Mark 3:1 And he entered again into the synagogue;; And He entered again into a synagogue--NASB; and there was a man there which had a withered hand.; ...who had his hand withered--ASV; there was a man there with one hand shrivelled up--Wey; And he entered again into a synagogue, and there-was there, a man having /his hand\ //withered\\; And he entered again into the synagogue, and there was there a man having the hand withered, TRNTyeager66 - Kai eisAlthen palin eis sunagwgAn, kai An ekei anthrwpos exArammenAn echwn tAn cheira. Kai (continuative conjunction). eisAlthen (3d.per.sing.aor.ind.of eiserchomai, constative). palin (adverbial). eis (preposition with the accusative of extent). tAn (acc.sing.fem.of the article in agreement with sunagwgAn). sunagwgAn (acc.sing.fem.of sunagwgA, extent). kai (continuative conjunction). An (3d.per.sing.imp.ind.of eimi, progressive duration). ekei (adverbail). anthrwpos (nom.sing.masc.of anathrwpos, subject of An). exArammenAn (perf.pass.part.acc.sing.fem.of xArainw, adjectival, restrictive). echwn (pres.act.part. nom.sing.masc.of echw, in agreement with anthrwpos, adverbial, circumstantical). tAn (acc.sing.fem.of the article in agreement with cheira). cheira (acc.sing.fem.of cheir, direct object of echwn). Translation: "And He entered again into the synagogue; and there was there a man having a withered hand." COMMENT: The participle echwn is joined to anthrwpos as a circumstantial adverb, while the participle exArammenAn is a restrictive adjective, joined to cheira. exArammenAn is in the perfect tense, indicating a then present condition as a result of some malady in the past. We do not know how long before the hand had become affected. Cf.#'s 1033 and 972. Our Lord is abundantly able to heal and and all things which are atrophied - physically, mentally and spiritually. Cf.Mt. 12:9-14 and Lk.6:6-11 for further comment. R902 - ExArammenAn echwn is similar to a perfect periphrastic, "who had a withered hand." Ear120 - Withered. In keeping with his love of strong language (reflecting Peter), Mark has here the perfect passive of the verb xArainw, "dry out." The full force would be "all dried up." Mt and Lk use the adjective xAros, which Mk also has here in vs.3. Evidently Peter was impressed with the extreme immobility of the hand. MITGNTwuest62 - "And." The connection here is again merely topical. Here is another instance of collision between our Lord and the Jewish leaders with reference to the observance of the Sabbath. "Again." It was His custom to attend the synagogue service on the Sabbath. "The." Article is not in Greek text. He entered a synagogue. No particular synagogue is meant. The idea was, "He entered synagogue." It was His characteristic place on the Sabbath. "Withered." Perfect participle, speaking of an action completed in past time, having present finished results. The withering of the hand was due to accident or disease. The man was not born with the deformity. Luke tells us it was his right hand. Just a touch of the Greek physician's accurateness of detail in reporting a case. Translation: "And He entered again into a synagogue. And there was there in that place a man whose one hand had withered." NTC-MARKhendriksen113,4,5 - 3:1-6 The Son of Man Asserting His Authority as Lord Even of the Sabbath; The Shriveled Hand. Cf.Mt.12:9-14; Lk.6:6-11. The story is found in all three (Mt.12, Mk.3, Lk.6). They all report: (a) that on a sabbath Jesus womewhere attended the synagogue (cf."went to church") and noticed a man with a withered or shiriveled hand; (b) that present also were some Pharisees, who were aiming to bring a charge against Jesus; (c) that the Lord told the man to stretch out his hand; (d) that obedience to this command resulted in complete restoration; and (e) that the Pharisees discussed what should be done about the situation. As to further details, there is a very interesting variety of presentation, again showing that the Gospel writers were no mere copyists. There are no contradictions. Combining the various items mentioned in the three accounts, the following vivid and dramatic narrative results: Another sabbath has arrived. Jesus has entered the synagogue. Here he teaches (Lk.6:6). Attending the service is a man with a shriveled hand. It is the right hand (Lk.6:6; cf. Col.4:14). Opponents of Jesus, that is, Pharisees--and scribes (Lk.6:7)--are closely watching him (Mk.3:2; Lk.6:7), with the purpose of preparing a charge against him. He knows their thoughts (Lk.6:8), and makes them voice what they have on their minds. "Is it right to heal on the sabbath?" they ask (Mt.12:10). Jesus turns to the man, telling him to rise and step forward (Mk.3:3; Lk.6:8). Then Jesus asks his adversaries, "Is it right on the sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?" (Mk.3:4a; Lk.6:9). When they remain silent, Jesus looks around at them in agner, being grieved at the harness of their hearts (Mk.3:4b,5a). He continues, "What man of y o u, if he has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the sabbath, will not grab hold of it and lift it out? Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is right to do good on the sabbath" (Mt.12:11,12). [footnote 100 This affirmative answer to his own question was, of course, already implied in the question.] Jesus then says to the man, "Stretch out your hand." So complete was the restoration that the (right) hand was now "sound as the other" (Mt.12:13). The opponents were furious (Lk.6:11). Having left the synagogue (Mt.12:14; Mk.3:6), not only did they discuss among each other what they should do to Jesus (Lk.6:11b), but they also made contact with the Herodians (Mk.6:6a, so that a combined plot was hatched. The aim was to kill, to destroy Jesus (Mt.12:14; Mk.3:6b). The exact location of this synagogue is not indicated. Could it have been the one in Capernaum? In view of the fact that Mk and Lk relate this story in close connection with that of the choosing of The Twelve and the ascent up the mountain (Mk.3:13-19; Lk.6:12-49), a "mountain" or "hill" probably not far removed from Capernaum (Lk.7:1; cf.Mt.8:5), it is at least possible that synagogue somewhere in the vicinity of what was now Jesus' headquarters is meant. But we cannot be sure. On this sabbath in walks a man with a lame hand. The apocryphal Gospel according to the Hebrews states that the man was a stonemason, who pleaded with Jesus to heal him that he might not have to spend his life as a beggar. Be that as it may, the point is that this is a sabbath, and though there may well have been a difference of opinion between the disciples of Shammai, with their stricter interpretation of sabbath observance, and those of Hillel, with their more lenient view--the more rigorous position prevailing in Jerusalem, the more lenient in Galilee--, the rule that only in such cases in which a man's life was actually