Mark 3

“THE GOSPEL OF MARK” Chapter Three Jesus healed on the Sabbath, giving rise to plots on His life and later accused of healing by the power of the devil (Mark 3:1-6 Mark 3:22-30). His popularity with the multitude continued, and twelve apostles are appointed to preach and heal (Mark 3:7-19). Concern by friends and family gave Jesus opportunity to identify His true family as those who do the will of God (Mark 3:20-21 Mark 3:31-35). POINTS TO PONDER* Increasing opposition, popularity of the crowds, concern of friends and family

• The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, and the true family of Jesus REVIEW 1) What are the main points of this chapter?- Jesus heals on the Sabbath - Mark 3:1-6- Ministering to the multitudes - Mark 3:7-12- Selection of twelve apostles - Mark 3:13-19- Concern of friends, accusation by scribes - Mark 3:20-30- The true family of Jesus - Mark 3:31-352) How did Jesus respond to the charge against healing on the Sabbath? (Mark 3:4)

• “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?”

3. Who began to plot to destroy Jesus? (Mark 3:6)

• The Pharisees together with the Herodians

4. Where did the multitude come from that followed Jesus? (Mark 3:7-8)

• Galilee, Judea, Jerusalem, Idumea, beyond the Jordan, Tyre, Sidon

5. Why did Jesus appoint twelve disciples (apostles)? (Mark 3:13-15)

• To be with Him, then send them out to preach, heal sicknesses, cast out demons

6. What did some of Jesus’ own people think about Him? (Mark 3:21)

• That He was out of His mind

7. How did Jesus reply to casting out demons by the power of Satan? (Mark 3:22-27)

• “How can Satan cast out Satan?”
• A kingdom (house) divided against itself cannot stand

8. What does Mark define as the “unpardonable sin”? (Mark 3:28-30)

• Blaspheming the Holy Spirit by accusing Jesus of having an unclean spirit

9. Who does Jesus describe as His true family? (Mark 3:33-35)

• Whoever does the will of God is His brother, sister, and mother

Mark 3Verse 1 The continuation of Jesus’ ministry is detailed in this chapter which recounts the healing of a man on the sabbath in the synagogue (Mark 3:1-6), healings at the seashore with demons confessing him (Mark 3:7-12), appointment of the Twelve (Mark 3:13-19), teachings regarding “an eternal sin” (Mark 3:20-30), and the incident of his mother and brethren seeking him (Mark 3:31-35). And he entered again into the synagogue; and they saw a man there who had his hand withered. And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him. (Mark 3:1-2) A feature of this healing was the anticipation of it by the Pharisees, who had evidently been sent from Jerusalem for the purpose of spying on Jesus with a view to destroying him. The purpose of the hierarchy to kill Christ had already been formed earlier (John 5:18) on their decision that Christ was a sabbath-breaker and a blasphemer. Their alleged evidence, however, was unsatisfactory, even to them; therefore the search was continued in the hope of uncovering what would have been, in their eyes, a better charge. Their hatred of the Lord and their presence at the performance of this wonder emphasize the authenticity of the deed.

Verse 3 And he saith unto the man that had his hand withered, Stand forth. And he saith unto them, Is it lawful on the sabbath day to do good, or to do harm? to save a life, or to kill? But they held their peace.Stand forth … Christ accepted the challenge of his enemies. He would indeed heal the man on the sabbath day; but first, he would contrast his own act of saving mercy with their act, also performed on the sabbath day, of killing the Saviour of the world, that being their only purpose, which objective they pursued constantly, on sabbath days as well as all other days. But, if the Pharisees were blind to the inconsistency which accepted their own murderous actions as “lawful” sabbath day conduct, while at the same time condemning such an act as Jesus would do as “unlawful” on the sabbath, the people were not so blind and could easily see the difference. To save a life, or to kill … Christ was about to “save a life” from pain, inability, and frustration. The Pharisees were present for the purpose of killing Jesus. The contrast was dramatic, and there could have been no better example of opposite purposes of Satan and Christ than that which precipitated the stark, ugly incident here. The Pharisees themselves were speechless when Jesus called attention to it. But they held their peace … What THEY were doing was satanic and malignant; and they were stunned into silence by Jesus’ obvious reference to their evil employment on the sabbath.

Verse 5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their heart, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he stretched it forth; and his hand was restored.Looked … on them with anger … This is one of the places in which it is asserted that “Matthew corrected” Mark! It is alleged that this was considered by Matthew to have been too harsh a statement of the Lord’s emotion, “anger” for some undisclosed reason being considered by critics as “unbecoming” to Jesus. Regardless of the scholarship of those advocating such a view, it is founded, apparently, in ignorance of the fact that Matthew was just as precise in his assignment of this emotion to Jesus as was Mark. The vituperative passages of Matthew 23 are a far more impressive account of Jesus’ anger than Mark’s casual reference to it here.

