Mark · Chapter 3

V. 1. He entered again into the synagogue-At Capernaum on the same day. Matthew 12:9; Luke 6:6.

Verse 1. A man there which had a withered hand.] See this explained on Matthew 12:10, &c., and on Luke 6:6, 10.

Verses 1-5. He entered again into the synagogue — Luke says, On another sabbath. The synagogue seems not to have been at Capernaum, but in some city which lay in his way as he went through Galilee. And there was a man which had a withered hand — His hand was not only withered, but contracted, as appears from verse 5. See the notes on Matthew 12:10-13. And they — The scribes and Pharisees, watched him — These men, being ever unfriendly to the Saviour, carefully attended to every thing he said and did, with an expectation of finding some matter of blame in him, by which they might blast his reputation with the people. Their pride, anger, and shame, after being so often put to silence, began now to ripen into malice. Luke observes, He knew their thoughts, their malicious designs. We may therefore see, in this instance, the greatness of our blessed Lord’s courage, who resolutely performed the benevolent action he had undertaken, notwithstanding he knew it would expose him to the fiercest resentment of these wicked men. And said to the man, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. He ordered him to stand forth and show himself to the congregation, that the sight of his distress might move them to pity him; and that they might be the more sensibly struck with the miracle, when they observed the wasted hand restored to perfect soundness in an instant. Then Jesus said, Is it lawful to do good, &c. — That he might expose the malice and superstition of these scribes and Pharisees, he appealed to the dictates of their own minds, whether it was not more lawful to do good on the sabbath days, than to do evil; to save life, than to kill. He meant, more lawful for him to save men’s lives, than for them to plot his death without the least provocation. But it is justly observed here by Dr. Campbell, that in the style of Scripture, the mere negation of any thing is often expressed by the affirmation of the contrary. Thus, Luke 14:26, not to love, or even to love less, is called, to hate; Matthew 11:25. not to reveal, is to hide; and here, not to do good, when we can, is to do evil; not to save, is to kill. From this, and many other passages of the New Testament, it may be justly deduced, as a standing principle of Christian ethics, that not to do the good which we have the opportunity and power to do, is, in a certain degree, the same as to do the contrary evil; and not to prevent mischief, when we can, the same as to commit it. Thus, also, Dr. Whitby: “Hence, it seems to follow, that he who doth not do good to his neighbour when he can, doth evil to him; it being a want of charity, and therefore evil, to neglect any opportunity of doing good, or showing kindness to any man in misery; and that not to preserve his life when it is in danger, is to transgress that precept which saith, Thou shalt not kill.” Our Lord’s words contained a severe, but just rebuke, which in the present circumstances must have been sensibly felt. Yet these men, pretending not to understand his meaning, held their peace — Being confounded, though not convinced, therefore he answered them with an argument which the dulness of stupidity could not possibly overlook, nor the peevishness of cavilling gainsay: What man that shall have one sheep, &c. — See on Matthew 12:11. Having uttered these convincing arguments and cutting reproofs, he looked round about on them, (Luke, on them all,) with anger, grieved at the hardness of their hearts — Showing at once his indignation at their wickedness, and his grief for their impenitence. See on Matthew as above. He knew his arguments did not prevail with them, because they were resisting the convictions of their own minds; and was both angry at their obstinacy, and grieved on account of the consequences of it; showing these just affections of his righteous spirit by his looks, that if possible an impression might be made either on them or on the spectators. He might in this, likewise, propose to teach us the just regulation of the passions and affections of our nature, which are not sinful in themselves, otherwise he who was without sin could not have been subject to them. The evil of them lies in their being excited by wrong objects, or by right objects in an improper degree. Thus Dr. Whitby: “Hence we learn that anger is not always sinful; this passion being found in him in whom was no sin. But then it must be noted, that anger is not properly defined by philosophers, orexiv antiluphsewv, a desire of revenge, or, of causing grief, to him who hath provoked or hath grieved us; for this desire of revenge is always evil; and though our Saviour was angry with the Pharisees for the hardness of their hearts, yet had he no desire to revenge this sin upon them, but had a great compassion for them, and desire to remove this evil.” Mr. Scott, who quotes a part of the above note properly adds, “Our Lord’s anger was not only not sinful, but it was a holy indignation, a perfectly right state of heart, and the want of it would have been a sinful defect. It would show a want of filial respect and affection for a son to hear, without emotion, his father’s character unjustly aspersed. Would it not, then, be a want of due reverence for God, to hear his name blasphemed, without feeling and expressing an indignant disapprobation? Vengeance belongs to the ruler exclusively; and he may grieve at the necessity imposed on him of thus expressing his disapprobation of crimes; but it is his duty. Eli ought to have shown anger as well as grief when informed of the vile conduct of his sons; and to have expressed it by severe coercive measures. Thus parents and masters, as well as magistrates, may sin, in not feeling and expressing just displeasure against those under their care: and anger is only sinful when it springs from selfishness and malevolence; when causeless, or above the cause; and when expressed by unhallowed words and actions.”

§ 34. — THE WITHERED HAND, 1-6.

(See notes on Matthew 12:9-14.)

1. Which had a withered hand — In which the natural moisture had become lost, and the strength of the sinews had departed.

CHAPTER 3. Verses 1-6. A man with a withered hand. — See the notes on Matthew 12:10-14. Into this interesting narrative St. Mark has introduced the additional circumstance, that he looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts. The ANGER was clearly a holy indignation at the hypocrisy which could plume itself upon a strict observance of the Sabbath, and yet suffer human beings to remain in misery, or to die, to be killed for want of help. But it was an emotion softened by GRIEF, a painful sympathy at the hardness of their hearts; not merely their want of compassion, although their superstition had blinded the natural feelings of pity toward these distressed creatures; but at their perversity of mind, their blindness of heart, as it is in the Vulgate, that stubborn determination to cling to their errors which rendered his instructions only the means of heightening their guilt. That the anger was the anger of holiness and love, is proved from the grief inflicted upon his spirit by their dangerous, and now almost hopeless, spiritual condition.

Verse 6. The Herodians. — See the note on Matthew 22:16.

V. 2. And they-The scribes and Pharisees, watched him, that they might accuse him-Pride, anger, and shame, after being so often put to silence, began now to ripen into malice.

Verse 2. They watched him] parethroun auton, they maliciously watched him. See Clarke on “Luke 14:1”.

Verses 1-5. He entered again into the synagogue — Luke says, On another sabbath. The synagogue seems not to have been at Capernaum, but in some city which lay in his way as he went through Galilee. And there was a man which had a withered hand — His hand was not only withered, but contracted, as appears from verse 5. See the notes on Matthew 12:10-13. And they — The scribes and Pharisees, watched him — These men, being ever unfriendly to the Saviour, carefully attended to every thing he said and did, with an expectation of finding some matter of blame in him, by which they might blast his reputation with the people. Their pride, anger, and shame, after being so often put to silence, began now to ripen into malice. Luke observes, He knew their thoughts, their malicious designs. We may therefore see, in this instance, the greatness of our blessed Lord’s courage, who resolutely performed the benevolent action he had undertaken, notwithstanding he knew it would expose him to the fiercest resentment of these wicked men. And said to the man, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. He ordered him to stand forth and show himself to the congregation, that the sight of his distress might move them to pity him; and that they might be the more sensibly struck with the miracle, when they observed the wasted hand restored to perfect soundness in an instant. Then Jesus said, Is it lawful to do good, &c. — That he might expose the malice and superstition of these scribes and Pharisees, he appealed to the dictates of their own minds, whether it was not more lawful to do good on the sabbath days, than to do evil; to save life, than to kill. He meant, more lawful for him to save men’s lives, than for them to plot his death without the least provocation. But it is justly observed here by Dr. Campbell, that in the style of Scripture, the mere negation of any thing is often expressed by the affirmation of the contrary. Thus, Luke 14:26, not to love, or even to love less, is called, to hate; Matthew 11:25. not to reveal, is to hide; and here, not to do good, when we can, is to do evil; not to save, is to kill. From this, and many other passages of the New Testament, it may be justly deduced, as a standing principle of Christian ethics, that not to do the good which we have the opportunity and power to do, is, in a certain degree, the same as to do the contrary evil; and not to prevent mischief, when we can, the same as to commit it. Thus, also, Dr. Whitby: “Hence, it seems to follow, that he who doth not do good to his neighbour when he can, doth evil to him; it being a want of charity, and therefore evil, to neglect any opportunity of doing good, or showing kindness to any man in misery; and that not to preserve his life when it is in danger, is to transgress that precept which saith, Thou shalt not kill.” Our Lord’s words contained a severe, but just rebuke, which in the present circumstances must have been sensibly felt. Yet these men, pretending not to understand his meaning, held their peace — Being confounded, though not convinced, therefore he answered them with an argument which the dulness of stupidity could not possibly overlook, nor the peevishness of cavilling gainsay: What man that shall have one sheep, &c. — See on Matthew 12:11. Having uttered these convincing arguments and cutting reproofs, he looked round about on them, (Luke, on them all,) with anger, grieved at the hardness of their hearts — Showing at once his indignation at their wickedness, and his grief for their impenitence. See on Matthew as above. He knew his arguments did not prevail with them, because they were resisting the convictions of their own minds; and was both angry at their obstinacy, and grieved on account of the consequences of it; showing these just affections of his righteous spirit by his looks, that if possible an impression might be made either on them or on the spectators. He might in this, likewise, propose to teach us the just regulation of the passions and affections of our nature, which are not sinful in themselves, otherwise he who was without sin could not have been subject to them. The evil of them lies in their being excited by wrong objects, or by right objects in an improper degree. Thus Dr. Whitby: “Hence we learn that anger is not always sinful; this passion being found in him in whom was no sin. But then it must be noted, that anger is not properly defined by philosophers, orexiv antiluphsewv, a desire of revenge, or, of causing grief, to him who hath provoked or hath grieved us; for this desire of revenge is always evil; and though our Saviour was angry with the Pharisees for the hardness of their hearts, yet had he no desire to revenge this sin upon them, but had a great compassion for them, and desire to remove this evil.” Mr. Scott, who quotes a part of the above note properly adds, “Our Lord’s anger was not only not sinful, but it was a holy indignation, a perfectly right state of heart, and the want of it would have been a sinful defect. It would show a want of filial respect and affection for a son to hear, without emotion, his father’s character unjustly aspersed. Would it not, then, be a want of due reverence for God, to hear his name blasphemed, without feeling and expressing an indignant disapprobation? Vengeance belongs to the ruler exclusively; and he may grieve at the necessity imposed on him of thus expressing his disapprobation of crimes; but it is his duty. Eli ought to have shown anger as well as grief when informed of the vile conduct of his sons; and to have expressed it by severe coercive measures. Thus parents and masters, as well as magistrates, may sin, in not feeling and expressing just displeasure against those under their care: and anger is only sinful when it springs from selfishness and malevolence; when causeless, or above the cause; and when expressed by unhallowed words and actions.”

2. Watched him — Kept their eye fixed upon him to detect something which they might construe to an evil meaning. It is thus that some minds place themselves when they come to view religion. They scan it, not to know the true will of God, and their duty in his sight, but to see if some ground of perversion cannot be found.