in danger would it be permissible to heal him on the sabbath was widely endorsed. Would Jesus dare to oppose this rule, by the Pharisees regarded as a well-established and basic principle which must not be violated? It is useless to speculate how the man had come to have a hand that was paralyzed. There are those who think that the form of the word used in the original here in 3:1, and translated "shriveled" or "withered," indicates that the condition of the hand was not congenital, but the result of an injury caused by disease or accident. This, however, may well be an over-refinement. it may be true but cannot be proved. TNICotNT-MARKlane121,2 - (f) The Decison that Jesus Must Be Destroyed. Ch. 3:1-6. The healing of the man with the withered hand forms the last of this first series of five conflict narratives. It takes it place at this point naturally by topical association with the previous incident and demonstrates that Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath. The high point of the incident lies less in the act of healing than in the conflict between Jesus and his adversaries, in which they are left silent before his sovereign word. It is striking that Jesus takes the initiative in asking what is permitted on the Sabbath, and that his adversaries are silent before his question. This pattern recurs in the series of controversies which took place in Jerusalem: in 12:34 Mk notes that no one dared question Jesus further, while in 12:35 Jesus himself seizes the initiative in the concluding conflict narrative. This parallel in structural arrangement is undoubtedly due to the evangelist. it is Mk's way of indicating that 3:6, reporting the conspiracy of the Pharisees and the Herodians, points forward to the Passion narrative. The decision to seek Jesus' death is not the result of a single incidnet; it is the response to an accumulation of incidents. It is therefore appropriate to see in 3:6 the conclusion to the whole section on conflict in Galilee (2:1-3:6). MARKj&d81,2 COMMENT TIME--Early Summer A.D. 28--although on a different sabbath than the one on which the disciples plucked the grain yet in the same summer. PLACE--Capernaum--in the synagogue of this city. PARALLEL ACCOUNTS--Mt.12:9-14; Lk.6:6-11. OUTLINE--1. The place of healing, vs.1. 2. The critics of the healing, vs.2. 3. The man to be healed, vs.3. 4.The question of the purpose of healing and the sabbath, vs.4. 5. The attitude of Jesus and the healing, vs.5. 6. The sad reaction of the healing on those who refused to learn, vs.6. ANALYSIS I. THE PLACE OF THE HEALING, vs.1. 1. At Capernaum in the synagogue. 2. In the midst of the Jewish worshippers in the synagogue. II. THE CRITICS OF THE HEALING, vs.2. 1. The Pharisees and perhaps the Herodians. 2. They were there to spy not to worship or learn. III. THE MAN TO BE HEALED vs.3. 1. An adult with a hand which was "dried up." 2. He was asked to arise so he could be seen by all in the service. IV. THE QUESTION OF THE PURPOSE OF HEALING AND THE SABBATH, vs.4. 1. Some were worried about the purpose of the sabbath-- Jesus asked if they really knew what should or should not be done on this day? 2. They refused to answer the obvious question. V. THE SAD REACTION OF THE HEALING ON THOSE WHO REFUSED TO LEARN, vs.6. 1. Left with their minds made up. 2. Immediately agreed with their enemies to destroy Jesus. EXPLANATORY NOTES Mark records another charge of Sabbath-breaking, probably to show how various were the outward occasions of such opposition; to illustrate the variety of Christ's defenses; and mark the first concerted plan for his destruction. Again, that is, on a different occasion from the one referred to in 2:21. The synagogue, most probably the one there mentioned, which was in Capernaum. Here, as in 2:23, the absence of any more specific note of time shows that exact chronological order was of small importance to the author's object. There is somewhat more precision as to this point in the parallel accounts of Lk (6:11) and Mt (12:9). There is no ground in the text of either gospel for the conjecture of some writers, that the presence of this sufferer had been contrived in order to entrap Christ. The constant application for his healing aid precludes the necessity of such supposition, and indeed suggests that this was only one of many miracles performed at this time, and is recorded in detail on account of its important bearing on the progress of Christ's ministry. Withered, literally, dried up, elsewhere applied to liquids (5:29. Rev.16:12), and to plants (4:6; 11:20; James 1:11), but also to the pining away of the human body. The passive participle adds to the meaning of the adjective (dry) employed by Mt and Lk, the idea that it was not a congenital infirmity, but the effect of disease or accident, the more calamitious because it was the right hand that was thus disabled (Lk.6:6). A similar affliction, preternaturally caused, was that of Jeroboam (I Kgs.13:4-6)." TCGTC-MARK119 - The vividness of paretAroun in v.2, of the detail of v.3 that is not absolutely necessary to the story, and of the references to Jesus' looking round on his opponents and to his anger and grief in v.5, suggest reminiscence. The unit may well be Petrine. The incident was remembered both as showing clearly the attitude of Jesus to the Sabbath and also as showing the development of opposition. palin may refer back to 1:21; if so, it was presumably added by Mark when he fitted the complex 2:1-3:6 into his gospel. Or possibly it was already a feature of the story, its point being to indicate that Jesus was a regular attender of the synagogue on sabbath days. exArammenAn. Some sort of paralysis is apparently meant. To suggest that the participle must imply that the paralysis was not from birth is to put more weight on it than it can carry. Its meaning is probably indistinguishable from that of the adjective used by Mt. and Lk. and by Mark himself in v.3. echwn does not go with An to form a periphrastic tense, but is descriptive. Mark 3:2 And they watched him,; And they were watching him--ABUV; ... closely--Gspd; whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; to see ...on the sabbath--RSV; that they might accuse him.; so that they could bring a charge against him--NEB; so as to have a complaint to bring against Him--Nor; and they were narrowly watching him, whether /on the Sabbath\ he would cure him, /that they might accuse him\. and they were watching him, whether on the sabbaths he will heal him, and they might accuse him. TRNTyeager66,7 - kai paretAroun auton ei tois sabbasin therapeusei auton, hina katAgorAswsin autou. kai (continuative conjunction). paretAroun (3d.per.pl.imp.act.ind.of paratArew, inceptive). observe - Gal.4:10. watch - Mk.3:2; Lk.6:7; 14:1; 20:20; Acts 9:24. Meaning: A combination of para and tArew. Hence to keep by the side of, in order to