Furthermore, Jesus was quoted by Matthew as saying, “The King was wroth; and he sent his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned their city!” (Matthew 22:7), the king, of course, standing for God himself, making it impossible for Matthew to have considered Mark’s attribution of anger to Jesus as anything inappropriate. Therefore, the conceit that Matthew corrected Mark in this particular is rejected. And his hand was restored … Barclay is at great pains to show that Jesus actually violated God’s sabbath by this miracle, He said, “On the sabbath day all work was forbidden, and to heal was to work."[1] But as Dummelow accurately observed, “Only malice could call healing by a word, without labor or medicine, a breach of the sabbath."[2] It is nothing short of outrageous how “Christian” scholars are so determined to make Jesus a sabbath breaker. Not even the Pharisees, in the last analysis, used that charge as the basis of demanding Christ’s crucifixion (John 19:7). However, the liberal scholars have an axe to grind by their inaccurate portrayal of Jesus as a sabbath-breaker. Barclay explained his conclusions on this as follows: To the Pharisees religion was ritual; it meant obeying certain rules and laws and regulations. Jesus broke these regulations and they were genuinely convinced that he was a bad man. It is like the man who believes that religion consists in going to church, reading the Bible, saying grace at meals, even having family worship, and carrying on all the external acts which are looked upon as religious, and who yet never put himself out to do anything for anyone in his life, who has no sense of sympathy, no desire to sacrifice, who is serene in his rigid orthodoxy, and deaf to the call of need and blind to the tears of the world.[3]Barclay’s slander of equating his caricature of the church-going Christian with the murderous Pharisees of Jesus’ day is criminal. It may be a fact that such unfeeling Christians exist; but it is the conviction of this author that such a phenomenon is rare, atypical, and extraordinary. The great hindrance to true Christianity does not come from Christians like those of Barclay’s caricature, there being an insufficient number of them to make any difference at all. The great hindrance comes from insinuations, like this, which imply that Bible study, church attendance and family worship are “secondary” to “helping people” and are in no sense part of Jesus’ true religion.

He even went so far as to say, “To Jesus, religion was SERVICE."[4] Jesus’ religion service, but mere humanism is as far from true Christianity as Shintoism. Christ’s testimony regarding the law of Moses that he did not come to destroy but to fulfill would be violated by any view that he deliberately broke God’s sabbath law. Of course, the Pharisaical additions and improvisations regarding the sacred law were no part of God’s true law and were righteously flouted by Christ, but break God’s sabbath he did not. Therefore, let Christians beware of all interpretations that would make a sinner out of the Saviour himself. [1] William Barclay, The Gospel of Mark (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956), p. 62. [2] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 667. [3] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 64. [4] Ibid.

Verse 6 And the Pharisees went out, and straightway with the Herodians took counsel against him, how they might destroy him.Straightway … This term is used 39 times in Mark, occurring at least one time in every chapter except Mark 12 and Mark 13, with the greatest number coming in Mark 1, where it occurs eleven times! With the Herodians … The Herodians were a sect of the Jews who favored the kingship of Herod. Normally, they were bitter enemies of the Pharisees; but these old foes made common cause against the Saviour. How they might destroy him … This does not mean that they decided to kill him, that having long ago been decided (John 5:18), but that they plotted on the mechanics of his murder, just how they were going to bring it about.

Verse 7 And Jesus with his disciples withdrew to the sea: and a great multitude from Galilee followed; and from Judaea, and from Jerusalem, and from Idumaea, and beyond the Jordan, and from Tyre and Sidon, a great multitude, hearing what great things he did, came unto him.Rather than continue his teachings in the synagogues, Jesus took his message to the seashore where he continued under the open sky to deliver the message of God to humanity. The place names mentioned here as sending a great multitude to Jesus covered the entire extent of ancient Palestine. Tyre and Sidon were in the northwest, Jerusalem a hundred miles south, Idumaea extended from the far south all the way to Arabia, and “beyond the Jordan” referred to the east.

Verse 9 And he spake to his disciples, that a little boat should wait on him because of the crowd, lest they should throng him.The pressure of so vast a multitude, many of whom were intent on touching Jesus, presented a physical danger, as well as gross inconvenience; and therefore Jesus requested and received from his disciples a boat which he could enter, and from offshore, continue his preaching to the multitude.

Verse 10 For he had healed many; insomuch that as many as had plagues pressed upon him that they might touch him.Plagues … is from the Greek word “scourges” (English Revised Version (1885) margin), and no doubt this would have been better translated by its Greek equivalent. The number of the cures wrought by Jesus was astronomical; all of the gospels together give only a fraction of the “great things he did.”

Verse 11 And the unclean spirits, whensoever they beheld him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God. And he charged them much that they should not make him known.Unclean spirits … For discussion of demon possession, see under Mark 1:24. Thou art the Son of God … This demonic witness was true, although proffered in keeping with some ulterior design of the evil one; and it is of the utmost significance that Jesus rejected this witness of the unclean. Two clear reasons for this rejection are: (1) it was premature for Jesus to be hailed as “the Son of God,” a title with strong secular implications in the Hebrew mind and actually being equated with “King of Israel” (John 1:49). Had he permitted this title of himself to stand, Christ would have been hauled before the Romans for sedition. (2) If demons had been freely permitted to bear such testimony, it might have appeared to reinforce the slander of the Pharisees that he cast out demons by the prince of the demons ( Mark 3:22). Son of God … must be understood here in its unique Messianic import. Any other meaning would not have served the demonic purpose. It should be noted that Christ did not deny their testimony as true, but on the other hand he forbade them to utter it.

Verse 13 And he goeth up into the mountain, and calleth unto him whom he himself would; and they went unto him. And he appointed twelve, that they might be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, and to have authority to cast out demons.The mountain … probably refers to the elevation some five miles west of Galilee, called Mount Hatten, where it is also supposed that Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount. Luke adds the significant detail that Christ prayed all night before appointing the Twelve (Luke 6:13). And they went unto him … Bickersteth states that these words actually mean “went away to him, implying that they forsook their former pursuits."[5] This tends to remove the abruptness of the call of four apostles recounted in the first chapter and shows that Mark did not mean that at that time they forsook their occupations. This was the occasion when they gave up their fishing. Preach … and cast out demons … Mark laid great stress on the mission of Christ to destroy the works of the devil. The demonic creation, under satanic domination, had doubtless learned who Christ was from the heavenly announcement: at Jesus’ baptism, which must have sent a shudder of apprehension throughout the whole kingdom of evil. Satan and all of the beings in his service worked feverishly to kill Jesus, little dreaming that in the death of Christ their entire kingdom and all of its works would be overthrown. ENDNOTE: [5] E. Bickersteth, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 16, p. 117.