CHAPTER 3. Verses 1-6. A man with a withered hand. — See the notes on Matthew 12:10-14. Into this interesting narrative St. Mark has introduced the additional circumstance, that he looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts. The ANGER was clearly a holy indignation at the hypocrisy which could plume itself upon a strict observance of the Sabbath, and yet suffer human beings to remain in misery, or to die, to be killed for want of help. But it was an emotion softened by GRIEF, a painful sympathy at the hardness of their hearts; not merely their want of compassion, although their superstition had blinded the natural feelings of pity toward these distressed creatures; but at their perversity of mind, their blindness of heart, as it is in the Vulgate, that stubborn determination to cling to their errors which rendered his instructions only the means of heightening their guilt. That the anger was the anger of holiness and love, is proved from the grief inflicted upon his spirit by their dangerous, and now almost hopeless, spiritual condition.

Verse 6. The Herodians. — See the note on Matthew 22:16.

Verses 1-5. He entered again into the synagogue — Luke says, On another sabbath. The synagogue seems not to have been at Capernaum, but in some city which lay in his way as he went through Galilee. And there was a man which had a withered hand — His hand was not only withered, but contracted, as appears from verse 5. See the notes on Matthew 12:10-13. And they — The scribes and Pharisees, watched him — These men, being ever unfriendly to the Saviour, carefully attended to every thing he said and did, with an expectation of finding some matter of blame in him, by which they might blast his reputation with the people. Their pride, anger, and shame, after being so often put to silence, began now to ripen into malice. Luke observes, He knew their thoughts, their malicious designs. We may therefore see, in this instance, the greatness of our blessed Lord’s courage, who resolutely performed the benevolent action he had undertaken, notwithstanding he knew it would expose him to the fiercest resentment of these wicked men. And said to the man, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. He ordered him to stand forth and show himself to the congregation, that the sight of his distress might move them to pity him; and that they might be the more sensibly struck with the miracle, when they observed the wasted hand restored to perfect soundness in an instant. Then Jesus said, Is it lawful to do good, &c. — That he might expose the malice and superstition of these scribes and Pharisees, he appealed to the dictates of their own minds, whether it was not more lawful to do good on the sabbath days, than to do evil; to save life, than to kill. He meant, more lawful for him to save men’s lives, than for them to plot his death without the least provocation. But it is justly observed here by Dr. Campbell, that in the style of Scripture, the mere negation of any thing is often expressed by the affirmation of the contrary. Thus, Luke 14:26, not to love, or even to love less, is called, to hate; Matthew 11:25. not to reveal, is to hide; and here, not to do good, when we can, is to do evil; not to save, is to kill. From this, and many other passages of the New Testament, it may be justly deduced, as a standing principle of Christian ethics, that not to do the good which we have the opportunity and power to do, is, in a certain degree, the same as to do the contrary evil; and not to prevent mischief, when we can, the same as to commit it. Thus, also, Dr. Whitby: “Hence, it seems to follow, that he who doth not do good to his neighbour when he can, doth evil to him; it being a want of charity, and therefore evil, to neglect any opportunity of doing good, or showing kindness to any man in misery; and that not to preserve his life when it is in danger, is to transgress that precept which saith, Thou shalt not kill.” Our Lord’s words contained a severe, but just rebuke, which in the present circumstances must have been sensibly felt. Yet these men, pretending not to understand his meaning, held their peace — Being confounded, though not convinced, therefore he answered them with an argument which the dulness of stupidity could not possibly overlook, nor the peevishness of cavilling gainsay: What man that shall have one sheep, &c. — See on Matthew 12:11. Having uttered these convincing arguments and cutting reproofs, he looked round about on them, (Luke, on them all,) with anger, grieved at the hardness of their hearts — Showing at once his indignation at their wickedness, and his grief for their impenitence. See on Matthew as above. He knew his arguments did not prevail with them, because they were resisting the convictions of their own minds; and was both angry at their obstinacy, and grieved on account of the consequences of it; showing these just affections of his righteous spirit by his looks, that if possible an impression might be made either on them or on the spectators. He might in this, likewise, propose to teach us the just regulation of the passions and affections of our nature, which are not sinful in themselves, otherwise he who was without sin could not have been subject to them. The evil of them lies in their being excited by wrong objects, or by right objects in an improper degree. Thus Dr. Whitby: “Hence we learn that anger is not always sinful; this passion being found in him in whom was no sin. But then it must be noted, that anger is not properly defined by philosophers, orexiv antiluphsewv, a desire of revenge, or, of causing grief, to him who hath provoked or hath grieved us; for this desire of revenge is always evil; and though our Saviour was angry with the Pharisees for the hardness of their hearts, yet had he no desire to revenge this sin upon them, but had a great compassion for them, and desire to remove this evil.” Mr. Scott, who quotes a part of the above note properly adds, “Our Lord’s anger was not only not sinful, but it was a holy indignation, a perfectly right state of heart, and the want of it would have been a sinful defect. It would show a want of filial respect and affection for a son to hear, without emotion, his father’s character unjustly aspersed. Would it not, then, be a want of due reverence for God, to hear his name blasphemed, without feeling and expressing an indignant disapprobation? Vengeance belongs to the ruler exclusively; and he may grieve at the necessity imposed on him of thus expressing his disapprobation of crimes; but it is his duty. Eli ought to have shown anger as well as grief when informed of the vile conduct of his sons; and to have expressed it by severe coercive measures. Thus parents and masters, as well as magistrates, may sin, in not feeling and expressing just displeasure against those under their care: and anger is only sinful when it springs from selfishness and malevolence; when causeless, or above the cause; and when expressed by unhallowed words and actions.”

3. Stand forth — As Jesus is watched by them, he will show them that he intends no concealment and no dark juggle.

CHAPTER 3. Verses 1-6. A man with a withered hand. — See the notes on Matthew 12:10-14. Into this interesting narrative St. Mark has introduced the additional circumstance, that he looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts. The ANGER was clearly a holy indignation at the hypocrisy which could plume itself upon a strict observance of the Sabbath, and yet suffer human beings to remain in misery, or to die, to be killed for want of help. But it was an emotion softened by GRIEF, a painful sympathy at the hardness of their hearts; not merely their want of compassion, although their superstition had blinded the natural feelings of pity toward these distressed creatures; but at their perversity of mind, their blindness of heart, as it is in the Vulgate, that stubborn determination to cling to their errors which rendered his instructions only the means of heightening their guilt. That the anger was the anger of holiness and love, is proved from the grief inflicted upon his spirit by their dangerous, and now almost hopeless, spiritual condition.

Verse 6. The Herodians. — See the note on Matthew 22:16.

V. 4. Is it lawful to save life or to kill?-Which he knew they were seeking occasion to do.

But they held their peace-Being confounded, though not convinced.

Verse 4. To do good-or-evil? to save life, or to kill?] It was a maxim with the Jews, as it should be with all men, that he who neglected to preserve life when it was in his power, was to be reputed a murderer. Every principle of sound justice requires that he should be considered in this light. But, if this be the case, how many murderers are there against whom there is no law but the law of God!

To kill-but instead of apokteinai, several MSS. and versions have apolesai to destroy. Wetstein and Griesbach quote Theophylact for this reading; but it is not in my copy. Paris edit. 1635.

Verses 1-5. He entered again into the synagogue — Luke says, On another sabbath. The synagogue seems not to have been at Capernaum, but in some city which lay in his way as he went through Galilee. And there was a man which had a withered hand — His hand was not only withered, but contracted, as appears from verse 5. See the notes on Matthew 12:10-13. And they — The scribes and Pharisees, watched him — These men, being ever unfriendly to the Saviour, carefully attended to every thing he said and did, with an expectation of finding some matter of blame in him, by which they might blast his reputation with the people. Their pride, anger, and shame, after being so often put to silence, began now to ripen into malice. Luke observes, He knew their thoughts, their malicious designs. We may therefore see, in this instance, the greatness of our blessed Lord’s courage, who resolutely performed the benevolent action he had undertaken, notwithstanding he knew it would expose him to the fiercest resentment of these wicked men. And said to the man, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. He ordered him to stand forth and show himself to the congregation, that the sight of his distress might move them to pity him; and that they might be the more sensibly struck with the miracle, when they observed the wasted hand restored to perfect soundness in an instant. Then Jesus said, Is it lawful to do good, &c. — That he might expose the malice and superstition of these scribes and Pharisees, he appealed to the dictates of their own minds, whether it was not more lawful to do good on the sabbath days, than to do evil; to save life, than to kill. He meant, more lawful for him to save men’s lives, than for them to plot his death without the least provocation. But it is justly observed here by Dr. Campbell, that in the style of Scripture, the mere negation of any thing is often expressed by the affirmation of the contrary. Thus, Luke 14:26, not to love, or even to love less, is called, to hate; Matthew 11:25. not to reveal, is to hide; and here, not to do good, when we can, is to do evil; not to save, is to kill. From this, and many other passages of the New Testament, it may be justly deduced, as a standing principle of Christian ethics, that not to do the good which we have the opportunity and power to do, is, in a certain degree, the same as to do the contrary evil; and not to prevent mischief, when we can, the same as to commit it. Thus, also, Dr. Whitby: “Hence, it seems to follow, that he who doth not do good to his neighbour when he can, doth evil to him; it being a want of charity, and therefore evil, to neglect any opportunity of doing good, or showing kindness to any man in misery; and that not to preserve his life when it is in danger, is to transgress that precept which saith, Thou shalt not kill.” Our Lord’s words contained a severe, but just rebuke, which in the present circumstances must have been sensibly felt. Yet these men, pretending not to understand his meaning, held their peace — Being confounded, though not convinced, therefore he answered them with an argument which the dulness of stupidity could not possibly overlook, nor the peevishness of cavilling gainsay: What man that shall have one sheep, &c. — See on Matthew 12:11. Having uttered these convincing arguments and cutting reproofs, he looked round about on them, (Luke, on them all,) with anger, grieved at the hardness of their hearts — Showing at once his indignation at their wickedness, and his grief for their impenitence. See on Matthew as above. He knew his arguments did not prevail with them, because they were resisting the convictions of their own minds; and was both angry at their obstinacy, and grieved on account of the consequences of it; showing these just affections of his righteous spirit by his looks, that if possible an impression might be made either on them or on the spectators. He might in this, likewise, propose to teach us the just regulation of the passions and affections of our nature, which are not sinful in themselves, otherwise he who was without sin could not have been subject to them. The evil of them lies in their being excited by wrong objects, or by right objects in an improper degree. Thus Dr. Whitby: “Hence we learn that anger is not always sinful; this passion being found in him in whom was no sin. But then it must be noted, that anger is not properly defined by philosophers, orexiv antiluphsewv, a desire of revenge, or, of causing grief, to him who hath provoked or hath grieved us; for this desire of revenge is always evil; and though our Saviour was angry with the Pharisees for the hardness of their hearts, yet had he no desire to revenge this sin upon them, but had a great compassion for them, and desire to remove this evil.” Mr. Scott, who quotes a part of the above note properly adds, “Our Lord’s anger was not only not sinful, but it was a holy indignation, a perfectly right state of heart, and the want of it would have been a sinful defect. It would show a want of filial respect and affection for a son to hear, without emotion, his father’s character unjustly aspersed. Would it not, then, be a want of due reverence for God, to hear his name blasphemed, without feeling and expressing an indignant disapprobation? Vengeance belongs to the ruler exclusively; and he may grieve at the necessity imposed on him of thus expressing his disapprobation of crimes; but it is his duty. Eli ought to have shown anger as well as grief when informed of the vile conduct of his sons; and to have expressed it by severe coercive measures. Thus parents and masters, as well as magistrates, may sin, in not feeling and expressing just displeasure against those under their care: and anger is only sinful when it springs from selfishness and malevolence; when causeless, or above the cause; and when expressed by unhallowed words and actions.”