watch carefully; to give close attention to in view of expected developments. With reference to religious observance - Gal.4:10; of Paul's enemies, who maintained close reconnaissance on Paul- followed by hopws and a subjunctive clause of purpose - Acts 9:24; of the Pharisees who were watching Jesus in order to find in His conduct some basis for condemnation, followed by indirect question and hina and the subjective of purpose - Mk.3:2; Lk.6:7 (middle voice); in a periphrastic construction with the middle voice - Lk.14:1; followed by a hina clause of purpose -Lk.20:20. auton (acc.sing.masc.of autos, direct object of paretAroun). ei (conditional particle in an indirect question). tois (loc.pl.neut.of the article in agreement with sabbasin). sabbasin (loc.pl.neut.of sabbaton, time point). therapeusei (3d.per.sing.fut.act.ind.of therapeuw, indirect question). auton (acc.sing.masc.of autos, direct object of therapeusei). hina (final conjunction with a purpose clause). katAgorAswsin (3d.per.pl.aor.act.subj.of katAgorew, purpose). autou (gen.sing.masc.of autos, objective genitive). Translation: "And they began to watch him closely (in order to see) if He would heal him on the Sabbath, in order that they might file charges against Him." COMMENT: Cf.Mt.12:10 and Lk.6:7. The inceptive imperfect in paretAroun - "they began and continued to watch him closely" - indicates the zeal, albeit misguided, of these miserable, little people. Those who are sure that they have all of the answers to all questions feel called upon, by self appointment, to "ride herd" on their less enlightened fellows. Heresy hunters are very sure that they know what truth is and therefore what heresy is! ei and the future indicative is indirect question. The point of Mt.12:7,8, which see en loc, and comments, was lost upon them. Positivistic jurisprudence, the legal philosophy of the fanatic, here comes into the picture again and the spirit of the law is ignored if understood at all. The Pharisees were not concerned, either with the hungry disciples in the grain field or the crippled man in the synagogue. They hoped that Jesus would heal him, not for his benefit, but in order that they could procede to destroy Jesus in the courts. R1024 - Ei is used to introduce an indirect question here, "whether." Cham142 - para, 'beside'. There are about 50 verbal compounds in the NT. (a) ...Sometimes, these compounds seem to have a perfective force: paratArew (here), 'I watch by (closely).' Ear120,1 - Watched. Mk and Lk (6:7) both have the verb paratArew. Marvin Vincent writes: "The compound verb, with para, by the side of, means to watch carefully or closely, as one who dogs another's steps" (WS). Wycliffe, in the first English translation of the Bible (1382), had "They aspieden him" -- that is, "they spied on him." That is exactly what these observers were doing. Moulton and Milligan note that this verb was used for keeping a careful eye on criminals (VGT). Lk indicates that it was the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who were doing this (Lk.6:7). "Watched him closely" is a good translation here. MITGNTwuest62,3 - "And they watched Him." "They" were the Pharisees who had dogged our Lord's footsteps on a previous Sabbath. The verb is in the imperfect tense, speaking of continuous action. They kept on watching him, bent on finding our Lord at fault with reference to the Sabbath. Luke uses this verb in the middle voice to call attention to their personal interest in the proceedings. Here were the watchdogs of Israel's religion, attempting to discredit this claimant to Messiahship by finding Him violating its regulations. The prefixed preposition para which means "beside" in its local sense, speaks of the Pharisees as side-line observers. They would have nothing to do with our Lord, and kept themselves away from any fellowship with Him lest they be understood to be in sympathy with Him. They maintained an attitude of aloofness. The preposition in its perfective use accentuates the already-existing meaning of the verb. They were watching Him carefully and closely, as one who dogs another's steps. Wycliffe translates: "They espieden Him," that is, they played the spy. "Whether He would heal." The verbal form is in the future tense, literally "whether He will heal." Mark in this way places the reader at the time of the watching, looking forward, as the Pharisees did, to the future. "That they might accuse Him." The distinctive word for "accuse" katAgorew means "to accuse formally and before a tribunal, to bring a charge publicly." The prefixed preposition kata suggests animosity. The Pharisees were determined on finding something in which He might be involved with the OT law. The observance of the Sabbath seemed to present the best opportunity. Translation: "And they kept on spying upon Him closely, as to whether He would on the Sabbath heal him, in order that they might bring a formal accusation against Him before a tribunal." NTC-MARKhendriksen115 - Secretly the opponents hope that Jesus may trample upon their rule with respect to the sabbath. Who were these opponents? According to Mt.12:14 and Mk.3:6, the Pharisees; to which Luke, as was shown, adds "the scribes." It is with evil intent that they watch Jesus so closely, that they observe him so scrupulously. See also Lk.14:1; 20:20 [103]. They wanted to see whether Jesus would actually heal this man on the sabbath. If so, they will be in a position to press charges against him for unnecessarily practicing medicinal therapy on that day. [footnote 103] - At a later date, at Damascus, the Jews were going to watch the gates of the city "day and night," again with sinister purpose (Acts 9:24), namely, to prevent Paul from escaping.] TNICotNT-MARKlane122,3 - Mark gives nothing more than the unadorned fact that Jesus was again in the synagogue on a Sabbath. it is natural to think of Capernaum since the evangelist appears to situate the first two encounters with opposition there (2:1-17), but the incident could have taken place in any Galilean town. Conflict erupted over the healing of a man with a withered hand in which the man himself was little more than a silent participant in the unfolding situation. Jesus' adversaries were convinced that he was a violator of the Sabbath. Their attitude was well expressed by a synagogue-ruler who was exasperated with the people who came to Jesus for healing on the Sabbath: "There are six cays on which work ought to be done; come on those days and be healed, and not on the Sabbath day" [9]. Like other aspects of Jewish life, the practice of medicine and healing on the Sabbath was regulated by legal tradition. It was an accepted principle that "any danger to life takes precedence over the Sabbath." The scribes, however, had determined precisely in which cases it was proper to speak of immediate danger to life, and to what extent