Verse 16 And Simon he surnamed Peter; and James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and them he surnamed Boanerges, which is Sons of Thunder: and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.The twelve apostles are listed four times in the New Testament, as given below. The number twelve corresponds to the twelve tribes of Israel and to the twelve foundations of the eternal city. In this dispensation, the Twelve sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of spiritual Israel (Matthew 19:28). These men, in one sense, are the most important men who ever lived. In their capacity as the God-ordained witnesses of the incarnation and the custodians and deliverers of God’s message to mankind, they are fully worthy of the honor God has reserved for them in the inscription of their names upon the foundations of the Eternal City (Revelation 21:14). MATTHEW (Matthew 10:2-4) Peter Andrew James John Philip Bartholomew Thomas Matthew James, son of Alphaeus Thaddaeus Simon the Cananean Judas Iscariot MARK (Mark 3:16-19) Peter James John Andrew Philip Bartholomew Matthew Thomas James, son of Alphaeus Thaddaeus Simon the Cananean Judas Iscariot LUKE (Luke 6:14-16) Peter Andrew James John Philip Bartholomew Matthew Thomas James, son of Alphaeus Simon the Zealot Judas of James Judas Iscariot ACTS (Acts 1:13) Peter John James Andrew Philip Thomas Bartholomew Matthew James, son of Alphaeus Simon the Zealot Judas of James The obvious reconciliation of the slight variations above is found in the fact that Thaddaeus was also called Judas the son of James and that Simon the Cananean was also known as Simon the Zealot. There is no need whatever to imagine, as McMillan suggested, that “the earliest selections were not final” or that it became “necessary to find replacements."[6] If one of the sacred authors had listed James and John as the Boanerges Brothers, it would have been another example of disciples being known by more than one name. It is interesting that the first, fifth and ninth named apostles were unanimously reported in those exact positions, suggesting that the Twelve marched in groups of four, Peter, Philip, and James the son of Alphaeus being the leaders of these groups. Of course, this is a mere speculation. For articles on some of the individual apostles, reference is made to the Commentary on John, and for articles concerning Peter’s so-called primacy, and the questions regarding the keys of the kingdom, see the Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 16:16-19. ENDNOTE: [6] Earle McMillan, The Gospel according to Mark (Austin, Texas: R. B. Sweet Publishing Company, 1973), p. 50.

Verse 20 And he cometh into a house. And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread.Sanner understood the “house” mentioned here as the one “in Capernaum”[7] where he usually stayed. It was perhaps the one belonging to Peter and Andrew (Mark 1:29). Having returned from his preaching and teaching on Mount Hatten, Jesus immediately plunged into the work of his ministry in Capernaum, the crowds being so vast that there was no time even for meals. ENDNOTE: [7] A. Elwood Sanner, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1964), Vol. VI, p. 295.

Verse 21 And when his friends heard it, they went to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.His friends … These words are made to read “his family” in GNNT, IV, and the New English Bible (1961), and this reading is supposed by McMillan, Cranfield; and many other recent commentators; but there are solid reasons for rejecting this change from the English Revised Version (1885), RSV, and KJV. To begin with, Mark referred to the immediate family of Jesus as “his mother and his brethren” just six verses later (Mark 3:27), and why he should have called them by another term here cannot be explained. To make Mark 3:27 an “explanation” of Mark 3:21 is sheer guesswork. Goodspeed, Weymouth, Phillips, Wesley, and others translate “relatives” or “relations,” which in context cannot mean family. To lay hold on him … means something like “to take into custody,” or “to take charge of”; those misguided friends or “neighbors,” which is as likely a guess as any, were seeking to restrain Jesus. It is important to note that “his mother and brethren” (Mark 3:27) were not said to have been seeking to “lay hold on him,” nor is there any hint that they said, “He is beside himself,” these actions being attributed not to his “family” but to his “friends”; and there has always been a world of difference in THOSE words. He is beside himself … The true meaning is simply that the zeal of Jesus had, in the view of his neighbors, gone too far, or as Ryle translated, he has been “transported too far,” that is, “carried away with his work.” Zeal in the service of God has never been intelligible to carnal and unregenerated men. Zeal for business, war, science, pleasure, politics, or nearly any earthly pursuit, is admired, complimented, and emulated; but let a man devote himself fully to the service of holy religion, and the neighbors begin to shake their heads and say, “He’s getting carried away with it!”

Verse 22 And the scribes that came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and, By the prince of the demons casteth he out the demons.Come down from Jerusalem … Geographically, they came up from Jerusalem, but the relative dignity of the priestly class in the Jewish capital was recognized in the idiom of that day which referred to all journeys as “up” to Jerusalem and “down” from Jerusalem. Beelzebub … This word is actually Beelzebub (English Revised Version (1885) margin) and has the meaning of “the dunghill god,” “lord of flies” or “master of the house of demons”; but all such meanings may be ignored in this context, for “in the New Testament form the word means THE DEVIL."[8] This charge of the scribes was therefore that Christ was performing such wonderful works through being in league with the devil. The necessary inference from this charge points to the genuineness of Jesus’ works, the charge itself being an admission that the miracles wrought by Jesus were altogether beyond the power of human nature and were therefore supernatural. The charge that Christ was in league with Satan was an exceedingly sinful one, and it occasioned the warning Jesus at once uttered. ENDNOTE: [8] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 663.