4. To do good — As I now purpose to do to this man. Or to do evil — As you purpose to do to me. He intended to save life, nay, restore life to the withered hand. They sought to destroy life. He was on the side of goodness and mercy; they on the side of malice and murder. But our Lord’s purpose is to show them that they, with their laborious schemes of malice, are truly the Sabbath breakers. They held their peace — The silence of self-condemnation.

CHAPTER 3. Verses 1-6. A man with a withered hand. — See the notes on Matthew 12:10-14. Into this interesting narrative St. Mark has introduced the additional circumstance, that he looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts. The ANGER was clearly a holy indignation at the hypocrisy which could plume itself upon a strict observance of the Sabbath, and yet suffer human beings to remain in misery, or to die, to be killed for want of help. But it was an emotion softened by GRIEF, a painful sympathy at the hardness of their hearts; not merely their want of compassion, although their superstition had blinded the natural feelings of pity toward these distressed creatures; but at their perversity of mind, their blindness of heart, as it is in the Vulgate, that stubborn determination to cling to their errors which rendered his instructions only the means of heightening their guilt. That the anger was the anger of holiness and love, is proved from the grief inflicted upon his spirit by their dangerous, and now almost hopeless, spiritual condition.

Verse 6. The Herodians. — See the note on Matthew 22:16.

V. 5. Looking round upon them with anger, being grieved-Angry at the sin, grieved at the sinner; the true standard of Christian anger. But who can separate anger at sin from anger at the sinner? None but a true believer in Christ.

Verse 5. With anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts] These words are not found in any of the other evangelists. For pwrwsei hardness, or rather callousness, the Codex Bezæ, and four of the Itala, read nekrwsei, deadness; the Vulgate and some of the Itala, cæcitate, blindness. Join all these together, and they will scarcely express the fulness of this people’s wretchedness. By a long resistance to the grace and Spirit of God, their hearts had become callous; they were past feeling. By a long opposition to the light of God, they became dark in their understanding, were blinded by the deceitfulness of sin, and thus were past seeing. By a long continuance in the practice of every evil work, they were cut off from all union with God, the fountain of spiritual life; and, becoming dead in trespasses and sins, they were incapable of any resurrection but through a miraculous power of God.

With anger. What was the anger which our Lord felt? That which proceeded from excessive grief, which was occasioned by their obstinate stupidity and blindness: therefore it was no uneasy passion, but an excess of generous grief.

Whole as the other.] This is omitted by the best MSS. and versions. Grotius, Mill, and Bengel approve of the omission, and Griesbach leaves it out of the text.

Verses 1-5. He entered again into the synagogue — Luke says, On another sabbath. The synagogue seems not to have been at Capernaum, but in some city which lay in his way as he went through Galilee. And there was a man which had a withered hand — His hand was not only withered, but contracted, as appears from verse 5. See the notes on Matthew 12:10-13. And they — The scribes and Pharisees, watched him — These men, being ever unfriendly to the Saviour, carefully attended to every thing he said and did, with an expectation of finding some matter of blame in him, by which they might blast his reputation with the people. Their pride, anger, and shame, after being so often put to silence, began now to ripen into malice. Luke observes, He knew their thoughts, their malicious designs. We may therefore see, in this instance, the greatness of our blessed Lord’s courage, who resolutely performed the benevolent action he had undertaken, notwithstanding he knew it would expose him to the fiercest resentment of these wicked men. And said to the man, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. He ordered him to stand forth and show himself to the congregation, that the sight of his distress might move them to pity him; and that they might be the more sensibly struck with the miracle, when they observed the wasted hand restored to perfect soundness in an instant. Then Jesus said, Is it lawful to do good, &c. — That he might expose the malice and superstition of these scribes and Pharisees, he appealed to the dictates of their own minds, whether it was not more lawful to do good on the sabbath days, than to do evil; to save life, than to kill. He meant, more lawful for him to save men’s lives, than for them to plot his death without the least provocation. But it is justly observed here by Dr. Campbell, that in the style of Scripture, the mere negation of any thing is often expressed by the affirmation of the contrary. Thus, Luke 14:26, not to love, or even to love less, is called, to hate; Matthew 11:25. not to reveal, is to hide; and here, not to do good, when we can, is to do evil; not to save, is to kill. From this, and many other passages of the New Testament, it may be justly deduced, as a standing principle of Christian ethics, that not to do the good which we have the opportunity and power to do, is, in a certain degree, the same as to do the contrary evil; and not to prevent mischief, when we can, the same as to commit it. Thus, also, Dr. Whitby: “Hence, it seems to follow, that he who doth not do good to his neighbour when he can, doth evil to him; it being a want of charity, and therefore evil, to neglect any opportunity of doing good, or showing kindness to any man in misery; and that not to preserve his life when it is in danger, is to transgress that precept which saith, Thou shalt not kill.” Our Lord’s words contained a severe, but just rebuke, which in the present circumstances must have been sensibly felt. Yet these men, pretending not to understand his meaning, held their peace — Being confounded, though not convinced, therefore he answered them with an argument which the dulness of stupidity could not possibly overlook, nor the peevishness of cavilling gainsay: What man that shall have one sheep, &c. — See on Matthew 12:11. Having uttered these convincing arguments and cutting reproofs, he looked round about on them, (Luke, on them all,) with anger, grieved at the hardness of their hearts — Showing at once his indignation at their wickedness, and his grief for their impenitence. See on Matthew as above. He knew his arguments did not prevail with them, because they were resisting the convictions of their own minds; and was both angry at their obstinacy, and grieved on account of the consequences of it; showing these just affections of his righteous spirit by his looks, that if possible an impression might be made either on them or on the spectators. He might in this, likewise, propose to teach us the just regulation of the passions and affections of our nature, which are not sinful in themselves, otherwise he who was without sin could not have been subject to them. The evil of them lies in their being excited by wrong objects, or by right objects in an improper degree. Thus Dr. Whitby: “Hence we learn that anger is not always sinful; this passion being found in him in whom was no sin. But then it must be noted, that anger is not properly defined by philosophers, orexiv antiluphsewv, a desire of revenge, or, of causing grief, to him who hath provoked or hath grieved us; for this desire of revenge is always evil; and though our Saviour was angry with the Pharisees for the hardness of their hearts, yet had he no desire to revenge this sin upon them, but had a great compassion for them, and desire to remove this evil.” Mr. Scott, who quotes a part of the above note properly adds, “Our Lord’s anger was not only not sinful, but it was a holy indignation, a perfectly right state of heart, and the want of it would have been a sinful defect. It would show a want of filial respect and affection for a son to hear, without emotion, his father’s character unjustly aspersed. Would it not, then, be a want of due reverence for God, to hear his name blasphemed, without feeling and expressing an indignant disapprobation? Vengeance belongs to the ruler exclusively; and he may grieve at the necessity imposed on him of thus expressing his disapprobation of crimes; but it is his duty. Eli ought to have shown anger as well as grief when informed of the vile conduct of his sons; and to have expressed it by severe coercive measures. Thus parents and masters, as well as magistrates, may sin, in not feeling and expressing just displeasure against those under their care: and anger is only sinful when it springs from selfishness and malevolence; when causeless, or above the cause; and when expressed by unhallowed words and actions.”

5. Looked round about on them with anger — Before proceeding to the performance of the miracle he makes a full pause as they stand in a silent circle before him. They are fixed in the obdurate silence of hatred. For one moment the Saviour is a Judge. There is one glance of that eye which in the final day will rive his adversaries. Some have wondered that the Lord should be angry. But justice has its rightful wrath for guilt. Right is terribly hostile to wrong. God is angry with the wicked every day. All government as it sits upon the judgment seat has this true wrathful anger. Our Lord looked full upon these malicious beings as they stood using their powers in the cause of evil and consecrating themselves to the eternal service of the devil, and he felt that they were sinners deserving of God’s just judgment. Grieved — And so the pure and Holy Spirit of God may be grieved, vexed, made angry, and caused to depart. Sorrow and pity for their wilfulness and their ruin mingles with the stern recognition that they deserve the ruin they incur. Hardness of their hearts — A determination to allow no proof to convince and no good to soften them.

Stretch forth thine hand — The bodily healings performed by our Lord were ever a symbol of the cures he works as great physician on the fountain malady in the soul — sin. Depraved man is withered in every limb of his soul; impotent by fallen nature. Yet just as this man is commanded to put forth his strengthless hand, so is the strengthless soul commanded to put forth a powerful act. How? Because the grace that gives he command therewith supplies the underlying power “to will and to do.” Yet as the man was not made either to will or do the act, as the performance though empowered was not secured, but left to free agency, so does the grace of God simply enable the act, but not absolutely secure its performance. Whole as the other — Both hands testified to the reality of the miracle. But the reality of the miracle is not denied. In the very charge that it is done by diabolical power it is admitted to be done.

§ 34. — JESUS AND THE MULTITUDES AT THE SEA OF TIBERIAS, 7-12. (See notes on Matthew 12:15-21.

CHAPTER 3. Verses 1-6. A man with a withered hand. — See the notes on Matthew 12:10-14. Into this interesting narrative St. Mark has introduced the additional circumstance, that he looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts. The ANGER was clearly a holy indignation at the hypocrisy which could plume itself upon a strict observance of the Sabbath, and yet suffer human beings to remain in misery, or to die, to be killed for want of help. But it was an emotion softened by GRIEF, a painful sympathy at the hardness of their hearts; not merely their want of compassion, although their superstition had blinded the natural feelings of pity toward these distressed creatures; but at their perversity of mind, their blindness of heart, as it is in the Vulgate, that stubborn determination to cling to their errors which rendered his instructions only the means of heightening their guilt. That the anger was the anger of holiness and love, is proved from the grief inflicted upon his spirit by their dangerous, and now almost hopeless, spiritual condition.

Verse 6. The Herodians. — See the note on Matthew 22:16.

V. 6. The Pharisees going out-Probably leaving the scribes to watch him still:

took counsel with the Herodians-as bitter as they usually were against each other.

Verse 6. Herodians] For an account of these, see the note on Matthew 16:1; 22:16.

Verses 6-12. And the Pharisees went forth, &c. — From Matthew’s observing that they held a council against him, it seems probable that those of them, with the scribes, who were present at this miracle, were members of the sanhedrim, or great council; with the Herodians — As bitter as they and the Pharisees usually were against each other. How they might destroy him — For to such a pitch was their anger raised, that nothing but his life would satisfy them. But Jesus withdrew himself — Knowing their designs, he retired into Galilee, where he preached the word, and wrought so many miracles, that his fame was spread abroad more than ever, and great multitudes were gathered round him from all parts; not only from Judea, but from Idumea, the natives of which had now professed the Jewish religion above one hundred and fifty years; and from beyond Jordan — The regions that lay east of that river; and they about Tyre and Sidon — The Israelites who lived in those coasts. And he spake, that a small ship should wait on him — Should be in readiness near him; because of the multitude which was now flocking around him; lest they should throng him — Namely, in a manner that would be very inconvenient to him, and would prevent great numbers from either seeing his miracles or hearing his discourses. For he had healed many — Matthew, he healed them all, namely, that applied to him. Insomuch that they pressed upon him — Gr. wste epipiptein autw, so that they rushed, or fell upon him. The expression signifies, that they were ready to drive each other upon him, so that those nearer him could hardly stand, being pressed forward by those behind. For to touch him, as many as had plagues — Gr. mastigav, scourges, as the word properly signifies. Those very painful and afflictive disorders seem to be intended, which were frequently sent, or at least permitted of God, as a scourge or punishment of sin. And unclean spirits — That is, those who were possessed by them — when they saw him — Even though they had been entire strangers to him; fell down before him — In a posture of submission and homage; and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God — That is, the true Messiah that was to come into the world. And he charged them that they should not make him known — It was not the time yet; nor were they fit preachers. For a further explanation of this passage, see notes on Matthew 12:14-21.