aid could be granted. In none of the recorded healings which Jesus performed on the Sabbath would the scribes have agreed that there was any immediate threat to life. The presence in the synagogue of opponents who were scrutinizing Jesus' activity indicates that they were convinced of his ability to heal. They did not regard his capability as extraordinary but as a power he shared with others who did not exercise it on the Sabbath. [footnote 9] - Lk.13:14. For Jesus' attitude see Lk.13:10-16; 14:1-6. In the latter narrative Jesus' question whether it is permitted to heal upon the Sabbath, together with the silence of the Pharisees who were watching him, offer a close parallel to Mk.3:1-5. MARKj&d83 - We have here a striking indication that the opposition to our Saviour was becoming more inverterate and settled, so that his enemies not only censured what he did, but watched for some occasion to find fault with him. Watched, i.e. closely or intently, as suggested by the com- pound form of the Greek verb, both here and in Acts 9:24. Whether he would, literally, if he will, a form of speech which represented the scene as actually passing. The motive of their watching was not simply curiosity, but a deliberate desire to entrap him. That they might accuse him, not in conversation merely, but before the local judges, who were probably identical with the elders or rulers of the syna- gogue, or at all events present at the stated time and place of public worship. The subject of the verb is not expressed by Mark and Mt, although easily supplied from the foregoing context (2:24; Mt.12:2), and from the parallel account in Lk (6:7), where the scribes and Pharisees are expressly mentioned." MARKmcgarvey277,8 - The people were assembled in the synagogue for worship. A man with a withered hand was present when Jesus came in. They watched him to see whether, according to his custom, he would heal the man or decline to do so through respect for the Sabbath-day. Luke, more minute in his description, tells us that it was the man's right hand that was withered--a more serious affliction than if it had been the left. Mt also tells us that "they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath-day? that they might accuse him;" from which we infer that they were fear- ful lest he might not notice the man, and so, by propounding the question, they caused him to look around and see if any one there needed healing. TCGTC-MARKcranfield119,20 - paretAroun. Not an indefinite plural, as it is not just equivalent to a passive. Definite people are in mind, though it is not till vs.6 that their identity is indicated. therapeusei. The question in their minds was 'Will he heal?' The tense of the original direct speech is correctly retained in the indirect. The use of an indirect question here suggests that Jesus read their thoughts: Lk.6:8 makes this explicit. According to the Rabbis the sick or injured were to be treated on the Sabbath day, if life was actually in danger (cf. (M) Yom. 8:6: 'Whenerver there is doubt whether life is in danger this overrides the Sabbath'); but if there was no danger to life, then treatment was not permissible. ... Since the withered hand did not constitute a danger to the man's life, to heal it on the Sabbath would be in the Pharisees' view an infringement of the Sabbath and punishable as such. Mark 3:3 And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand,; He told the man with the shrunken hand--Ber; Stand forth.; Arise, and come into the midst--ABUV; Come here--RSV; Rise and come forward--Mof; Get us in the crowd--Wms; And he saith unto the man who hath /his hand withered\ Arise into the midst! And he saith to the man having the hand withered, 'Rise up in the midst.' TRNTyeager68 - kai legei tw anthrwpw tw tAn xAran cheira echonti, Egeire eis to meson. kai (inferential conjunction). legei (3d.per.sing.pres.act.ind.of legw, historical). tw (dat.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with anthrwpw). anthrwpw (dat.sing.masc.of anthrwpos, indirect object of legei). tw (dat.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with echonti. tAn (acc.sing.fem.of the article in agreement with cheira). xAran (acc.sing.fem.of xAros, in agreement with cheira). cheira (acc.sing.fem.of cheir, direct object of echonti). echonti (pres.act.part.dat.sing.fem.of echw, in agreement with anthrwpw). Egeire (2d.per.sing.pres.act.impv.of egeirw, command). eis (preposition with the accusative of extent). to (acc.sing.neut.of the article in agreement with meson). meson (acc.sing.neut.of mesos, extent). Translation: "Therefore He said to the man having the withered hand, 'Step up here into the crowd." COMMENT: Mark wished to emphasize the fact that the man had a withered hand. He did this by modifying anthrwpw with the participial phrase tw tAn xAran cheira echonti in the emphatic attributive position. The word order in such an idiom is article, noun, article modifier. The modifier here is xAran cheira echonti. Note that Jesus wanted to be certain that everyone in the synagogue saw the miracle and heard the debate which would follow. This is why He commanded the man to leave his place and take a position in the midst of the crowd. The Pharisees had gone too far. Jesus wanted to make an example out of the man with his unfortunate condition and the hardness of the hearts of the Pharisees. Cf.Mt.12:13. Ear121 - Stand Forth. The Greek literally says, "Get up [or, stand up] into the midst." The meaning evidently is: "Stand up in front of everyone" (NIV). A&G note that the imperative form of the verb here--egeire--means "Get up." MITGNTwuest63 - "Stand forth." The literal Greek here is; "Be arising into the midst." That is, "step into the midst of all the people so that all can see you." Our Lord answered the spying attitude of the Pharisees by this daring act. He brought things out into the open at once, and threw a challenge to them. Translation: "And He says to the man having the withered hand, Arise, and stand in the midst." NTC-MARKhendriksen115 - The Lord clearly takes the offensive. He is opposed to all secret scheming and conniving, furtive watching and under-cover planning. Besides, he may have wished to elicit the sympathy of the audience for this handicapped person. So, he tells the man to get up and to stand where everybody can see him. MARKj&d83 - This direction to the patient is placed by Mt (12:13) after the address to his accusers, but without asserting that it was not given sooner, as would seem to be the case from the accounts of Mk and Lk, who represent it as a sort of preparation for the subsequent discourse, which would be rendered more impressive by the sight of the man standing in the midst, i.e. among them, and no doubt in a conspicuous position, but not necessarily in the exact center of the house or assembly. This phrase is omitted in our version, or