Verse 23 And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if Satan hath risen up against himself, and is divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. But no one can enter into the house of the strong man, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.Jesus met the charges of his foes with three arguments, two of which are in these verses, and the third in Mark 3:28-30.

1. Argument of the divided kingdom. It is of immense importance that Jesus here revealed a world view of Satan and the kingdom of evil. The demoniacs whom Jesus had healed were actually controlled by forces administered by Satan. Satan is represented as an intelligent ruler of his evil domain and as being in possession of a desire to maintain and protect it. Satan is not stupid, as the charge of the scribes would have implied. Certainly, the devil would not rise up against himself and destroy his own wicked domain. If indeed Satan should do such a thing as they were suggesting, it would mean an end of Satan and his works.
2. Argument regarding binding the strong man. Mark omitted to relate how the temptation of Jesus ended, but it is implied here. The Lord had entered into the house of the strong man (the world) and had bound the strong man (Satan), and was in the process of spoiling his goods. This carried the affirmation that what Jesus was doing was opposed to the works of Satan and that his casting out demons was being done contrary to Satan’s will, and that Satan did not have the power to restrain such deeds.

Verse 28 Verily I say unto you, All their sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and their blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin: because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.3. This third response to their blasphemous charge was to imply, without actually stating it, that the blasphemers were guilty of a sin that could never be forgiven. The final clause, “because they said, etc.,” connects the eternal sin with their blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Jesus made a distinction between blasphemy against the “Son of man” (Matthew 12:32) and that against the Holy Spirit. A little further discussion of this sin is appropriate. (a) What was their particular sin? It was the sin of reading the pure and holy life of Jesus Christ as satanic, the sin of viewing black as white and white as black, of making wickedness righteous and righteousness wicked. “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter” (Isaiah 5:20). John Milton expressed it as the soul’s deliberate choice, “Evil, be thou my good."9 Can such a sin be committed today? There is every reason to believe that it can be, and the fear is justified that the commission of it is prevalent. This does not mean that any person should entertain any morbid fear that he has committed such a sin, because it may be safely concluded that any person whosoever who still retains some concern for the welfare of his eternal soul has not committed the sin in view here. We agree with Cranfield who said: We can say with absolute confidence to anyone who is overwhelmed by the fear that he has committed this sin, that the fact that he is so troubled is itself sure proof that he has not committed it.[10]The view should be rejected, however, that would make it impossible for one to commit this sin. The argument for such a view makes a distinction between men today and the scribes here in this text on the basis that they had literally seen Jesus raise the dead and do many other mighty deeds, whereas men today “believe” that Jesus did such things, thus making THEIR blasphemy contrary to their own senses, contrasting with current blasphemy which is alleged to be only against what is believed. At best, such a view is unconvincing, for there are men who have said by their actions, and presumably within themselves, “Satan, be my god!” An eternal sin … This phrase is the key to unraveling the teachings of God’s word on this subject. It identifies the sin under consideration as not a unique thing at all, but as one of a class of sins, suggested by the indefinite article, thus being one of a class that could be so designated. If we might be so bold as to identify the class, it is composed of the sins which cause the spiritual death of the sinner. It is the sin which is fatal spiritually and answers to the analogy in the physical world of the fatal disease. What is the fatal disease?

It is the one the doctor writes on the death certificate. The sin against the Holy Spirit is therefore not a specific sin limited to any form or circumstance, but ANY SIN that destroys the spiritual life. It is the sin that “quenches the Holy Spirit” (1 Thessalonians 5:19); the sin that ends in spiritual death (1 Corinthians 11:30); the sin that marks a condition of the sinner described as being “worse” than lost, the only conceivable state answering to such a condition being the state of being lost without possibility of recovery (2 Peter 2:20-21); the sin that makes the sinner “dead” while being alive physically (1 Timothy 5:6); the sin unto death (1 John 5:16); the sin from which “it is impossible” to renew the sinner (Hebrews 6:4-6); the sin which results in the condition wherein there “remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins” (Hebrews 10:26-27). Once a person is dead physically, life cannot be renewed; and the same is true spiritually. And just as no dead person is ever concerned about his health, no person who is dead spiritually has any concern whatever regarding the commission of any sin, even an eternal sin. Another question that arises in this connection is, “What about the man who has indulged every kind of sin for many years and then returns to God and lives out his days as a faithful Christian? It is clear in such cases that “an eternal sin” was not committed. However, he grieved and insulted the Holy Spirit, he did not “quench” the holy light within. Fortunately, the spiritual life is hardy and cannot be destroyed except in the most deliberate and sustained rebellion against God, that being exactly the conduct of the Jewish hierarchy with regard to Jesus. This is not to take an easy or casual view of sin, any sin. Sin being what it is, and capable, when it is finished, of bringing forth “death” (James 1:15), should never be lightly viewed. No mother ever judged the danger of a splinter in a child’s knee by the size of the splinter. What a blunder to classify sins as mortal and venial. Everyone knows that the tiniest lesion can produce disastrous consequences; and, in the spiritual life, any sin, however counted by men as unimportant, can if unchecked and unforgiven, lead to eternal death. [9] John Milton, Paradise Lost, Book IV, 1:110. [10] C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to St. Mark (Cambridge: The University Press, 1966), p. 142.