6. Straightway — The Greek word for straightway is a great favourite with Mark. It is used by him (translated variously) eight times in the first chapter, and thirty-nine times in the other fifteen chapters. Herodians — See notice on Matthew 12:14.

CHAPTER 3. Verses 1-6. A man with a withered hand. — See the notes on Matthew 12:10-14. Into this interesting narrative St. Mark has introduced the additional circumstance, that he looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts. The ANGER was clearly a holy indignation at the hypocrisy which could plume itself upon a strict observance of the Sabbath, and yet suffer human beings to remain in misery, or to die, to be killed for want of help. But it was an emotion softened by GRIEF, a painful sympathy at the hardness of their hearts; not merely their want of compassion, although their superstition had blinded the natural feelings of pity toward these distressed creatures; but at their perversity of mind, their blindness of heart, as it is in the Vulgate, that stubborn determination to cling to their errors which rendered his instructions only the means of heightening their guilt. That the anger was the anger of holiness and love, is proved from the grief inflicted upon his spirit by their dangerous, and now almost hopeless, spiritual condition.

Verse 6. The Herodians. — See the note on Matthew 22:16.

Verse 7. Galilee] See Matthew 4:13, 15.

Verses 6-12. And the Pharisees went forth, &c. — From Matthew’s observing that they held a council against him, it seems probable that those of them, with the scribes, who were present at this miracle, were members of the sanhedrim, or great council; with the Herodians — As bitter as they and the Pharisees usually were against each other. How they might destroy him — For to such a pitch was their anger raised, that nothing but his life would satisfy them. But Jesus withdrew himself — Knowing their designs, he retired into Galilee, where he preached the word, and wrought so many miracles, that his fame was spread abroad more than ever, and great multitudes were gathered round him from all parts; not only from Judea, but from Idumea, the natives of which had now professed the Jewish religion above one hundred and fifty years; and from beyond Jordan — The regions that lay east of that river; and they about Tyre and Sidon — The Israelites who lived in those coasts. And he spake, that a small ship should wait on him — Should be in readiness near him; because of the multitude which was now flocking around him; lest they should throng him — Namely, in a manner that would be very inconvenient to him, and would prevent great numbers from either seeing his miracles or hearing his discourses. For he had healed many — Matthew, he healed them all, namely, that applied to him. Insomuch that they pressed upon him — Gr. wste epipiptein autw, so that they rushed, or fell upon him. The expression signifies, that they were ready to drive each other upon him, so that those nearer him could hardly stand, being pressed forward by those behind. For to touch him, as many as had plagues — Gr. mastigav, scourges, as the word properly signifies. Those very painful and afflictive disorders seem to be intended, which were frequently sent, or at least permitted of God, as a scourge or punishment of sin. And unclean spirits — That is, those who were possessed by them — when they saw him — Even though they had been entire strangers to him; fell down before him — In a posture of submission and homage; and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God — That is, the true Messiah that was to come into the world. And he charged them that they should not make him known — It was not the time yet; nor were they fit preachers. For a further explanation of this passage, see notes on Matthew 12:14-21.

V. 8. From Idumea-The natives of which had now professed the Jewish religion above a hundred and fifty years.

They about Tyre and Sidon-The Israelites who lived in those coasts.

Verse 8. Tyre-Sidon, &c.] See Matthew 11:21.

When they had heard what great things he did, came unto him.] So, if Christ be persecuted and abandoned by the wicked, there are a multitude of pious souls who earnestly seek and follow him. He who labours for God will always find more than he loses, in the midst of all his contradictions and persecutions.

Verses 6-12. And the Pharisees went forth, &c. — From Matthew’s observing that they held a council against him, it seems probable that those of them, with the scribes, who were present at this miracle, were members of the sanhedrim, or great council; with the Herodians — As bitter as they and the Pharisees usually were against each other. How they might destroy him — For to such a pitch was their anger raised, that nothing but his life would satisfy them. But Jesus withdrew himself — Knowing their designs, he retired into Galilee, where he preached the word, and wrought so many miracles, that his fame was spread abroad more than ever, and great multitudes were gathered round him from all parts; not only from Judea, but from Idumea, the natives of which had now professed the Jewish religion above one hundred and fifty years; and from beyond Jordan — The regions that lay east of that river; and they about Tyre and Sidon — The Israelites who lived in those coasts. And he spake, that a small ship should wait on him — Should be in readiness near him; because of the multitude which was now flocking around him; lest they should throng him — Namely, in a manner that would be very inconvenient to him, and would prevent great numbers from either seeing his miracles or hearing his discourses. For he had healed many — Matthew, he healed them all, namely, that applied to him. Insomuch that they pressed upon him — Gr. wste epipiptein autw, so that they rushed, or fell upon him. The expression signifies, that they were ready to drive each other upon him, so that those nearer him could hardly stand, being pressed forward by those behind. For to touch him, as many as had plagues — Gr. mastigav, scourges, as the word properly signifies. Those very painful and afflictive disorders seem to be intended, which were frequently sent, or at least permitted of God, as a scourge or punishment of sin. And unclean spirits — That is, those who were possessed by them — when they saw him — Even though they had been entire strangers to him; fell down before him — In a posture of submission and homage; and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God — That is, the true Messiah that was to come into the world. And he charged them that they should not make him known — It was not the time yet; nor were they fit preachers. For a further explanation of this passage, see notes on Matthew 12:14-21.

8. Idumea — This was the ancient Edom. It lay south of Palestine. Herod the Great was by descent an Idumean. Many Jews lived in the country, but it can hardly be inferred that these who now followed Jesus had heard of him and came from that distance. Jews from Idumea being in Galilee followed the Saviour on account of his great and merciful miracles.

Verse 9. A small ship] ploiarion. The lytil boot, Old English MS. It was doubtless something of the boat kind, which probably belonged to some of the disciples. Our Lord was at this time teaching by the sea of Galilee. The word ship is utterly improper in many places of our translation, and tends to mislead the people.

Verses 6-12. And the Pharisees went forth, &c. — From Matthew’s observing that they held a council against him, it seems probable that those of them, with the scribes, who were present at this miracle, were members of the sanhedrim, or great council; with the Herodians — As bitter as they and the Pharisees usually were against each other. How they might destroy him — For to such a pitch was their anger raised, that nothing but his life would satisfy them. But Jesus withdrew himself — Knowing their designs, he retired into Galilee, where he preached the word, and wrought so many miracles, that his fame was spread abroad more than ever, and great multitudes were gathered round him from all parts; not only from Judea, but from Idumea, the natives of which had now professed the Jewish religion above one hundred and fifty years; and from beyond Jordan — The regions that lay east of that river; and they about Tyre and Sidon — The Israelites who lived in those coasts. And he spake, that a small ship should wait on him — Should be in readiness near him; because of the multitude which was now flocking around him; lest they should throng him — Namely, in a manner that would be very inconvenient to him, and would prevent great numbers from either seeing his miracles or hearing his discourses. For he had healed many — Matthew, he healed them all, namely, that applied to him. Insomuch that they pressed upon him — Gr. wste epipiptein autw, so that they rushed, or fell upon him. The expression signifies, that they were ready to drive each other upon him, so that those nearer him could hardly stand, being pressed forward by those behind. For to touch him, as many as had plagues — Gr. mastigav, scourges, as the word properly signifies. Those very painful and afflictive disorders seem to be intended, which were frequently sent, or at least permitted of God, as a scourge or punishment of sin. And unclean spirits — That is, those who were possessed by them — when they saw him — Even though they had been entire strangers to him; fell down before him — In a posture of submission and homage; and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God — That is, the true Messiah that was to come into the world. And he charged them that they should not make him known — It was not the time yet; nor were they fit preachers. For a further explanation of this passage, see notes on Matthew 12:14-21.

9. A small ship — A fishing boat. The Lake of Gennesaret was too small for what is called a ship. Should wait on him — To be in readiness to receive him. This keeping a boat in readiness enabled Jesus to let out upon the lake in case the pressure was too great, but it does not appear that the boat was really used. There seems to be no immediate connection with the ship mentioned in Mark 4:1. Should throng him — Should press upon him inconveniently with their crowds. So they did on a former occasion, so as to drive him into the desert. Mark 1:45.

V. 10. Plagues or scourges (so the Greek word properly means) seem to be those very painful or afflictive disorders which were frequently sent, or at least permitted of God, as a scourge or punishment of sin.

Verse 10. They pressed upon him] Rushed upon him,

epipiptein-through eagerness to have their spiritual and bodily maladies immediately removed.

Plagues.] Rather disorders, mastigav; properly such disorders as were inflicted by the Lord. The word plague also tends to mislead.

Verses 6-12. And the Pharisees went forth, &c. — From Matthew’s observing that they held a council against him, it seems probable that those of them, with the scribes, who were present at this miracle, were members of the sanhedrim, or great council; with the Herodians — As bitter as they and the Pharisees usually were against each other. How they might destroy him — For to such a pitch was their anger raised, that nothing but his life would satisfy them. But Jesus withdrew himself — Knowing their designs, he retired into Galilee, where he preached the word, and wrought so many miracles, that his fame was spread abroad more than ever, and great multitudes were gathered round him from all parts; not only from Judea, but from Idumea, the natives of which had now professed the Jewish religion above one hundred and fifty years; and from beyond Jordan — The regions that lay east of that river; and they about Tyre and Sidon — The Israelites who lived in those coasts. And he spake, that a small ship should wait on him — Should be in readiness near him; because of the multitude which was now flocking around him; lest they should throng him — Namely, in a manner that would be very inconvenient to him, and would prevent great numbers from either seeing his miracles or hearing his discourses. For he had healed many — Matthew, he healed them all, namely, that applied to him. Insomuch that they pressed upon him — Gr. wste epipiptein autw, so that they rushed, or fell upon him. The expression signifies, that they were ready to drive each other upon him, so that those nearer him could hardly stand, being pressed forward by those behind. For to touch him, as many as had plagues — Gr. mastigav, scourges, as the word properly signifies. Those very painful and afflictive disorders seem to be intended, which were frequently sent, or at least permitted of God, as a scourge or punishment of sin. And unclean spirits — That is, those who were possessed by them — when they saw him — Even though they had been entire strangers to him; fell down before him — In a posture of submission and homage; and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God — That is, the true Messiah that was to come into the world. And he charged them that they should not make him known — It was not the time yet; nor were they fit preachers. For a further explanation of this passage, see notes on Matthew 12:14-21.

10. Plagues — Diseases recognized by the evangelist as the result of sin. Such is, in truth, the source of all disease.

Verse 11. Thou art the Son of God.] Two MSS., and the later Syriac, have, Thou art the Christ, the Son of God. One of Stephens’s MSS. has, Thou art the Holy One of God. A MS. in the library of Leicester has, su ei o qeov, uiov, Thou art GOD, the Son. This is an uncommon reading, which is not confirmed by any MS. yet discovered.

