethren came.

Let us observe then, the opposition which this paragraph reveals; dealing first with the opposition of His foes as revealed in the criticism of the Pharisees; and then with the opposition of His friends as revealed in the hour when His mother and His brethren arrived.

We have observed in a previous study the opposition that was offered to our Lord in Galilee. The first manifestation was in the house at Capernaum, when He had said to a man, “Thy sins are forgiven,” they said, “He blasphemeth: who can forgive sins but One, even God.” This was a perfectly sincere criticism, entirely justified if He had been such as they thought Him, merely a human teacher. None can forgive sins save God. That was the first manifestation of opposition.

The second manifestation was in Levi’s house, when they criticized Him for consorting with sinners; and again, through His disciples, because they had not observed the fasts.

Then followed the opposition in the cornfields, when they charged His disciples with breaking the Sabbath, as they plucked the ears of corn on their journey.

That opposition culminated with the scene in the synagogue when they watched Him that they might accuse Him, and He gave them the opportunity they sought, as He healed the man with a withered hand. The result of that healing was that of the coalition between Pharisees and Herodians, and their taking counsel together, how they might destroy Him.

In the interval between the hour when that coalition was formed and this, great things had taken place. Multitudes had come from north, south, and east, from all the country side, and had followed Him. Great wonders had been wrought, and the special note which Mark perpetually emphasizes, and to which, we shall come for more particular consideration a little later on, was that of His power over evil spirits. There had been special and persistent exorcisms in the course of our Lord’s ministry. Before thinking of the criticism offered and the opposition manifested, it is well that we remind ourselves that nothing new had taken place. Only one more demon was cast out, one more man healed, restored; there had been one other putting forth of power, not in violation of order, but for the restoration of order on the part of our Lord.

Therefore in the criticism of the Pharisees at this point we discover no criticism proceeding honestly against some new difficulty, but criticism proceeding out of the hatred for the Lord which had taken possession of their hearts. They had been watching for the opportunity. These Jerusalem scribes now uttered their criticism.

Observe with care, moreover, in the reading of the story that their criticism was twofold. It is important to see this, because our Lord answered the two parts of that criticism quite distinctly. The form of the statement by Mark makes this quite clear. They said, “He hath Beelzebub,” and, “By the prince of the demons casteth He out the demons.” Their criticisms declared first something concerning Himself, and secondly something concerning His work. As to Himself, they said, “He hath Beelzebub.” As to His work, that particular work which He had been doing in the casting out of the demons, they said, “By the prince of the demons casteth He out the demons.”

In our Lord’s reply He dealt first with the second part of their criticism, that of His work; and secondly and most solemnly, with the first part of their criticism, that of Himself.

There is no need that we should dwell at any great length upon their criticism. They said, “He hath Beelzebub.” The exact significance of that word Beelzebub it is impossible to decide. It may have meant quite simply “the lord of the house,” a reference to the whole underworld of evil, and to the presidency over that underworld of one master. In that case it meant quite simply, “the lord of the demons,” and was synonymous with the description that follows, “the prince of the demons.” Translated, by a common use, it may have meant “the dung-god.” The general meaning is plain. They declared that Jesus was possessed by, and under the mastery of, Satan; that He was acting in league with one who was the source of all uncleanness. They charged Him with being possessed by an evil spirit, supreme in uncleanness, the master and fountainhead of everything that was impure.

From that criticism of Himself to the criticism of His work was an easy stage, the second being a sequence of the first. “By the prince of the demons casteth He out the demons.” This was indeed a subtle word. They declared, in effect, that in all these exorcisms He was trifling with men and with evil spirits for personal ambition. They declared that there was no beneficence in His activities, no compassion in the things that He was doing; that He was not casting out evil spirits because He compassionated the men whom they possessed, but that He was acting in the realm of which He was a native, the underworld of uncleanness. In order to attract attention to Himself, and so to gain for Himself some passing popularity, He was trifling with men, and was trifling even with that very underworld of evil.

We turn then to the answer of Jesus, and look at Him, listen to Him, as the Servant of God, as He is supremely set forth in these stories. Dealing first with the second part of their criticism, that of His work, He answered them negatively and positively, showing first the falseness of their philosophy; and secondly making quite clear the secret of His own power.

Showing first the falseness of their philosophy, He declared the folly of their suggestion. They understood the motive of Satan, personal aggrandizement and ambition; but they were ignorant of his devices; they did not know his method. When they suggested that Satan was trifling with the underworld for purposes of personal aggrandizement, they were entirely ignorant of his methods. Our Lord’s words-so familiar that we may miss the profundity of their philosophy-revealed His perfect knowledge of the subtlety of His foe. He reminded them that Satan does not fight against Satan, for in so doing he would bring his kingdom to an end, and would frustrate the purpose of his own ambition. If a house be divided against itself it cannot stand, and perchance in that very employment of the word “house” He was remembering the significance of what they had said, that He was in league with the lord of the house of evil. A house divided against itself cannot stand. “If Satan hath risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.” So He immediately showed the folly of their suggestion in that while assuming the motive underlying the mastery of the underworld of evil, they were entirely ignorant of the devices of Satan.