Verse 31 And there come his mother and his brethren; and, standing without, they sent unto him, calling him.As noted under Mark 3:21, this terminology applied to Jesus’ immediate family makes it impossible to construe “friends” in that verse as a reference to the same persons. Turlington said: This passage must not be used as evidence that Jesus’ mother opposed his mission … That Mary was among the “friends” of Mark 3:21 is an unlikely and unnecessary conclusion.[11]It is true that Jesus’ brothers did not believe in him, even as late as October prior to the Passion in April of the following year (John 7:5), but there is no evidence that the mother and brethren said, “He is crazy” and tried to get him locked up, as indicated in some of the perverted paraphrases marketed under misleading titles as “translations.” And his brethren … The most logical way to understand this reference to Jesus’ brothers is that the persons meant were his literal brothers, sons of Joseph and Mary after Jesus was born. This view is harmonious with all the Scriptures say of the blessed Mary, whose virginity PRIOR TO THE BIRTH OF JESUS is clearly stated, but whose so-called perpetual virginity is nothing but superstition. See Matthew 13:55 for names of his four brothers. Sent to him and called him … means only that they asked to see and talk with Jesus. ENDNOTE: [11] Henry E. Turlington, The Broadman Bible Commentary (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1946), Vol. 8, p. 295.

Verse 32 And a multitude was sitting about him; and they say unto him. Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.If “friends” in Mark 3:21 means these same persons, why did not the multitude use such a word here? All rules of fair exegesis are violated by the gratuitous assumption that this passage refers to the same group as that mentioned in Mark 3:21.

Verse 33 And he answereth them and saith, Who is my mother and my brethren?Who is my mother and my brethren … is another of the seven-word sayings which abound in Mark. In a few minutes, this writer counted fifty such seven-word jewels, and their total number might be well in excess of one hundred. Jesus would lay down in the next breath the principle that spiritual kinship with Jesus is far more important than fleshly relationship; and, if there had been no fleshly relationship with the brothers, it is unlikely Jesus would have used such an analogy.

Verse 34 And looking round on them that sat round about him, he saith, Behold, my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.This was called by Clarke “the adoption of the obedient”![12] It should never be lost sight of that, in the last analysis, it is obedience to the will of God that separates the saved from the lost. Undue stress upon the doctrine of justification by faith, making it read, “by faith only,” has obscured this fact in much of the current religious literature. Looking round on them … is a graphic detail provided by Mark, and Matthew added another, “He stretched forth his hand towards his disciples” (Matthew 12:49). Did anyone copy anyone here? No! In these two accounts, there is eye-witness reporting; one noticed Jesus’ look, the other his gesture. As John Wesley said: In this preference of his true disciples, even to the Virgin Mary considered merely as his mother after the flesh, he not only shows his high and tender affection for them, but seems designedly to guard against those excessive and idolatrous honors which he foresaw would, in after ages, be paid to her.[13]In our Lord’s pronouncement here is revealed the glorious nature of the privilege of Christian discipleship. Those who follow Christ, believing in him and obeying his teachings, are considered as the true family of God, being endowed with a relationship to Christ that is superior to that of fleshly mother, brother, or sister. And what is that relationship? It is union with Christ in the spiritual sense, incorporation into his spiritual body, identification with him and in him and “as Christ.” [12] W. N. Clarke, Commentary on the Gospel of Mark (Valley Forge: The Judson Press, 1881), p. 56. [13] John Wesley, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1972), en loco.