Verses 6-12. And the Pharisees went forth, &c. — From Matthew’s observing that they held a council against him, it seems probable that those of them, with the scribes, who were present at this miracle, were members of the sanhedrim, or great council; with the Herodians — As bitter as they and the Pharisees usually were against each other. How they might destroy him — For to such a pitch was their anger raised, that nothing but his life would satisfy them. But Jesus withdrew himself — Knowing their designs, he retired into Galilee, where he preached the word, and wrought so many miracles, that his fame was spread abroad more than ever, and great multitudes were gathered round him from all parts; not only from Judea, but from Idumea, the natives of which had now professed the Jewish religion above one hundred and fifty years; and from beyond Jordan — The regions that lay east of that river; and they about Tyre and Sidon — The Israelites who lived in those coasts. And he spake, that a small ship should wait on him — Should be in readiness near him; because of the multitude which was now flocking around him; lest they should throng him — Namely, in a manner that would be very inconvenient to him, and would prevent great numbers from either seeing his miracles or hearing his discourses. For he had healed many — Matthew, he healed them all, namely, that applied to him. Insomuch that they pressed upon him — Gr. wste epipiptein autw, so that they rushed, or fell upon him. The expression signifies, that they were ready to drive each other upon him, so that those nearer him could hardly stand, being pressed forward by those behind. For to touch him, as many as had plagues — Gr. mastigav, scourges, as the word properly signifies. Those very painful and afflictive disorders seem to be intended, which were frequently sent, or at least permitted of God, as a scourge or punishment of sin. And unclean spirits — That is, those who were possessed by them — when they saw him — Even though they had been entire strangers to him; fell down before him — In a posture of submission and homage; and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God — That is, the true Messiah that was to come into the world. And he charged them that they should not make him known — It was not the time yet; nor were they fit preachers. For a further explanation of this passage, see notes on Matthew 12:14-21.

11. Thou art the Son of God — See notes on Mark 1:24-26. Our Lord accepted not devils for preachers. They so mingled falsehood with their truth that he who listens to them for the truth’s sake will be led away by their lies. All the testimony Jesus would have from them was given by their disclosing their infernal presence and disappearing at his command.

V. 12. He charged them not to make him known-It was not the time: nor were they fit preachers.

Verses 6-12. And the Pharisees went forth, &c. — From Matthew’s observing that they held a council against him, it seems probable that those of them, with the scribes, who were present at this miracle, were members of the sanhedrim, or great council; with the Herodians — As bitter as they and the Pharisees usually were against each other. How they might destroy him — For to such a pitch was their anger raised, that nothing but his life would satisfy them. But Jesus withdrew himself — Knowing their designs, he retired into Galilee, where he preached the word, and wrought so many miracles, that his fame was spread abroad more than ever, and great multitudes were gathered round him from all parts; not only from Judea, but from Idumea, the natives of which had now professed the Jewish religion above one hundred and fifty years; and from beyond Jordan — The regions that lay east of that river; and they about Tyre and Sidon — The Israelites who lived in those coasts. And he spake, that a small ship should wait on him — Should be in readiness near him; because of the multitude which was now flocking around him; lest they should throng him — Namely, in a manner that would be very inconvenient to him, and would prevent great numbers from either seeing his miracles or hearing his discourses. For he had healed many — Matthew, he healed them all, namely, that applied to him. Insomuch that they pressed upon him — Gr. wste epipiptein autw, so that they rushed, or fell upon him. The expression signifies, that they were ready to drive each other upon him, so that those nearer him could hardly stand, being pressed forward by those behind. For to touch him, as many as had plagues — Gr. mastigav, scourges, as the word properly signifies. Those very painful and afflictive disorders seem to be intended, which were frequently sent, or at least permitted of God, as a scourge or punishment of sin. And unclean spirits — That is, those who were possessed by them — when they saw him — Even though they had been entire strangers to him; fell down before him — In a posture of submission and homage; and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God — That is, the true Messiah that was to come into the world. And he charged them that they should not make him known — It was not the time yet; nor were they fit preachers. For a further explanation of this passage, see notes on Matthew 12:14-21.

Verse 12. And he straitly charged. — They declared him to be “the Son of God,” and he strictly inhibited them from making him known, that is, under that character; but not merely as the Messiah, which our Lord publicly professed to be. So that here we have another proof that the phrase, Son of God implied, in the commonly received language of the Jews, something higher than simply the office of Messiah. This must be allowed, or an absurd tautology will take place in some passages. Thus, in the very first verse of this gospel, “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” Here, if the Son of God conveyed the same idea as the Messiah or Christ, it would be as though St. Mark had written, “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Christ.” And also in Luke 4:41, “And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ, the Son of God,” it would be only saying, “Thou art Christ the Christ,” unless the Son of God implied a distinct and higher conception, one in fact which related not to his office only, but to his nature. On this point see the notes on Mark 1:34, and on Matthew 16:20.

V. 13. He calleth whom he would-With regard to the eternal states of men, God always acts as just and merciful. But with regard to numberless other things, he seems to us to act as a mere sovereign. Luke 6:12

Verse 13. He goeth up into a mountain — Thus Luke also represents him as retiring to a mountain for solemn prayer, and indeed continuing all night in that duty, before he made choice of twelve out of his disciples, and appointed them to be apostles: thereby showing, that much consideration and prayer ought to precede and accompany the choice and ordination of persons for ministers, and that nothing in so important a business should be done rashly. And calleth unto him whom he would — With regard to the eternal states of men, God always acts as a merciful Saviour and just Lawgiver, Governor, and Judge. But with regard to numberless other things, he seems to us to act as a mere Sovereign.

Verse 13. He calleth to him whom he would. He knew them as he knew Nathaniel; he knew their piety, he knew their worth. They followed him at first as hearers, having no thoughts of the glory that would follow. Therefore, like the ancient scripture characters, Abraham, Moses, Samuel, David, and the later prophets, they had no hand in their call and elevation. The Lord drew his workmen from the treasures of his providence. “He counted me faithful,” says Paul, “putting me into the ministry.”

§ 35. — JESUS WITHDRAWS TO A MOUNTAIN; THE TWELVE CHOSEN, 13-19. (See notes on Matthew 10:2-4.)

13. Calleth… whom he would — From the multitude before him at the mount he names and selects which he pleases. He chose them, not they him. Yet he chose with discerning power, knowing their character and state of heart. They came unto him — He named those who became his twelve, and from the crowd each one stepped forth.

Verse 13. Whom he would. — The appointment to the apostolic office was an act of SOVEREIGN CHOICE for which Christ gave no reason. He made no apologies to those of his disciples who were not so called, and he allowed no one who had the call to refer it to any merit in himself. “He gave no account of his matters” in this respect; and thereby showed that he was the Lord of his Church, and that he has a prerogative which he suffers not to be invaded. It is often by confounding this election to offices in the Church, which is in its nature unconditional, with personal election unto salvation, which is conditional upon repentance, faith, and perseverance, that men have fallen into great errors in the interpretation of Scripture. On the calling of the apostles see the notes on Matthew 10:1, &c.

V. 14. Matthew 10:2; Luke 6:13; Acts 1:13.

Verse 14. He ordained twelve] epoihse, he made twelve. Here is nothing of what we call ordaining. Christ simply appointed them to be with him; and that he might send them occasionally to preach, &c. To preach] The Codex Bezæ, Saxon, and all the Itala, except one, add to euaggelion, the Gospel.

Verses 14-16. He ordained, Gr. epoihse, he made, constituted, or appointed, twelve — The word is elsewhere used for appointing to an office. See 1 Samuel 12:6 — Greek; Hebrews 3:2. Henry thinks our Lord appointed them by imposition of hands, but of this there is no proof. Indeed, this appointment seems to have been made some time before they were sent out to preach, or entered properly on their office. They were now called and appointed merely to be with him, that is, not only to attend on his public ministry, but to enjoy the benefit of his private conversation and daily instructions, that they might thereby be better fitted for the great work in which they were to be employed. If, as is generally supposed, our Lord, in appointing twelve, had a reference to the twelve patriarchs, and twelve tribes of Israel, and therefore, on the death of Judas, another was chosen to make up the number, this was only a piece of respect paid to that people, previous to the grand offer of the gospel to them. For, when they had generally rejected it, two more, Paul and Barnabas, were added, without any regard to the particular number of twelve. That he might send them forth to preach — His gospel, and thereby make way for his own visits to some places where he had not been; and to have power to heal sicknesses, &c. — And thereby to show that they were sent of God, and that he approved and confirmed their doctrine. After their election, these twelve accompanied Jesus constantly, lived with him on one common stock as his family, and never departed from him unless by his express appointment.

14. And he ordained twelve — It appears by Luke 6:12-19, that the regular selection of the twelve from the number of his disciples was made, and their ordination performed, just before his pronunciation of his sermon on the mount.

Several were called previous to that. Matthew 28:19-20. Their full qualification they received at the day of Pentecost. Acts 2. THE LIST OF THE APOSTLES, 16-19. Compare Matthew 10:2-4, Luke 1:14-17.

Verse 14. He ordained twelve. — Epoihse, he constituted or appointed twelve.

Verse 15. To have power to heal-and to cast out devils] The business of a minister of Christ is, 1st. To preach the Gospel. 2dly. To be the physician of souls. And, 3dly. To wage war with the devil, and destroy his kingdom.

Verses 14-16. He ordained, Gr. epoihse, he made, constituted, or appointed, twelve — The word is elsewhere used for appointing to an office. See 1 Samuel 12:6 — Greek; Hebrews 3:2. Henry thinks our Lord appointed them by imposition of hands, but of this there is no proof. Indeed, this appointment seems to have been made some time before they were sent out to preach, or entered properly on their office. They were now called and appointed merely to be with him, that is, not only to attend on his public ministry, but to enjoy the benefit of his private conversation and daily instructions, that they might thereby be better fitted for the great work in which they were to be employed. If, as is generally supposed, our Lord, in appointing twelve, had a reference to the twelve patriarchs, and twelve tribes of Israel, and therefore, on the death of Judas, another was chosen to make up the number, this was only a piece of respect paid to that people, previous to the grand offer of the gospel to them. For, when they had generally rejected it, two more, Paul and Barnabas, were added, without any regard to the particular number of twelve. That he might send them forth to preach — His gospel, and thereby make way for his own visits to some places where he had not been; and to have power to heal sicknesses, &c. — And thereby to show that they were sent of God, and that he approved and confirmed their doctrine. After their election, these twelve accompanied Jesus constantly, lived with him on one common stock as his family, and never departed from him unless by his express appointment.

§ 35. — JESUS WITHDRAWS TO A MOUNTAIN; THE TWELVE CHOSEN, 13-19. (See notes on Matthew 10:2-4.)

13. Calleth… whom he would — From the multitude before him at the mount he names and selects which he pleases. He chose them, not they him. Yet he chose with discerning power, knowing their character and state of heart. They came unto him — He named those who became his twelve, and from the crowd each one stepped forth.

V. 16. He surnamed them sons of thunder-Both with respect to the warmth and impetuosity of their spirit, their fervent manner of preaching, and the power of their word.

Verse 16. Simon, &c.] See Clarke on “Matthew 10:2”, &c.