included in the phrase stand forth. The Greek verb is the same with that in 1:31; 2:9; 11:12, and strictly means to rouse another or one's self, especially from sleep. (Cp.Mt.8:25; Lk.8:24). MARKmcgarvey278 - Both Mk and Lk represent that before answering the question propounded, Jesus said to the man, "Stand forth," and thus caused him to stand up in full view of all the people, so as to make more striking what he then proceeded to say and do. TCGTC-MARKcranfield120 - In reply to the unspoken challenge Jesus bids the man 'Rise (and come) [the construction is pregnant] into the midst', i.e. where he can the better be seen. ... In this case the need for secrecy ... is apparently outweighed by other motives. Mark 3:4 And he saith unto them,; then he asked them--Mof; Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil?; ...on the sabbath day to do good, or to do harm--ASV; Is it right to help or to hurt on the sabbath--Mof; Which is right, to do good on the sabbath day, or to do harm--Knox; to save life, or to kill? ...or to take it--Wms; to save a life, or to kill--ASV; ...or to destroy one--Wey; But they held their peace.; But they were silent--ABUV; There was a dead silence--Phi; They had nothing to say--NEB; But they made no answer--Gspd; and saith unto them-- Is it allowed /on the Sabbath\ //to do good, or to do evil\\? To //save\\ /life\, or //to slay\\? but they remained silent. And he saith to them, 'Is it lawful on the sabbaths to do good, or to do evil? life to save, or to kill?' but they were silent. kai legei autois, Exestin tois sabbasin agathon poiAsai A kakopoiAsai, phuchAn swsai A apokteinai; hoi de esiwpwn. kai (continuative conjunction). legei (3d.per.sing.pres.act.ind.of legw, historical). autois (dat.pl.masc.of autos, indirect object of legei). Exestin (3d.per.sing.pres.ind.of exeimi, customary). tois (loc.pl.neut.of the article in agreement with sabbasin). sabbasin (loc.pl.neut.of sabbaton, time point). agathopoiAsai (aor.act.inf.of agathopoiew, complimentary). do good - Mk.3:4; lk.6:9,33,33,35; III John 11. do well - I Pet.2:14,20; 3:6. for well doing - I Pet.3:17. with well doing - I Pet.2:15. Meaning: A combination of agathos and poiew. Hence, to do well; to perform deeds of goodness and to behave in an examplary fashion. In contrast to kakopoiew in Mk.3:4; Lk.6:9; III John 11; I Pet.3:17. To do good to men - Lk.6:33,33,35. As a participial substantive - III John 11; I Pet.2:14; 3:6. Cf. also I Pet.3:17; 2:15. As a causal participle - I Pet.2:20. A (disjunctive particle). kakopoiAsai (aor.act.inf.of kakopoiew, complementary). do evil - Mk.3:4; Lk.6:9; III John 11. evil doer - I Pet.2:14. for doing evil - I Pet.3:17. Meaning: A combination of kakos and poiew. Hence to do evil. In contrast to #2105 in Mk.3:4; Lk.6:9; III John 11; I Pet.2:14; 3:17. phuchAn (acc.sing.fem.of phuchA, direct object of swsai). swsai (aor.act.inf.of swzw, complementary). A (disjunctive particle). apokteinai (aor.act.inf.of apokteinw, complementary). hoi (nom.pl.masc.of the article, subject of esiwpwn). de (adversative conjunction). esiwpwn (3d.per.pl.imp.act.ind.of siwpaw, progressive description). Translation: "Then He said to them, 'Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil? to save a life or kill?' But the remained silent." COMMENT: Jesus' question is in reply to their question of Mt.12:10. He counters their question by asking one. His question, had they replied to it, would have forced them to say whether healing is good or bad. And the extension of the thought would then be, whether saving a life is good - or should we kill. For healing is the function to forestall death; if there is no healing ultimately death results. To say that healing is bad is to say that killing is good. Note exestin in emphasis. If they were going to emphasize what was legal or illegal, Jesus would do likewise. He presented them with a hard choice. Should one do good or ill? Should one kill or make alive? How could they say that their interpretation of the law forced them to kill(by withholding healing) and ohterwise to do evil on the Sabbath? No wonder they found it necessary, in order to accomplish their evil purpose, to maintain a profound silence. Keep in mind that their reason for starting this argument was to force Jesus into a statement and/or act which would provide them with an indictment against Him. For further comment on the incident review the treatment given the parallel passages in Mt.12:9-14 and Lk.6:6-11. B384 - The infinitives here are used as the subject of the finite verb exestin ("is it lawful...to do good...to do harm"). T32 - Nnotice the comparative idea in exestin...A (the comparative particle is used after a verb as though by itself it meant "more than"--H442). MITGNTwuest63,4 - "To do good or to do evil?" Expositors note is helpful: "to do good or evil to one, or to do the normally good or evil. Recent commentators favor the latter as essential to the cogency of Christ's argument. But the former seems more consonant to the situation. It was a question of performing an act of healing. Christ assumes that the ethically good coincides with the humane (Sabbath made for man.) Therein essentially lay the difference between Him and the Pharisees, in whose theory and practice, religious duty and benevolence, the divine and the human, were divorced. To do good or to do evil, these the only alternatives: to omit to do good in your power is evil; not to save life, when you can, is to destroy it." "They held their peace." The verb is imperfect. They kept on being quiet. Theirs was a painful, embarrassing silence. Expositors says: "What could they reply to a question which looked at the subject from a wholly different point of view, the ethical, from the legal one they were accustomed to? There was nothing in common between them and Jesus." Translation: "And He says to them, Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill? But they kept on being quiet." NTC-MARKhendriksen115 - Were not the Pharisees and the scribes the very people who were always claiming that they knew what was "permitted," "lawful," and therefore "right"? Let them therefore give their expert opinion. Of course, the answer to Christ's question was so obvious that a child could have given it. If it is right to do good, both with respect to God--loving, serving, and delighting oneself in him--, and with respect to man--delivering him from bondage, feeding and clothing him--, which God had required and even emphasized? And this in a context of fasting and sabbath observance/ How strange that these adverse critics had not recalled the clear and definite teaching of Isa.56:6; 58:6- 14! The Lord had urged Israel to use the sabbath for the very purpose for which Jesus was here, now, and always using it. Nevertheless, it was with him that men who were supposed to be experts in the law were finding