J.W. McGarvey Commentary For Mark Chapter ThreeAbout Healing on the Sabbath, Mark 3:1-6. (Matthew 12:9-14; Luke 6:6-11.) Mark 3:1-2. And they watched him.—The people were assembled in the synagogue for worship. A man with a withered hand was present when Jesus came in. They watched him to see whether, according to his custom, he would heal the man, or decline to do so through respect for the Sabbath-day. Luke, more minute in his description, tells us that it was the man’s right hand that was withered— a more serious affliction than if it had been the left. Matthew also tells us that “they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath-day? that they might accuse him;” from which we infer that they were fearful lest he might not notice the man, and so, by propounding the question, they caused him to look around and see if any one there needed healing. Mark 3:3. he saith to the man.—Both Mark and Luke represent that before answering the question propounded, Jesus said to the man, “Stand forth,” and thus caused him to stand up in full view of all the people, so as to make more striking what he then proceeded to say and do. Mark 3:4. Is it lawful.—In answer to their question as given by Matthew, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath-day,” he puts to them the question, “Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath-day, or to do evil? To save life, or to kill?” To heal this man would be doing good; it would be making alive. To pass him by, having the power to heal him— a power given for the purpose of being thus exercised— would be doing evil, to kill where he might make alive. He must do one or the other, and he calls on them to say which. They refused to answer, because the only answer they could give would condemn themselves. Matthew reports an additional argument which comes in at this point: b (Matthew 12:11-12.) To neither of these questions did they give an answer. Mark 3:5. with anger.—Anger mingled with grief—“being grieved for the hardness of their hearts.” Anger, when rightly directed and controlled, is not a sinful feeling; but it is a dangerous one, because it is very likely to end in sinful speech or action: hence the admonition of Paul, “Be angry and sin not. Let not the sun go down on your wrath.” In this case Jesus showed anger only in his look: there was none in his words. he saith to the man.—He first, according to Matthew (Matthew 12:12-13), answered his own questions and the argument which they contained, by saying, “Wherefore, it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath-days.” Then he saith to the man, “Stretch forth thy hand.” He did so, and it was restored. Mark 3:6. took counsel.—They took counsel not as to whether they should destroy him, but as to “how they might destroy him.” They took the Herodians, the political partisans of Herod, into their confidence, because they were looking to Herod as the effective instrument for the destruction of Jesus. He had already shown his aptitude for such work by the manner in which he had disposed of John, and now they want his services again. Unlike Jesus, who was angry and sinned not, they were angry and sinned. Their malignity, provoked by so slight a cause, would amaze us, did not history furnish so many examples of men who sought the destruction of those by whom their erroneous teachings were exposed. The Great Multitudes, Mark 3:7-12. (Matthew 12:15-21) Mark 3:7. Jesus withdrew.—On the contrast here presented between Jesus and his enemies, see the note on Matthew 12:15. Mark 3:7-8. a great multitude.—Mark here states more fully than it is elsewhere stated, the places whence came the multitudes who followed Jesus. Galilee, of course, was largely represented, and so it seems were Judea and Jerusalem. The two visits which Jesus had made to Jerusalem since his baptism (see John 2:13 John 5:1), had gained him a few disciples there, and had greatly excited both his friends and his foes. As a consequence, both parties naturally sought every opportunity for visiting Galilee, that they might see and hear more. Some had come from Idumea, the Edom of the Old Testament, which lay south of Judea; others, from beyond Jordan— that is, from the populous region which stretched away from the eastern bank of the Jordan to the Arabian desert; and others, from Tyre and Sidon, the ancient capitals of Phoenicia. Thus, from all the surrounding countries, and from some quite distant regions, were men assembled around Jesus at this particular juncture. They came, says Mark, “when they had heard what great things he did.” They came at great expense of time and money, that they might see and hear and judge for themselves. Mark 3:9. that a small ship.—The pressure of the people to get near him often caused discomfort to him, confusion among themselves, and indistinct hearing of his speeches. The small ship enabled him to place a narrow strip of water between him and them, thus removing all occasion for their crowding one another, and securing that quietness which is necessary to thoughtful attention. Mark 3:10. pressed upon him to touch him.—Here is an additional reason for procuring the boat. Too eager to await his pleasure, or to wait for one another, the diseased would press upon him, and against each other, in the struggle to touch him and be healed. Much unsanctified noise and strife were prevented by the use of the “little ship."Mark 3:11. And unclean spirits.—Here again the evil spirits are called “unclean” (comp note on Mark 1:23); they fall down before Jesus, as usual; they acknowledge his divinity with a loud voice; they are rebuked for making him known; and they are expelled from their victims. The Twelve Chosen, Mark 3:13-19. (Matthew 10:1-4; Luke 6:12-16) Mark 3:13. and calleth to him.—Jesus went up into the mountain the previous night, as we learn from Luke (Luke 6:12), and after remaining there all night in prayer, called to him whom he would in the morning. He probably made the call through one of them as a messenger to the others. Mark 3:14-15. he ordained twelve.—We must not associate with the word “ordain” in this place, any of the ceremonials of a modern, or even of an ancient ordination. The original is ποιω (to make), sometimes used in the sense of appoint; e. g., Acts 2:36; Hebrews 3:2; Revelation 1:6. He simply “appointed twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach.” They were to be with him except when he would send them forth, and when sent forth, the work which they were to do is expressed in the three words, “preach,” “heal sicknesses,” “and cast out demons.” From the critics it appears that “to heal sicknesses” is probably an interpolation here, but we know from the parallel passages that the words were spoken by Jesus, whether reported by Mark or not. (See Matthew 10:1; Luke 9:1.) Mark 3:16. he surnamed Peter.—Mark chooses to mention here a fact which occurred when Simon was first led into the presence of Jesus by his brother Andrew; for it was then that he surnamed him Cephas, which is the same as Petros (πέτρος) in Greek and Peter in English. (John 1:42.) Mark 3:17. Boanerges.—This surname of the sons of Zebedee may have been given, as Simon’s was, at an earlier period, or it may have been given at this time. They were called “sons of thunder,” on account of their stormy and destructive temper. A striking manifestation of it is mentioned by Luke. When a Samaritan village in which Jesus desired to lodge, refused to receive him, James and John proposed to call down fire from heaven and burn up the inhabitants. (Luke 9:51-56.) On another occasion, a man was found casting out demons, and because he was not of the immediate followers of Jesus, John ordered him to abandon his benevolent and miraculous work. The early death of James, and our scant knowledge of him, leave us without data as to any change in his disposition; but the lovely temper of John in his old age, shows that the transforming power of the gospel wrought a great change in him. Great as this change was, however, a slight muttering of the old thunder was heard when John came to speak of such men as Diotrephes, and certain false teachers who went about not bearing the doctrine of Christ. (See 2 John 1:10-11; 3 John 1:9-10.) Mark 3:18. and Andrew.—Matthew and Luke both name Andrew in connection with his brother Simon Peter; but Mark names James and John with Peter, and puts Andrew next, in company with Philip. He was doubtless led to this arrangement by the fact that Peter was more intimate officially with James and John, than with Andrew, and that Jesus bestowed on the three special honors in which Andrew did not have a part. (Comp. Mark 9:2 Mark 14:33.) Thaddeus.—Matthew styles this apostle, “Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus” ( Matthew 10:3); Mark calls him by his surname alone; while Luke uses neither of these names, but calls him “Judas the brother of James” (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13); and John calls him “Judas, not Iscariot.” As Matthew was the earliest, and John the latest of the four writers, we infer that the man was known in earlier life as Lebbaeus, surnamed Thaddaeus; but that late in life he came to be known exclusively by the name Judas. For remarks on other names in the list, see the notes on Matthew 10:2-4. Alarm of His Friends, Mark 3:20-21 Mark 3:20. so much as eat bread.—Great must have been the importunity of the afflicted, and the eagerness of all to come near to Jesus, when he and his disciples could not so much as eat bread on their account. Neither by entering some dwelling, nor by retiring to the desert, could they secure the privacy necessary for eating a common meal. Mark 3:21. his friends.—These were his mother and his brothers, as appears from verses 31, 32, below. They did not think him actually insane, but they supposed that he was borne away by the enthusiasm which possessed him into a reckless disregard of his personal safety: for they foresaw the conflict with the religious leaders and the military authorities, in which his present course would involve him. The probability is that Mary’s faith was in advance of that of the brothers, but she naturally sympathized with them in their fears for the personal safety of her son. About Casting Out Demons, Mark 3:22-30. (Matthew 12:22-37; Luke 11:14-23) Mark 3:22. which came from Jerusalem.—Matthew gives the fullest report of this discussion, but Mark here furnishes an item which Matthew omits. It was not some of the enemies of Jesus in Galilee, but shrewd and cultivated scribes from Jerusalem, who suggested that he cast out demons by the power of Beelzebub. Mark 3:23-29.— The discussion contained in these verses is fully treated in the notes on Matthew 12:24-32. Mark 3:30. because they said.—This verse is appended by Mark to the Savior’s speech about the unpardonable sin, to show why he made that speech, and to state explicitly the unpardonable sin which they had committed— the sin of saying concerning Jesus, “He hath an unclean spirit.” This was, indeed, a sin against the Son, but chiefly against the Spirit, because it was classing the Holy Spirit with unclean spirits; and this was the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit of which they were guilty. About His Brothers and Mother, Mark 3:31-35. (Matthew 12:46-50; Luke 8:19-21) Mark 3:31. then came his brethren.—The previous statement about his friends coming out to lay hold of him (Mark 3:21) seems to have reference to their starting from home, or from some place of consultation, for this purpose; while the present remark refers to their arrival at the outskirts of the crowd which surrounded him. They “sent to him, calling him,” because, as Luke explains (Luke 8:19), “they could not get to him for the press."Mark 3:32. sat about him.— He was still in the house (19, 31), and the people were seated around him so compactly that no one could pass through. All the available space within hearing distance was packed with the quiet throng. When some one, perhaps a person near the door, spoke out and said, “Thy mother and thy brethren without seek thee,” the people may have expected him to go, and they may have thought that it was his duty to go. Mark 3:33-35. For remarks on hip reply, see the notes on Matthew 12:48-50. Argument of Section 3There are three facts set forth in the preceding section, which have an important bearing on the claims of Jesus. The first is the fact that he had authority to forgive sins. This was demonstrated in the case of the paralytic (Mark 2:1-12), and it is the one fact which proves Jesus adapted to the highest demands of human salvation. Sins being forgiven, all other blessings follow as a consequence. In the second place, it is shown that his conduct as a man was irreproachable. He was attacked in reference to the company he kept (Mark 2:13-17); in reference to his neglect of fasting (Mark 2:18-22); and in reference to Sabbath-keeping (Mark 2:23-28 Mark 3:1-6); but in all these matters he vindicated his conduct, and put his accusers to shame. That they made no more serious attacks on his conduct, proves that they could not, and that in morals he was irreproachable. In the third place, it was demonstrated by his discussion with the Jerusalem scribes, that the power by which he cast out demons, and, a fortiori, the power by which his other miracles were wrought, was not, as they alleged, satanic, but divine. Finally, his answer to the people, in reference to the call of his mother and his brothers, is in perfect keeping with the character and position which the text assigns him. It is a singular infatuation which has led the Roman Catholic Church to attribute to Jesus even in heaven, a subserviency to his mother which he so expressly repudiated while on earth.