Verses 14-16. He ordained, Gr. epoihse, he made, constituted, or appointed, twelve — The word is elsewhere used for appointing to an office. See 1 Samuel 12:6 — Greek; Hebrews 3:2. Henry thinks our Lord appointed them by imposition of hands, but of this there is no proof. Indeed, this appointment seems to have been made some time before they were sent out to preach, or entered properly on their office. They were now called and appointed merely to be with him, that is, not only to attend on his public ministry, but to enjoy the benefit of his private conversation and daily instructions, that they might thereby be better fitted for the great work in which they were to be employed. If, as is generally supposed, our Lord, in appointing twelve, had a reference to the twelve patriarchs, and twelve tribes of Israel, and therefore, on the death of Judas, another was chosen to make up the number, this was only a piece of respect paid to that people, previous to the grand offer of the gospel to them. For, when they had generally rejected it, two more, Paul and Barnabas, were added, without any regard to the particular number of twelve. That he might send them forth to preach — His gospel, and thereby make way for his own visits to some places where he had not been; and to have power to heal sicknesses, &c. — And thereby to show that they were sent of God, and that he approved and confirmed their doctrine. After their election, these twelve accompanied Jesus constantly, lived with him on one common stock as his family, and never departed from him unless by his express appointment.

16. Surnamed Peter — Meaning rock. Mark seems to name the apostles very much in couples. See notes on Matthew 10:2-4.

Verse 17. Sons of thunder] A Hebraism for thunderers; probably so named because of their zeal and power in preaching the Gospel. The term Boanerges is neither Hebrew nor Syriac. Calmet and others think that there is reason to believe that the Greek transcribers have not copied it exactly. רעם בני beney raam, which the ancient Greeks would pronounce Beneregem, and which means sons of thunder, was probably the appellative used by our Lord: or c[r ynb beni reges, sons of tempest, which comes nearest to the Boanerges of the evangelist. St. Jerome, on Dan. 1:, gives רעם בני (which he writes Benereem, softening the sound of the y ain) as the more likely reading, and Luther, supposing our Lord spoke in Hebrew, gives the proper Hebrew term above mentioned, which he writes Bnehargem. Some think that the reason why our Lord gave this appellative to the sons of Zebedee was, their desire to bring fire down from heaven, i.e. a storm of thunder and lightning, to overturn and consume a certain Samaritan village, the inhabitants of which would not receive their Master. See the account in Luke 9:53, 54. It was a very usual thing among the Jews to give surnames, which signified some particular quality or excellence, to their rabbins. See several instances in Schoettgen.

Verse 17. James and John he surnamed Boanerges — “This word,” says Dr. Hammond, “is the corruption of the Hebrew V[r ynb, benei ragnash, sons of earthquake, tempest, or any other commotion, such as is here styled, bronth, thunder. And the meaning of this title may seem to be, that those two sons of Zebedee were to be special, eminent ministers of the gospel, which is called, Hebrews 12:26, fonh thn ghn galeuousa, a voice shaking the earth, taken from Haggai 2:7, which is directly the periphrasis of V[r, which is here rendered thunder, in the notion wherein fonh, voice, and bronth, thunder, are promiscuously used for the same thing.” If the learned reader will consult Dr. Lightfoot and Grotius, he will receive further information concerning the derivation of the word Boanerges. Whitby thinks, “Christ gave James and John this name from a foresight of the heat and zeal of their temper, of which they quickly gave an instance in their desire to call down fire from heaven to consume the Samaritans. Hence we find, in the Acts, Peter and John are the chief speakers and actors in the defence and propagation of the gospel; and the zeal of James and Peter seems to be the reason why the one was slain by Herod, and the other imprisoned in order to the like execution.” Doubtless our Lord, in giving them this name, had respect to three things: the warmth and impetuosity of their spirits, their fervent manner of preaching, and the power of their word.

Ver. 17. Boanerges, which is, sons of thunder, because of their vocal powers. Beza derives this word from the Hebrew bene reghesch, and would write it Benerges. Now, though he brings many proofs of letters suppressed, or words changed, yet he has adduced no substantial argument that the orthography is wrong. Dr. Lightfoot here mentions, from the Talmud, a Samuel who sat in the synagogue and heard the voice of Rigsha, which he diffidently renders “thunder.” The Bath Kol, “daughter of thunder,” was the voice heard from the mercyseat. So on Sinai the voice was terrible, with thunder and earthquake. Yet it is obvious, says the doctor, in what respect erges is applicable to thunder. — The greater body of critics however derive this word, Ben-erges, from Ben-rehem, the sons of commotion; for rehem is the same as the Greek word Seiw seio, to move, or Seismov seismos, earthquake. The shaking or commotion implied in this term may also be expressed by the Greek Bronth bronté, thunder. Hence Boanerges was an honourable surname, highly expressive of the power and unction of the ministry of these two brothers: and happy is the man who is favoured with so great a talent. Peter’s ministry was powerful to the circumcision, as Paul’s was to the gentiles.

§ 35. — JESUS WITHDRAWS TO A MOUNTAIN; THE TWELVE CHOSEN, 13-19. (See notes on Matthew 10:2-4.)

13. Calleth… whom he would — From the multitude before him at the mount he names and selects which he pleases. He chose them, not they him. Yet he chose with discerning power, knowing their character and state of heart. They came unto him — He named those who became his twelve, and from the crowd each one stepped forth.

Verse 17. Boanerges, which is, the sons of thunder. — However verbal critics may differ as to the derivation of the latter part of this compound word, the interpretation of Mark fixes its sense. The sons of Zebedee were surnamed uioi bronthv, the sons of thunder. This could not refer, as some have dreamed, to their hasty, impetuous disposition, of which, however, but one instance is given, and that one rather of mistaken zeal than natural ardour; and it is not at all probable that our Lord would perpetuate the remembrance of an infirmity which his Divine grace was to cure, even did it exist, by affixing it upon them with their new name. Nor was the name descriptive of the manner of their preaching. That of John appears from his writings to have been as sweet and attractive as his disposition, and the reverse of either loud stentorian declamation, or the hurling of the flaming thunderbolts of the Divine threatenings. From what little appears of James’ character, he filled his high office, chiefly at Jerusalem, with “meekness of wisdom,” and stands forth as a calm, rather than an impetuous man. The reason of the appellation is probably drawn from the truth of which they were to be such eminent ministers, rather than their own mode of preaching. The thunder is the Gospel itself, the public voice of God in the world, moving and shaking the minds of men wherever proclaimed; and when James and John are called sons of thunder, the meaning is, that they should rank among the greatest instruments of sounding forth the voice of God, the authoritative declaration of his will contained in the Gospel.

§ 35. — JESUS WITHDRAWS TO A MOUNTAIN; THE TWELVE CHOSEN, 13-19. (See notes on Matthew 10:2-4.)

13. Calleth… whom he would — From the multitude before him at the mount he names and selects which he pleases. He chose them, not they him. Yet he chose with discerning power, knowing their character and state of heart. They came unto him — He named those who became his twelve, and from the crowd each one stepped forth.

Verse 19. Into a house.] As Christ was now returned to Capernaum, this was probably the house of Peter, mentioned Mark 2:1.

Verses 19-21. And they went into a house — It appears, from the manner in which Mark here connects this with the names of the apostles, that it happened very quickly after their being chosen. The other evangelists, indeed, inform us of some previous events which happened in the meantime, but they might be despatched in a few hours. And the multitude cometh together — Assembled again about the doors and windows of the house, and pressed so eagerly upon him; that they — Christ and his disciples, or the members of the family — could not so much as eat bread — Or take any sustenance, though it was the proper hour for it. And when his friends heard of it — Greek, oi par’ autou; “a common phrase,” says Dr. Campbell, “for denoting sui, (so the Vulgate,) his friends, propinqui, cognati, his kinsmen or relations. I prefer,” says he, “the word kinsmen, as the circumstances of the story evince that it is not his disciples who are meant.” This interpretation of the expression the doctor defends very ably by a critical examination of the original text, and an elaborate exposition of the verse; but which is too long to be inserted here. They went — Or, went forth, namely, from their own homes; to lay hold on him — Namely, says Grotius, “that they might take him away from that house, in which he was pressed, to another place:” for they said, Oti exesth, that he faints, or, may faint; so Grotius, Dr. Whitby, and some others, understand the word, thinking it “absurd to say, that Christ did, either in his gestures or in his actions, show any symptoms of transportation or excess of mind; nor could his kindred, they think, have any reason to conceive thus of him, who had never given the least symptoms of any such excess, though those of them who believed not in him, might have such unworthy thoughts of him.” Dr. Hammond, however, justly observes that the word here used “doth, in all places of the New Testament but this and 2 Corinthians 5:13, signify being amazed, or astonished, or in some sudden perturbation of mind, depriving a person of the exercise of his faculties. And in the place just referred to, it is opposed to swfronein, sobriety, or temper. And thus in the Old Testament it is variously used for excess, vehemency, or commotion of mind. Psalm 31:22, we read, I said in my haste, &c., where the Greek is, en th ekstasei mou, in the excess, or vehemence of my mind. Accordingly, here he supposes the word may be most fitly taken for a commotions, excess, vehemence, or transportation of mind, acting or speaking in zeal, (above what is ordinarily called temper and sobriety;) or in such a manner as they were wont to act or speak who were moved by some extraordinary influence, as the prophets, and other inspired persons, according to that of Chrysostom, Touto mantewv idion to exesthkenai, It belongs to prophets to be thus transported, which sense of the word is suited to the place, for in this chapter Christ begins to show himself in the full lustre of his office; he cures on the sabbath day, which the Pharisees conceived to be unlawful; looks about him with anger, or some incitation of mind; is followed by great multitudes; heals the diseased, and is flocked to for that purpose; is called openly the Son of God by the demoniacs; makes twelve disciples, and commissions them to preach and to do cures. Upon this the Pharisees and Herodians take counsel against him, and those of their faction say, He acts by Beelzebub, and is possessed by him, that is, that he was actuated by some principal evil spirit, and did all his miracles thereby; and so was not to be followed, but abhorred by men. And they who uttered not these high blasphemies against him, yet thought and said, oti exesth, that he was in an excess, or transportation of mind, and this, it seems, was the conceit of his own kindred. They had a special prejudice against him, chap. 6:4; and did not believe on him, John 7:5; and accordingly, hearing a report of his doing these extraordinary things, they came out, krathsai, to lay hold on, or get him into their hands, and take him home with them, for they said he was guilty of some excesses.” The above interpretation supposes the sense of the expression to be nearly the same with that which is given by our translators, He is beside himself, which has the sanction of the Vulgate, in furorem versus est, and which, as has been noticed, is fully justified by Dr. Campbell, who concludes his defence of it in the following words: “I cannot help observing, on the whole, that in the way the verse is here rendered, no signification is assigned to the words which it is not universally allowed they frequently bear; no force is put upon the construction, but every thing interpreted in the manner which would most readily occur to a reader of common understanding, who, without any preconceived opinion, entered on the study. On the contrary, there is none of the other interpretations which does not, as has been shown, offer some violence to the words or to the syntax; in consequence of which, the sense extracted is far from being that which would most readily present itself to an unprejudiced reader. It hardly admits a doubt, that the only thing which has hindered the universal concurrence of translators in the common version, is the unfavourable light it puts our Lord’s relations in. But that their disposition was, at least, not always favourable to his claims, we have the best authority for asserting.”

19. And they went into a house — This clause properly belongs to the next verse, and opens the next paragraph. It is to this house that “the multitude cometh together.”

§ 42. — HEALING A DEMONIAC; SCRIBES AND PHARISEES BLASPHEME, 19-30. (See notes on Matthew 9:33, and 12:32-37.)