fault. However, Jesus probed even more deeply. He exposed the perversity of the critics even more unequivocally; for not only did he ask whether it was permitted on the sabbath to do good and to save life; he added, "or to do harm and to kill?" Certainly, if it was improper to do harm and to kill on the other six days of the week, was it not very improper to engage in this sinister business on the day specifically set aside for honoring God and showing sympathy to man? Nevertheless this doing harm and killing was exactly what these enemies were right now engaged in! In their hearts they were doing harm to the Messiah, sent by the Father. They were engaged in killing him! For proof see vs.6; cf. Mt.5:21,22; I Jn.3;15. O that even now they had repented and confessed their wickedness. TNICotNT-MARKlane123 - Jesus commanded the man with the withered hand to stand in the midst of the assembled congregation, and then posed to his adversaries a rhetorical question: "Is it permitted on the Sabbath to do good, or to do harm; to save a life or to kill?" Formulated in this way, the question demands an answer in terms of the halakha as determined in scribal study of the Law. The tradition clearly asserted that the Law was not opposed to the saving of life on the Sabbath. The Pharisees refused to debate the halakha with Jesus [13]. They were indignant because the healing of a paralyzed hand could wait until the next day. They understood that Jesus was not asking a theoretical question for the sake of halakhic refinement. The point at issue was "doing good" on the Sabbath now in the concrete instance of the man who stood in their midst [14]. [footnote 13] - The silencing of his enemies suggests that Jesus overcame the powers of evil which are at work in his adversaries. ... [footnote 14] - Rightly stressed by Van der Loos ... The Pharisees, presumably, would have answered that it is good to heal on the Sabbath only when an individual is dangerously ill. ... MARKj&d83 - Before proceeding to perform the miracle, he appeals to them as to the question of its lawfulness, retorting the same question which they had already put to him (Mt.12:10), as if he had said, 'answer your own question; I will leave it to yourselves, and will abide by your decision, not how- ever as expressed in words alone, but in your actions' (Mt. 12:11,12). Is it lawful, not right in itself, but consistent with the law of Moses, and with your acknowledged obligation to obey it. To do good and to do evil may, according to etymology and usage, mean to do right and to do wrong in the general (I Pet.3:16,17; III Jn. 11), or to do good and to injure in particular (Acts 14:17). On the former supposition the meaning of the sentence is, 'You will surely admit that it is lawful to do right in preference to wrong on the Sabbath, as on any other day.' But as this is little more than an identical proposition, or at least an undisputed truism (namely) that what is right is lawful), most interpreters prefer the other explanation, according to which our Lord is not asserting a mere truism, which his hearers were as ready to acknowledge as himself, but pointing out their obvious mistake as to the nature of the action which they had condemned beforehand. Stripped of its interrogative form, the sentence contains two distinct but consecutive propositions. The first is that if tmust be lawful, even on the Sabbath, to confer a favor or to do a kindness, when the choice lies between that and the doing of an injury. Even if not absolutely lawful, it would certainly become so in the case of such an alternative. The next proposition is that this rule, which is true in general, is emphatically true when the alternative is that of life and death. To this may be added, as a tacit influence, not formally deduced, but left to be drawn by the hearers for themselves, that such a case was that before them, in which to refuse help was virtually to destroy. This is not to be strictly understood as meaning that unless the withered hand were healed at once the man would die, but as exemplifying that peculiar method of presenting extreme cases, which is one of the most marked characteristics of our Saviours' teaching. As in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere, he instructs us what we must be prepared to do in an extreme case, thus providing for all others; so here he exhibits the conclusion, to which their reasoning naturally tended, as a proof that it must be erroneous. If the rest of the Sabbath was not only a divine requisition, but an intrinsic, absolute necessity, to which all human interests must yield, this could be no less true in an extreme case than in any other, so that life itself must be sacrificed to it. This revolting conclusion could be avoided only by admitting that the obligation of the Sabbath rested on authority, and might by that authority be abrogated or suspended. This implies that such authority belonged to him, that he was not acting as a mere man, or a prophet, but as the Son of man, and as such lord of the Sabbath; so that, although his answer upon this occasion is in form quite different from that before recorded, it amounts to the same thing, and proceeds upon the same essential principle. Thus understood, the sentence may be paraphrased as follows: 'You consider me a breaker of the law, because I heal upon the Sabbath; but you must admit that where the choice is between doing good and evil, for example, between saving life and killing upon that day, we are bound to choose the former. There is therefore some limit or exception to the obligation which you urge upon yourselves and others, not indeed to be decided by your own discretion or caprice, but by the same authority which first imposed it. Now that authority I claim to exercise, a claim abundantly attested by the very miracles on which your charge is founded, for no man can do such things unless God be with him.' (Cp.Jn.3:2). MARKmcgarvey278 - In answer to their question as given by Mt, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath-day," he puts to them the question, "Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath-day, or to do evil? To save life, or to kill?" To heal this man would be doing good; it would be making alive. To pass him by, having the power to heal him--a power given for the purpose of being thus exercised--would be doing evil, to kill where he might make alive. He must do one or the other, and he calls on them to say which. They refused to answer, because the only answer they could give would condemn themselves. Mt reports an additional argument which comes in at this point: "What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the Sabbath-day, will he not lay hold on it and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep?" (Mt.12:11,12). To neither of these questions did they give an answer. TCGTC-MARKcranfield120 - ... Jesus' question is often explained as a challenge to the Pharisees to decide which of two actions is lawful on the Sabbath: that which he is about to do, which can be described as preserving life (cf. the use of swzw in connection with healing, e.g. v.28,34; 6:56; 10:52), or that which they are actually engaged in, namely, watching him with intent to compass his death--planning murder. (So Taylor.) More probable is the interpretation which takes kakopoiAsai and apokteinai to refer to the other course open to Jesus, namely to refrain from healing. To omit to do the good which one could do to someone in need is to do evil. It is to break the Sixth Commandment. 