Questions by E.M. Zerr For Mark 31. Into what did Jesus enter? 2. To whom did this building belong? 3. Who was in there at this time? 4. Why did they watch him? 5. State their motive. 6. Did this hinder Jesus? 7. What did he say to the man? 8. Tell the question he asked at the same time. 9. Repeat their answer. 10. With what did Jesus look upon them now? 11. For what was he grieved? 12. State his next action. 13. Who were offended by this? 14. With whom did they take counsel? 15. Tell what they wished to accomplish. 16. How did Jesus avoid it this time? 17. What people followed him ? 18. Were they many or few? J 19. Why did people of Tyre and Sidon come? 20. Why did Jesns call for a small ship? 21. Tell what caused the press of the people. 22. What did they desire to do to Jesus? 23. Tell what unclean spirits did when they saw Jesus. 24. What did they say? 25. State the charge Jesus gave them. 26. Where did Jesus go now ? 27. Tell what he called. 28. Whom did he ordain ? 29. State the first purpose of this. 30. What did he intend doing with them then? 31. State the power they were to have. 32. What was the other name of Peter ? 33. Who were the Zebedee children? 34. What distinguished Judas Iscariot? 35. Tell what interfered with their eating. 36. Why did his friends lay hold of Jesus? 37. State the accusation the scribes made. 38. Who is Beelzebub? 39. Would he cast himself out? 40. What theory would require this? 41. State like argument drawn from a kingdom. 42. And from a house divided? 43. How can a strong man’ s house be entered ? 44. Whom does this strong man represent ? 45. State the only sin never to be forgiven. 46. Of what is the guilty one in danger? 47. Why did Jesus say all this? 48. Who desired to speak to Jesus? 49. What was hindering them? 50. Relate teaching of Jesus about relatives.

Mark 3:1

1 Withered hand means that something had shut off the circulation from that member and it had pined away for lack of moisture, rendering it useless.

Mark 3:2

2 The Pharisees were always pretending to be zealous about the law, though they did not keep it themselves. Jesus was performing his good deeds on every day of the week, but they knew they could not object to what he was doing, hence they pretended to be offended because he did some things on the sabbath day. So they had their eyes set upon him with a wicked interest, hoping he would heal this man on that day and thus give them a pretext for accusing him.