V. 20. To eat bread-That is, to take any subsistence.

Verse 20. Eat bread.] Had no time to take any necessary refreshment.

Verses 19-21. And they went into a house — It appears, from the manner in which Mark here connects this with the names of the apostles, that it happened very quickly after their being chosen. The other evangelists, indeed, inform us of some previous events which happened in the meantime, but they might be despatched in a few hours. And the multitude cometh together — Assembled again about the doors and windows of the house, and pressed so eagerly upon him; that they — Christ and his disciples, or the members of the family — could not so much as eat bread — Or take any sustenance, though it was the proper hour for it. And when his friends heard of it — Greek, oi par’ autou; “a common phrase,” says Dr. Campbell, “for denoting sui, (so the Vulgate,) his friends, propinqui, cognati, his kinsmen or relations. I prefer,” says he, “the word kinsmen, as the circumstances of the story evince that it is not his disciples who are meant.” This interpretation of the expression the doctor defends very ably by a critical examination of the original text, and an elaborate exposition of the verse; but which is too long to be inserted here. They went — Or, went forth, namely, from their own homes; to lay hold on him — Namely, says Grotius, “that they might take him away from that house, in which he was pressed, to another place:” for they said, Oti exesth, that he faints, or, may faint; so Grotius, Dr. Whitby, and some others, understand the word, thinking it “absurd to say, that Christ did, either in his gestures or in his actions, show any symptoms of transportation or excess of mind; nor could his kindred, they think, have any reason to conceive thus of him, who had never given the least symptoms of any such excess, though those of them who believed not in him, might have such unworthy thoughts of him.” Dr. Hammond, however, justly observes that the word here used “doth, in all places of the New Testament but this and 2 Corinthians 5:13, signify being amazed, or astonished, or in some sudden perturbation of mind, depriving a person of the exercise of his faculties. And in the place just referred to, it is opposed to swfronein, sobriety, or temper. And thus in the Old Testament it is variously used for excess, vehemency, or commotion of mind. Psalm 31:22, we read, I said in my haste, &c., where the Greek is, en th ekstasei mou, in the excess, or vehemence of my mind. Accordingly, here he supposes the word may be most fitly taken for a commotions, excess, vehemence, or transportation of mind, acting or speaking in zeal, (above what is ordinarily called temper and sobriety;) or in such a manner as they were wont to act or speak who were moved by some extraordinary influence, as the prophets, and other inspired persons, according to that of Chrysostom, Touto mantewv idion to exesthkenai, It belongs to prophets to be thus transported, which sense of the word is suited to the place, for in this chapter Christ begins to show himself in the full lustre of his office; he cures on the sabbath day, which the Pharisees conceived to be unlawful; looks about him with anger, or some incitation of mind; is followed by great multitudes; heals the diseased, and is flocked to for that purpose; is called openly the Son of God by the demoniacs; makes twelve disciples, and commissions them to preach and to do cures. Upon this the Pharisees and Herodians take counsel against him, and those of their faction say, He acts by Beelzebub, and is possessed by him, that is, that he was actuated by some principal evil spirit, and did all his miracles thereby; and so was not to be followed, but abhorred by men. And they who uttered not these high blasphemies against him, yet thought and said, oti exesth, that he was in an excess, or transportation of mind, and this, it seems, was the conceit of his own kindred. They had a special prejudice against him, chap. 6:4; and did not believe on him, John 7:5; and accordingly, hearing a report of his doing these extraordinary things, they came out, krathsai, to lay hold on, or get him into their hands, and take him home with them, for they said he was guilty of some excesses.” The above interpretation supposes the sense of the expression to be nearly the same with that which is given by our translators, He is beside himself, which has the sanction of the Vulgate, in furorem versus est, and which, as has been noticed, is fully justified by Dr. Campbell, who concludes his defence of it in the following words: “I cannot help observing, on the whole, that in the way the verse is here rendered, no signification is assigned to the words which it is not universally allowed they frequently bear; no force is put upon the construction, but every thing interpreted in the manner which would most readily occur to a reader of common understanding, who, without any preconceived opinion, entered on the study. On the contrary, there is none of the other interpretations which does not, as has been shown, offer some violence to the words or to the syntax; in consequence of which, the sense extracted is far from being that which would most readily present itself to an unprejudiced reader. It hardly admits a doubt, that the only thing which has hindered the universal concurrence of translators in the common version, is the unfavourable light it puts our Lord’s relations in. But that their disposition was, at least, not always favourable to his claims, we have the best authority for asserting.”

20. Could not so much as eat bread — How much our Lord was at this time oppressed by the crowds may be seen by comparing, among other passages, Mark 1:45, and verses 7-9 of this chapter. Indeed, no evangelist conveys to us so strong a view of the immense excitement produced in Galilee by the preaching of Jesus in his early ministry as Mark.

V. 21. His relations-His mother and his brethren, Mark 3:31. But it was some time before they could come near him.

Verse 21. His friends] Or, relations. On this verse several MSS. differ considerably. I have followed the reading of the Syriac, because I think it the best: oi par~ autou signify merely his relatives, his brethren, &c., see Mark 3:31; and the phrase is used by the best writers to signify relatives, companions, and domestics. See Kypke in loc.

They said, He is beside himself.] It was the enemies of Christ that raised this report; and his relatives, probably thinking that it was true, went to confine him. Let a Christian but neglect the care of his body for a time, in striving to enter in at the strait gate; let a minister of Christ but impair his health by his pastoral labours; presently “he is distracted;” he has “not the least conduct nor discretion.” But let a man forget his soul, let him destroy his health by debaucheries, let him expose his life through ambition, and he may, notwithstanding, pass for a very prudent and sensible man! Schoettgen contends that the multitude, and not Christ, is here intended. Christ was in the house: the multitude, oclov, Mark 3:20, pressed upon him so that he could not eat bread. His disciples, or friends, went out, krathsai auton (scil. oclon,) to restrain it, viz. the multitude, to prevent them from rushing into the house and disturbing their Master, who was now taking some refreshment. This conjecture should not be lightly regarded.

Verses 19-21. And they went into a house — It appears, from the manner in which Mark here connects this with the names of the apostles, that it happened very quickly after their being chosen. The other evangelists, indeed, inform us of some previous events which happened in the meantime, but they might be despatched in a few hours. And the multitude cometh together — Assembled again about the doors and windows of the house, and pressed so eagerly upon him; that they — Christ and his disciples, or the members of the family — could not so much as eat bread — Or take any sustenance, though it was the proper hour for it. And when his friends heard of it — Greek, oi par’ autou; “a common phrase,” says Dr. Campbell, “for denoting sui, (so the Vulgate,) his friends, propinqui, cognati, his kinsmen or relations. I prefer,” says he, “the word kinsmen, as the circumstances of the story evince that it is not his disciples who are meant.” This interpretation of the expression the doctor defends very ably by a critical examination of the original text, and an elaborate exposition of the verse; but which is too long to be inserted here. They went — Or, went forth, namely, from their own homes; to lay hold on him — Namely, says Grotius, “that they might take him away from that house, in which he was pressed, to another place:” for they said, Oti exesth, that he faints, or, may faint; so Grotius, Dr. Whitby, and some others, understand the word, thinking it “absurd to say, that Christ did, either in his gestures or in his actions, show any symptoms of transportation or excess of mind; nor could his kindred, they think, have any reason to conceive thus of him, who had never given the least symptoms of any such excess, though those of them who believed not in him, might have such unworthy thoughts of him.” Dr. Hammond, however, justly observes that the word here used “doth, in all places of the New Testament but this and 2 Corinthians 5:13, signify being amazed, or astonished, or in some sudden perturbation of mind, depriving a person of the exercise of his faculties. And in the place just referred to, it is opposed to swfronein, sobriety, or temper. And thus in the Old Testament it is variously used for excess, vehemency, or commotion of mind. Psalm 31:22, we read, I said in my haste, &c., where the Greek is, en th ekstasei mou, in the excess, or vehemence of my mind. Accordingly, here he supposes the word may be most fitly taken for a commotions, excess, vehemence, or transportation of mind, acting or speaking in zeal, (above what is ordinarily called temper and sobriety;) or in such a manner as they were wont to act or speak who were moved by some extraordinary influence, as the prophets, and other inspired persons, according to that of Chrysostom, Touto mantewv idion to exesthkenai, It belongs to prophets to be thus transported, which sense of the word is suited to the place, for in this chapter Christ begins to show himself in the full lustre of his office; he cures on the sabbath day, which the Pharisees conceived to be unlawful; looks about him with anger, or some incitation of mind; is followed by great multitudes; heals the diseased, and is flocked to for that purpose; is called openly the Son of God by the demoniacs; makes twelve disciples, and commissions them to preach and to do cures. Upon this the Pharisees and Herodians take counsel against him, and those of their faction say, He acts by Beelzebub, and is possessed by him, that is, that he was actuated by some principal evil spirit, and did all his miracles thereby; and so was not to be followed, but abhorred by men. And they who uttered not these high blasphemies against him, yet thought and said, oti exesth, that he was in an excess, or transportation of mind, and this, it seems, was the conceit of his own kindred. They had a special prejudice against him, chap. 6:4; and did not believe on him, John 7:5; and accordingly, hearing a report of his doing these extraordinary things, they came out, krathsai, to lay hold on, or get him into their hands, and take him home with them, for they said he was guilty of some excesses.” The above interpretation supposes the sense of the expression to be nearly the same with that which is given by our translators, He is beside himself, which has the sanction of the Vulgate, in furorem versus est, and which, as has been noticed, is fully justified by Dr. Campbell, who concludes his defence of it in the following words: “I cannot help observing, on the whole, that in the way the verse is here rendered, no signification is assigned to the words which it is not universally allowed they frequently bear; no force is put upon the construction, but every thing interpreted in the manner which would most readily occur to a reader of common understanding, who, without any preconceived opinion, entered on the study. On the contrary, there is none of the other interpretations which does not, as has been shown, offer some violence to the words or to the syntax; in consequence of which, the sense extracted is far from being that which would most readily present itself to an unprejudiced reader. It hardly admits a doubt, that the only thing which has hindered the universal concurrence of translators in the common version, is the unfavourable light it puts our Lord’s relations in. But that their disposition was, at least, not always favourable to his claims, we have the best authority for asserting.”

Ver. 21. He is beside himself. Christ’s friends said this when they heard that he had no leisure to eat. The Greek exese often occurs in the LXX, and in the new testament. 2 Corinthians 5:13. See also the Septuagint in Genesis 45:26, and Joshua 2:11, where it implies, to faint. Its general import is to express something out of the common way. Heinsius, distinguished by originality of criticism, illustrates the passage from 2 Kings 9:11: wherefore came this mad fellow to thee?

21. When his friends — At Nazareth, where the reports of these miracles were in keeping with the depraved character of the place and the subject. Probably they had heard of the charge of his being a demoniac. Heard of it — Heard that immense crowds were following his preaching the wonders he did. They went out — From their homes, to rescue him from the danger that might result from the excitement he was producing. Beside himself — They doubtless meant this as an excuse for what they held to be the dangerous course of our Lord. He does not know what he is about in thus exposing himself to the danger of being held the author of public commotion. For the people were, as we learn by Matthew 12:23, beginning to call to mind that he was the Son of David, and there was just fear of an insurrection. Verses 22-30. Compare notes on Matthew 12:24-32. Whitby, however, prefers to render the words, “He is fainty,” or exhausted; that is, by the presence of the multitudes.