By that reply, moreover, the whole underworld of evil is set in the light. There came a day when Paul the apostle wrote, “We are not ignorant of his devices.” These men were ignorant of the devices of Satan. But these devices were dragged into the light, and made clear before the eyes of men by the very ministry of our Lord. This is one instance in which we see Christ revealing the fact that through these very men Satan was attempting to deceive men about his own methods, in order ultimately to hold them within his grasp. In their suggesting that Satan himself had been working the wonders of demon exorcism he was deceiving men as to his devices. The earnestness and clarity of our Lord’s reply was intended to silence opposition; and for evermore to set out in clear outline, the revelation of the fact that at the heart of evil is a perpetual untruth, and that Satan will for evermore proceed upon the basis of the lie that deceives and slanders men, and that slanders God.

He did not, however, leave His answer to this criticism at that point. In words, the ultimate value of which we shall only refer to, He declared the secret of His victories. Using a parable, He said that the strong man armed can only be defeated by one who is stronger than he. In that picture our Lord claimed that He was stronger than the strong man armed. The strong man armed is Satan himself, the master of the underworld of evil, holding its hosts of opposition under his control. But the One upon Whom they had been looking, to Whom they had been listening, Whose works they had been discussing, against Whom their hearts were now moving in hatred, because they were unable to understand Him, and were not honest enough to follow Him, claimed in that hour to be stronger than the strong man armed; and declared that every exorcism that He wrought was the result of His power, which was superior to the whole underworld of evil.

Then passing to the first part of their criticism which was far the more serious He uttered these words which are so full of appalling solemnity: “Verily I say unto you, All their sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and their blasphemies wherewith so ever they shall blaspheme; but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is guilty”-suffer a change in the word “guilty”-“is held by an age-abiding sin”; and therefore cannot be forgiven. We have no reason whatever to imagine that these men had committed that sin, but they were in the danger-zone, they were approaching the sin.

Let us approach the meaning of our Lord here by an ordinary, every-day illustration. The ultimate sin which any man commits against his brother is that of the misinterpretation of his motive. The one sin against my brother that can never know forgiveness is that I willfully misinterpret his motive. If we could but remember that, from how many blunders should we be saved! A man may criticize my method; he may show how my action does not harmonize with my profession. I may attempt to show him how his method does not harmonize with his profession.

I may say of this man, who in the political or religious world differs from me, that I hold his policy to be entirely wrong but I have no right to say that his motive is impure or unholy or wrong. God is the God of motive. By Him alone are motives measured and weighed.

If this is a superlative fact in the realm of human interrelationships, then we begin to see what was happening here, and why our Lord’s words were so severe. They were now attempting to account for His motive; they were invading that inner, secret, lonely, holy sanctuary of the reason why He did what He was doing. They did what men always do when they invade that sanctuary. They carried into it their own pollutions, their own distorted senses of values; and all unconsciously they read into the reason of the doings of Jesus, the reason that was prompting them at the moment. They, and not He, were in league with the devil. It is almost always so. I very rarely hear a man criticize the motive of another man without being at least suspicious that he is attributing to the other man the inspiration of his own activities.

These men had now invaded that realm. All their previous opposition had been against Himself, as to His methods, but this invaded the realm of motive where in His case the Holy Spirit was supreme. He had taken no journey and sought no rest, He had eaten no meal save in communion with God the Holy Spirit. He had healed no sick soul save as the result of unutterable and inexpressible anguish, the anguish of God which atones for human guilt. He had cast out no demons save by the finger of God. When these men suggested that the motive of His activity was that of league with unutterable filthiness, with the source and origin of all uncleanness, can we wonder that-not on His own behalf, but on behalf of eternal right, and the principles that must constitute the foundations of the Kingdom of God,-He made a protest so severe and so solemn.

They were in the danger-zone, approaching a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which is only committed by men who have so yielded themselves to the mastery of unholy things, that they fail to detect good when they see it, and so attribute the results produced to a deeper evil, and declare that the producer is in partnership with Beelzebub. That is eternal sin, which in the nature of it never can be changed, and consequently for which there never can be forgiveness. We have no reason to believe these men had committed that sin in its finality, but they were coming into its region. Our Lord at that moment was looking on, as He ever was, to His larger day of ministry, to that ministry which should succeed His Cross, Resurrection, Ascension, and Pentecost, to that ministry in the midst of which we live our lives; rejoicing in the fact of the wider and more intimate and marvellous ministry that followed Pentecost, more intimate and more marvellous than that of the days, of His flesh. Jesus lifted His eyes, and looking to those days when the Spirit should be poured in fullness upon men who should continue His work in spiritual power and without geographical limitations, said, In that hour it will be possible for men to sin a sin for which there shall be no forgiveness.