Mark 3:3

3 Jesus knew their thoughts but proceeded to heal the man.

Mark 3:4

4 Before going further with the case, Jesus anticipated their accusation with a question they were not expecting. He put the matter on the basis of doing good or evil, saving life or destroying it, and asked them which should be done on the sabbath day. They would not answer because either way they answered would have condemned them.

Mark 3:5

5 Another word in Thayer’s definition of the Greek for anger is “indignation,” and it means that Jesus was greatly agitated over the hardness of their hearts. However, it did not keep him from performing the good deed for the man. He was told to stretch forth his hand which shows that his arm was not affected. As soon as he stretched forth his hand it was cured without any bodily contact from Jesus that we know of.

Mark 3:6

6 Having been defeated in their attempts to convict Jesus under the law, the Pharisees decided to try some other plan, which was to get him to say something that would set himself against the government. For the account of how they did this and my comments on it, see at Matthew 22:16-21. The Herodians were some Jews who were favorable to Herod’s family relations and the Romans.

Mark 3:7

7 Jesus went to the Sea of Galilee and that drew the crowds after him again, both from the immediate vicinity and Judea.

Mark 3:8

8 Jerusalem was in Judea, but the writer thought it good to specify some of the important centers of population in that district as well as others. Idumaea was the same as Edom, a country east of the Jordan. Tyre and Sidon were important cities of Phoenicia, a country bordering on the Mediterranean Sea. The fame of Jesus reached into all these places and people came from them to see him.

Mark 3:9

9. Small ship means a small boat that could take Jesus from the pressure of the crowd, and yet permit him to be seen and heard by the people.

Mark 3:10

0 This verse explains why the people thronged about Jesus.

Mark 3:11

1 Unclean spirits is another name for devils that afflicted the people.

Mark 3:12

2 See Mark 1:34 on why the unclean spirit was forbidden to preach Jesus.

Mark 3:13

3 Jesus called these men out of the group of disciples following him.

Mark 3:14

4 This is the appointment of the twelve apostles. They were expected to be with him continuously ex-cept as he would send them out on missions.

Mark 3:15

5 The word power is from EXOUSIA which means authority primarily, and Jesus bestowed it upon his apostles. In so doing he enabled them to heal sicknesses and cast out devils which would make their authority effective.

Mark 3:16-19

9 There are three of the Gospel accounts that give the list of the twelve apostles. The persons are the same but the names not always, since some of them had more than one name. For the sake of space the reader is asked to see the complete treatment of this subject at Matthew 10:4. Which also betrayed him was said prospectively as the betrayal of Jesus had not yet taken place.

Mark 3:20

0 Jesus was kept so busy teaching the people and administering to their afflictions that there was no opportunity for him and his apostles to have their meals.

Mark 3:21

1 His friends is rendered “those belonging to him” by the “Englishman’s Greek New Testament,” and that agrees with the marginal reading that says “kinsmen.” When they said He is beside himself they meant they thought he was carried away with the intensity of the situation. But Jesus continued his teaching and good work in spite of the apparent protest of his relations.

Mark 3:22

2 The scribes are explained at Matthew 13:52. They would not deny the fact of his casting out devils, but pretended to believe that he got his power for the work from Beelzebub (Satan).

Mark 3:23

3 The foolishness of their theory was shown by this question. Even a wicked being like Satan would not be working against himself.

Mark 3:24-25

5 The same point is made by supporting a kingdom that divided itself into opposing groups, for such a kingdom would soon be overthrown by the internal strife.

Mark 3:26

6 This is the same as verse 23.

Mark 3:27

7 The illustration is this. A man must overthrow another in order to plunder his house, and to do that he would have to be stronger than the man of the house. If Satan casts out Satan, then we have the foolish conclusion that Satan is stronger than Satan which is so absurd that no reply was possible.

Mark 3:28

8 This verse takes in every manner of sin that could be named except the one that will be designated in the next verse.

Mark 3:29

9 To blaspheme means to speak violent and evil things against another; it implies things said with the intention of insulting or injuring another. To be guilty of such a sin against the Holy Ghost (Spirit) meant to be without a chance of pardon.

Mark 3:30

0 The sin against the Holy Ghost was charged against these Jews because they said he hath an unclean spirit. This narrows the subject down to one item, thus ruling out all human efforts to imagine something that “surely is the ‘unpardonable’ sin if ever there was one.” For a complete discussion of this subject see Matthew 12:24-28, and the comments that are made upon those verses.

Mark 3:31

1 There came then. Verse 21 tells of the “friends” of Jesus who wanted to take charge of him but were not able to do so. Whether these family relatives were the ones meant in the former verse I cannot say, or perhaps they were anxious to attempt what the other relatives failed to accomplish. At any rate, they came as near as they could and tried to get the attention of Jesus.

Mark 3:32

2 The multitude tried to help them get his attention by telling him that it was his mother and brethren who wanted to talk to him.

Mark 3:33

3 The reply of Jesus was not intended as a slight upon his family but a mild rebuke for the crowd. It is as if he had said, “why should my mother and brethren be allowed to alter my work of salvation?”

Mark 3:34

4 Jesus prepared to point out the persons deserving more attention just then than his family relatives, and called attention to the crowd that had gathered closely about him, to whom he had been preaching the truth.

Mark 3:35

5 The same person (notice it is in singular number) could not be both sister and brother at the same time. The idea is, then, that doing the will of God is more important than being the fleshly relations of Christ.