Verse 21. And when his friends heard of it. — Our Lord, having called his apostles, returned home; and again the multitudes so press upon him for instruction that he and the disciples could not eat bread: so that it is evident that Christ denied himself of his regular meals to continue his discourses to a people so eager to hear him. It was this which led his friends, his kinsmen or natural relations, to go forth to lay hold upon him, that is, to constrain him to spare himself from such excessive labours, and to retire for repose: for they said, He is beside himself. Some of the relations of Christ did not believe on him; and if these were of that infidel number, notwithstanding the natural kindness they felt toward him, they might use this expression in its opprobrious, though not in an exactly literal sense, and might in truth regard him as a dreaming enthusiast, and not of sober judgment; and his excessive zeal on this occasion would seem to confirm the injurious opinion of men of worldly minds, disqualified from judging rightly on a spiritual case and character. If this be the correct view, there is in it nothing injurious to the character of our Lord’s sobriety, as those critics seem to have thought who have struggled so hard to torture the passage to several other senses, in order to avoid the apparent difficulty. But if these relations of Christ, through the same prejudices and worldliness of heart as other Jews, did not believe on him, as we are expressly told some of his brethren did not, they could not comprehend his character and motives, and by consequence could not rightly estimate his conduct. To them Christ would appear beside himself, in the same sense as St. Paul appeared “beside himself, and mad” to Festus, that is, under the influence of an irrational religious excitement; but all this was nevertheless “truth and soberness,” and only proves that “the spiritual man is judged of no man” not spiritual. These friends of Christ might not, however, be his unbelieving brethren, but others better affected toward him; and then the words may be taken to mean, he is carried out of himself by his zeal; on which account they interfered kindly to care for one who was so absorbed in his work as not to spare himself.

V. 22. The scribes and Pharisees, Matthew 12:22; who had come down from Jerusalem-Purposely on the devil's errand. And not without success. For the common people now began to drink in the poison, from these learned, good, honourable men!

He hath Beelzebub-at command, is in league with him:

And by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils-How easily may a man of learning elude the strongest proof of a work of God! How readily can he account for every incident without ever taking God into the question. Matthew 12:24; Luke 11:15.

Verse 22. He hath Beelzebub] See Clarke on Matthew 12:24-26.

Verse 22. The scribes (and Pharisees, Matthew 12:22) who had come down from Jerusalem, &c. — Purposely, on the devil’s errand; and not without success. For the common people now began to drink in the poison from these learned, good, honourable men! He hath Beelzebub — At command; is in league with him: And by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils — How easily may a man of learning elude the strongest proof of a work of God! How readily can he account for every incident, without ever taking God into the question! See note on Matthew 9:34, and 12:22-32, where this passage occurs, and is explained at large.

22. Scribes which came down from Jerusalem — Of course these great scribes from Jerusalem would be very wise, and be able to state the case with perfect learning!

Verse 22. He hath Beelzebub. — See the notes on Matthew 12:24-32.

24. That kingdom cannot stand — And hence Satan would be too wise to endanger his own kingdom by entering into confederacy with me, who am driving his demons from among men.

Verses 27. -30. No man, &c.] For an explanation of these verses, and a definition of the sin against the Holy Ghost, see Matthew 12:29-33.

V. 28. Matthew 12:31; Luke 12:10.

Verses 27. -30. No man, &c.] For an explanation of these verses, and a definition of the sin against the Holy Ghost, see Matthew 12:29-33.

Verses 27. -30. No man, &c.] For an explanation of these verses, and a definition of the sin against the Holy Ghost, see Matthew 12:29-33.

V. 30. Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit-Is it not astonishing, that men who have ever read these words, should doubt, what is the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost? Can any words declare more plainly, that it is "the ascribing those miracles to the power of the devil which Christ wrought by the power of the Holy Ghost?"

Verses 27. -30. No man, &c.] For an explanation of these verses, and a definition of the sin against the Holy Ghost, see Matthew 12:29-33.

Verse 30. Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit — That is, because they said, he hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth out devils, verse 22. Is it not astonishing that men who have ever read these words should doubt what is the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost? Can any words declare more plainly that it is “the ascribing those miracles to the power of the devil, which Christ wrought by the power of the Holy Ghost?”

Ver. 30. Because they said, he hath an unclean spirit. His divine and gracious works to heal the sick, and console the wounded mind, were the most signal acts of grace which heaven could confer on man. And for the learned doctors to say, that they were the works of the devil, was malice and vileness surpassing any thing on earth, and indicated the scribes to be reprobate beyond the hope of recovery. By consequence, all persons afflicted with nervous gloom, should avoid charging themselves with the commission of this blasphemy, for they never did, nor were they ever in a situation to commit it. Robert Russel therefore, in his seven sermons, totally mistakes the case, by supposing that both Paul and Peter would have committed this sin, if Peter had denied his Master with Paul’s malice; or, if Paul had wasted the church with Peter’s light. Their crimes would indeed have been double, but we have no authority to drive men to despair. After all, the assertion of our Saviour is not more absolute than the ministry of Jonah. There were, no doubt, pardons concealed for the contrite. They were in danger of eternal damnation, but not as yet delivered to the tormentor.

V. 31. Then come his brethren and his mother-Having at length made their way through the crowd, so as to come to the door. His brethren are here named first, as being first and most earnest in the design of taking him: for neither did these of his brethren believe on him. They sent to him, calling him-They sent one into the house, who called him aloud, by name. Matthew 12:46; Luke 8:19.

Verse 31. His brethren and his mother] Or rather, his mother and his brethren. This is the arrangement of the best and most ancient MSS.; and this clause, kai al adelfai sou, and thy sisters, Mark 3:32, should be ADDED, on the authority of ADEFGMSUV, fifty-five others, some editions, the margin of the later Syriac, Slavonic, Gothic, and all the Itala except four. Griesbach has received this reading into the text. Calling him.] This clause is wanting in one copy of the Itala. The Codex Alexandrinus has zhtountev auton, seeking him.

Verses 31-35. There came then his brethren and his mother — Having at length made their way through the crowd, so as to come to the door. His brethren are here named first, as being first and most earnest in the design of taking him; for neither did these of his brethren believe on him. They sent to him, calling him — They sent one into the house, who called him aloud by name. Looking round on them who sat about him — With the utmost sweetness: he said, Behold my mother and my brethren — 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 honours which he foresaw would, in after ages, be paid to her. See the notes on Matthew 12:46-50.

§ 45. — JESUS’ MOTHER AND BRETHREN; WHO HIS RELATIVES, 31-35. (See notes on Matthew 12, 38-45.)

31. There came then his brethren and his mother — Fulfilling the purpose they expressed in verse 21. But when they arrived from Nazareth they found him so surrounded as to be unable to get access to him. That the brothers of Jesus disbelieved in him was clearly a fact. But there is no proof that his mother ever doubted his miraculous conception or his divinity. At the first miracle in Cana of Galilee, her faith is impatient for the demonstration of his power, which she truly expected.

Verse 31. His brethren and his mother, &c. — See the notes on Matthew 12:46-50.

Verses 31-35. There came then his brethren and his mother — Having at length made their way through the crowd, so as to come to the door. His brethren are here named first, as being first and most earnest in the design of taking him; for neither did these of his brethren believe on him. They sent to him, calling him — They sent one into the house, who called him aloud by name. Looking round on them who sat about him — With the utmost sweetness: he said, Behold my mother and my brethren — 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 honours which he foresaw would, in after ages, be paid to her. See the notes on Matthew 12:46-50.

32. Seek for thee — As we learn by Matthew 13:54, that he soon visited Nazareth, it is very probable that the object of this visit was to prevail on him to come to the home of his childhood. He did indeed visit Nazareth, but with a very different effect from what they might have expected. The Nazarenes challenged him to do the same miracles over which he had done in Capernaum; but such were the conditions of the challenge that he repelled and rejected it. Compare notes on Matthew 12:46-50.

Verse 33. Who is my mother?] See on Matthew 12:46-50. ST. MARK

Verses 31-35. There came then his brethren and his mother — Having at length made their way through the crowd, so as to come to the door. His brethren are here named first, as being first and most earnest in the design of taking him; for neither did these of his brethren believe on him. They sent to him, calling him — They sent one into the house, who called him aloud by name. Looking round on them who sat about him — With the utmost sweetness: he said, Behold my mother and my brethren — 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 honours which he foresaw would, in after ages, be paid to her. See the notes on Matthew 12:46-50.

§ 45. — JESUS’ MOTHER AND BRETHREN; WHO HIS RELATIVES, 31-35. (See notes on Matthew 12, 38-45.)

31. There came then his brethren and his mother — Fulfilling the purpose they expressed in verse 21. But when they arrived from Nazareth they found him so surrounded as to be unable to get access to him. That the brothers of Jesus disbelieved in him was clearly a fact. But there is no proof that his mother ever doubted his miraculous conception or his divinity. At the first miracle in Cana of Galilee, her faith is impatient for the demonstration of his power, which she truly expected.

V. 34. Looking round on them who sat about him-With the utmost sweetness;

He said, Behold my mother and my brethren-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 honours, which he foresaw would in after ages be paid to her.

Verses 31-35. There came then his brethren and his mother — Having at length made their way through the crowd, so as to come to the door. His brethren are here named first, as being first and most earnest in the design of taking him; for neither did these of his brethren believe on him. They sent to him, calling him — They sent one into the house, who called him aloud by name. Looking round on them who sat about him — With the utmost sweetness: he said, Behold my mother and my brethren — 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 honours which he foresaw would, in after ages, be paid to her. See the notes on Matthew 12:46-50.

§ 45. — JESUS’ MOTHER AND BRETHREN; WHO HIS RELATIVES, 31-35. (See notes on Matthew 12, 38-45.)

31. There came then his brethren and his mother — Fulfilling the purpose they expressed in verse 21. But when they arrived from Nazareth they found him so surrounded as to be unable to get access to him. That the brothers of Jesus disbelieved in him was clearly a fact. But there is no proof that his mother ever doubted his miraculous conception or his divinity. At the first miracle in Cana of Galilee, her faith is impatient for the demonstration of his power, which she truly expected.

Verses 31-35. There came then his brethren and his mother — Having at length made their way through the crowd, so as to come to the door. His brethren are here named first, as being first and most earnest in the design of taking him; for neither did these of his brethren believe on him. They sent to him, calling him — They sent one into the house, who called him aloud by name. Looking round on them who sat about him — With the utmost sweetness: he said, Behold my mother and my brethren — 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 honours which he foresaw would, in after ages, be paid to her. See the notes on Matthew 12:46-50.

Ver. 35. The same is my brother. Conversion introduces us into the great family of heaven and earth. The aged are parents, the young converts are children, and the body of the church are all brethren. The bonds are sacred, intimate, and eternal, provided we hold last the beginning of our confidence stedfast to the end. If related before conversion, we are then doubly akin, being of one family, and of one spirit. — See my translation of Saurin’s sermon on this subject: vol. 7.

§ 45. — JESUS’ MOTHER AND BRETHREN; WHO HIS RELATIVES, 31-35. (See notes on Matthew 12, 38-45.)

31. There came then his brethren and his mother — Fulfilling the purpose they expressed in verse 21. But when they arrived from Nazareth they found him so surrounded as to be unable to get access to him. That the brothers of Jesus disbelieved in him was clearly a fact. But there is no proof that his mother ever doubted his miraculous conception or his divinity. At the first miracle in Cana of Galilee, her faith is impatient for the demonstration of his power, which she truly expected.