'There is little difference,' says Calvin, 'between manslaughter and the conduct of him who does not concern himself about relieving a person in distress.' hoi de esiwpwn. For they were unwilling to give the true answer, that to do good is allowed and to do evil forbidden, and so admit the falseness of their piety; and they dared not give the other answer, for that would have been to suggest that God had appointed one day in seven on which to do good was forbidden and to do evil allowed. Mark 3:5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, And after looking around at them...--NASB; And he, after an angry glance round the circle--Rieu; being grieved for the hardness of their hearts,; ...at the hardening of their heart--ASV; hurt by their obstinacy--Gspd sorry because their minds were closed--Beck; deeply distressed by their callousness--Phi; deeply disturbed by their indifference to human need--Tay; he saith unto the man,; He said to the man--NASB; Stretch forth thine hand.; Stretch out your hand--RSV; ...arm--NEB; Hold out your hand!--Gspd; And he stretched it out:; And he stretched it forth--ASV; And he held it out--Gspd; and his hand was restored whole as the other.; and his hand was restored--ASV; and the hand was completely restored--Wey; ...was at once...--Mon; and his arm was restored--NEB; And he saith unto the man-- Stretch forth thy hand! and he stretched it forth, and his hand /was restored\. And having looked round upon them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their heart, he saith to the man, 'Stretch forth thy hand;' and he stretched forth, and his hand was restored whole as the other; TRNTyeager70,71 - kai periblephamenos autous met' orgAs, sullupoumenos epi tA pwrwsei tAs kardias autwn, legei tw anthrwpw, Ekteinon tAn cheira; kai exeteinen, kai apekatestathA hA cheir autou. kai (inferential conjunction). periblephamenos (aor.act.part.nom.sing.masc.of periblepw, adverbial, temporal). look about on - Mk.3:5. look round about - Mk.3:34; 5:32; 9:8. look round about on - Mk.10:23. look round about upon - Mk.11:11; Lk.6:10. Meaning: A combination of peri and blepw. Hence, to look around. To sweep the surroundings with one's gaze. To survey the scene. With reference to Jesus in the synagogue before he healed the man with the withered hand - Mk.3:5; Lk.6:10; when His family came to visit - Mk.3:34; in search of the woman who touched His garment - Mk.5:32; in connection with His discourse on riches - Mk.10:23; as He surveyed the temple scene - Mk.11:11. With reference to the disciples on the Transfiguration Mountain - Mk.9:8. Note that six of the seven use are in Mark's gospel. autous (acc.pl.masc.of autos, extent after peri in composition). met' (preposition with the genitive in an adverbial sense). orgAs (gen.sing.fem.of orgA, adverbial). sunlupoumenos (pres.mid.part.nom.sing.masc.of sullupew, adverbial, causal). grieve - Mk.3:5. Meaning: A combination of sun and lupew. Hence to be filled with grief. In the middle or passive in Mk.3:5, with reference to our Lord's distress because of the hardness of the hearts of the Pharisees. epi (preposition with the locative, with a verb of emotion). tA (loc.sing.fem.of the article in agreement with pwrwsei). pwrwsei (loc.sing.fem.of pwrwsis, with a verb of emotion). blindness - Rom.11:25; Eph.4:18. hardness - Mk.3:5. Meaning: Cf.pwrow. Hence properly to cover with a callous. Trop., the deadening and dulling of mental discernment due to prejudice. Twice applied to the unregenerate Gentiles - Eph.4:18. tAs (gen.sing.fem.of the article in agreement with kardias). kardias (gen.sing.fem.of kardia, definition). autwn (gen.pl.masc.of autos, possession). legei (3d.per.sing.pres.act.ind of legw, historical). tw (dat.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with anthrwpw). anthrwpw (dat.sing.masc.of anthrwpos, indirect object of legei). Ekteinon (2d.per.sing.aor.act.impv.of ekteinw, command). tAn (acc.sing.fem.of the article in agreement with cheira). cheira (acc.sing.fem.of cheir, direct object of ekteinon). kai (inferential conjunction). exeteinen (3d.per.sing.aor.act.ind.of ekteinw, constative). kai (continuative conjunction). apekatestathA (3d.per.sing.aor.pass.ind.of apokathistAmi, constative). hA (nom.sing.fem.of the article in agreement with cheir). cheir (nom.sing.fem.of cheir, subject of apekatestathA). autou (gen.sing.masc.of autos, possession). Translation: "Therefore when He had looked around at them with anger because He was grieved because of the harness of their hearts, He said to the man, 'Stretch out your hand.' And he reached out and his hand was restored." COMMENT: kai is inferential. It was because of the stony silence of the Pharisees that Jesus looked at them with anger. Cf.#47 for epi when joined to a verb of emotion. Other examples are Mt.14:14; 18:26,29; Mk.12:17. We may take tAs kardias either as a genitive of description or an ablative of source. The callous attitude toward the suffering of the crippled man was the result of hearts that had long since rejected the truth and had become totally prejudiced in favor of their own rationalizations. Perverted hearts are the source of callousness and unconcern. Thus we see man's inhumanity to man. A careful study of #432 will show what the kardia of man will produce. It is not a pretty picture, e.g. Lk.1:51. When hearts are regenerated men will not be indifferent to the suffering of others. The mand did with his withered hand what could be done only by faith. He stretched it out in obedience to a command. When God commands, He also enables. The hand was restored. Study #978 carefully for other examples of restoration. Review comment on Mt.12:9-15. R813 - Periblepomai is always middle in the NT, accenting the movement of the eyes or concern expressed in the look. H325 - The meaning of sullupeomai in this verse is difficult to determine, since the word in its earlier record involves "sympathy" which is somewhat forced here: can it be perfective, meaning "utterly distressed"? [Ed. The preposition sun strengthens the simple verb, with the resultant meaning "deeply grieved at the hardening of their heart."] Ear121,2 - Being Grieved. The simple verb lupew in