We now pass on to look at the opposition of His friends. Quite literally, as we have said, the phrase “His friends” means “they that were from beside Him.” Wycliffe translated with great accuracy, “His kinsmen”; and Tyndale, employing a colloquialism of the time, “they that belonged unto Him,” His own blood relations, undoubtedly His mother and His brethren.

It is interesting to observe in passing that this is the first appearance of Mary since Cana, when Jesus had said to her, What is there between thee and Me; and indicated that there were things in Himself that she did not apprehend at the time. This is also the first appearance of His brethren since they travelled with Him from Cana to Capernaum in that early year of His ministry. Now they are seen coming to Him. Their complaint was that He was beside Himself. This was their interpretation of the ceaselessness of His activity. Their criticism was not directed against the particular work He was doing, but that He was doing so much.

They were not concerned as to His motive. That, they were not questioning. They were there believing that One Who would so give Himself to great motives as to have no time for eating or rest, must be beside Himself, and their intention was one of solicitude. They wanted to save Him, to restrain Him. In that spirit they travelled; how far we do not know; perchance from Nazareth. So far as we have any right to measure the emotion of Jesus by our emotion,-and we have some right, for He entered into our humanity-this opposition was surely harder to bear than the opposition of the Jerusalem scribes; more difficult to contend with.

One was an opposition resulting from malice; the other, opposition resulting from love; the first that of those who were against Him because they were out of harmony with His purity; the second that of those who would try and save Him from folly, and take care of Him.

Jesus looked round about upon the twelve; upon those men who were with Him. Think what He saw. All the subsequent story will reveal it. He saw one man who, mastered by fear and saved by cowardice would swear in the darkness of the night that he did not know anything about Him; and He saw ten others who in the ultimate hours of His agony would run away. But He saw men who in the deepest fact of their lives that very realm of motive were consecrated to God and to Him. He saw all the possibilities of failure and knew how they were all to work out.

But He found that central fact, the motive; He invaded that realm which none other could invade, and He said, Behold My brethren, born for My adversity. Behold My sisters, born for all sweet confidences and sympathy. Behold My mother, born for all comfort and solace. “For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.”

He thus revealed a spiritual relation so high as to be infinitely above the affinity of blood relationship. He declared that in these men He found His true comfort and solace; not in those who tried to save Him from the unceasing pressure of the path of duty, but in those who were going to tramp the pathway with Him; and who, even if for a little while they would leave Him, would come back again, and presently count it all joy that they were considered worthy to suffer shame for His Name. To this high relationship Mary and His brethren also came after a while, but not immediately.

Our Lord has passed beyond this opposition now, even with regard to His earthly ministry. In the light of the accumulating and accumulated testimony of two millenniums, no sane critic to-day suggests that He was in league with the devil; or that He was mad. Oh! there are other ways of dealing with the difficulties now. They get rid of the devil, and get rid of these stories of exorcisms! Yet mark it well, for it is a significant and valuable fact, that when those who are unable to believe the things that some of us verily do believe, when they have sifted and attempted to destroy the documents, the Lord emerges, and they still hold Him in reverence, and suggest no complicity with Satan and no madness.

But the principle of opposition revealed persists against His disciples to-day. The first of these lines of criticism is rarely if ever boldly advanced. We are not often charged definitely with being in complicity with the devil. But the same thought is subtly suggested even to-day when it is affirmed that the motive of Christian service is self-aggrandizement.

The second is more subtle, and is more persistent. Our friends still say “He is beside himself.” What a remarkable fact it is that even within the Christian Church, ties of blood relationship constitute terrible hindrances to Christian service. Men to-day never seem to think that Out-and-out, passionate, and sacrificial devotion, suggests madness in any realm, except that of the spiritual. No man suggests that the scientist, so devoted to his science that he will give himself to its operations and shorten his life, is beside himself. No one suggests that the soldier who gives himself to the high places of the field, and sacrifices life in the interests of his country, is beside himself. No man thinks that the explorer who shortens life by his intrepid daring is beside himself.

No one imagines that the commercial man who is so devoted to the amassing of wealth that he shortens life, is beside himself. No! this suggestion is still retained for those who make their service for the souls of men sacrificial.

Let all such be comforted. They are in holy comradeship! At the same time let them endeavour resolutely to be of. the number of those who have the highest affinity with the Son of man, because they are devoted to the will of God; who will not try to hinder Him in sacrificial service, or to save themselves therefrom, but walking with Him the rough road, will find larger life in the shortening of the present.