the passive means "become sad, sorrowful, distressed" (AG). But here it is the compound, sullupew. The prepositional prefix, sun (assimilated as sul with the following lupew) has what is called the "intensive force," strengthening the main verb. A&G would translate the whole phrase here: "deeply grieved at the hardening of their heart". A bit more contemporary rendering is "deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts" (NIV). "When he had looked round upon" is the aorist participle, periblepsamenos. It indicates a momentary flash of anger at the stubborn, unreasonable attitude of these religious leaders, who didn't want Him to heal a needy man on the Sabbath. But "being grieved" is the present participle, sullupoumenos, indicating a continuing deep distress at their selfishness. We should react, as Jesus did, with anger at the sight of cruelty to human beings. At the same time we should feel a continuing compassion for the sinner. MITGNTwuest64,5 - "He looked round about on them." The aorist in juxtaposition with the present tense of the participle "being grieved," shows that it was a swift, sweeping glance. The prefixed preposition peri, meaning "around," indicates that His glance took them all in. "With anger." There are three words speaking of anger, thumos, indicating a sudden outburst of anger that cools off quickly, orgA, defining an abiding and settled habit of mind, not operative at all times, but exhibiting itself in the same way when the occasion demands it, and parorgismos which speaks of anger in the sense of exasperation. The latter is forbidden in Scripture, "Let not the sun go down upon your wrath" (Eph.4:26); the second, orgA is permitted, but the qualification is that no sinful element be included in it. Mark uses the word orgA. Trench in his Synonyms in the NT, has some excellent material on this word: "Under certain conditions orgA is a righteous passion to entertain. The scripture has nothing in common with the Stoic's absolute dondemnation of anger. It inculcates no apatheia (an apathetic attitude of no feeling whatever towards a thing), but only a metriopatheia, a moderation, not an absolute suppression, of the passions, which were given to a man as winds fill the sails of his souls, as Plutarch excellently puts it...Aristotle, in agreement with all deeper ethical writers of antiquity,...had affirmed that, when guided by reason, anger is a right affection, so the Scripture permits, and not only permits, but on fit occasions demands it...There is a wrath of God (Mt.3:7) who would not love good, unless He hated evil, the two being so inseparable, that either He must do both or neither; a wrath also of the merciful Son (Mk.3:5); and a wrath which righteous men not merely may, but, as they are righteous, must feel; nor can there be a surer and sadder token of an utterly prostrate moral condition than the not being able to be angry with sin--and sinners. 'Anger,' says Fuller, 'is one of the sinews of the soul; he that wants it hath a maimed mind, and with Jacob sinew-shrunk in the hollow of his thing, must needs halt" Robertson quotes Gould as saying, "Anger against wrong as wrong, is a sign of moral health." "Being grieved for the hardness of their hearts." Our Lord's anger was tempered by grief. The participle is present in tense, thus durative in meaning, showing the continuous state of grief of the Man of Sorrows at the sins of the people, the aorist verb in juxtaposition, speaking of the look of anger as but momentary. "Hardness" is the translation of pwrwsis. The verbal form means "to cover with a thick skin, to harden by covering with a callus," the noun pwros meaning, "hard skin, a hardening." The word Mark uses means "obtuseness of mental discernment, dulled perception." Here the obtuseness is not mental but moral and spiritual. The word "hearts" is singular in the Greek text, "the hardness of their heart." Expositors, commenting on this says: "singular, as if the whole class had but one heart, which was a fact so far as the type of heart (hardened) was concerned." Vincent suggests that the word "hardening" gives the thought of the Greek better than the word "hardness." It hints at the process going on. "Stretch forth thy hand." Expositors says: "The stretching forth of the withered hand in obedience to Christ's command, conclusive evidence of cure, was the signal for an immediate exodus of the champions of orthodox Sabbath-keeping; full of wrath because the Sabbath was broken, and especially because it was broken by a miracle bringing fame to the transgressor." The words "whole as the other" are not in the Nestle text. The word "restored," apokathistAmi, means "to restore to its former state." Translation: "And having looked round about on them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their hearts, He says to the man, Stretch out your hand at once. And he stretched it out. And his hand was restored to its former state." NTC-MARKhendriksen116,7 - Mark's description is very vivid. He writes as if he were reporting the very words spoken by an eye-witness, which was probably what he was indeed doing, the eye-witness being Peter [105]. Mark states that it was "in anger" that Jesus looked around at his critics. For this word "anger" or "wrath" see also 3:7 in both Mt and Lk; further: Lk.21:23; Jn.3:36; and the many references to divine wrath in the epistles and the Book of Revelation. Similarly, Jesus was going to be "moved with indignation" upon noticing that the disciples were trying to stop those who were bringing the little ones to him, that he might touch them (Mk.10:14). It should not be necessary to point out that there was nothing wrong with such indignation, such intense horror and disapproval. Actually it was simply the necessary concomitant of love. What was happening, as recorded here in Mk 3, was that the Pharisees were esteeming man-made ritualism above God-ordained concern about a man's welfare. Strict adherance to a rabbinical rule evidently meant more to them than the happiness of a human being. Jesus, on the other hand, sympathized with this handicapped person. Hence, he was terribly displeased with those cold-hearted ritualists. But even his anger was tempered by grief: he was deeply grieved at the hardening of their heart, that is, at their spiritual obtuseness, insensibility, and obstinacy. Cf. Rom.11:25; Eph.4:18. Are we correct in saying that he "felt sorry" even for these rigid traditionalists? Cf. Lk.23:34. However that may be, it is significant that, according to the tenses used in the original, the angry look was momentary, the deep-seated grief was continuous, abiding [106]. A chilling silence prevails in the ranks of the critics. With bated breath the rest of the people are also watching, wondering what will happen now. The atmosphere in the synagogue is surcharged with uneasiness on the one hand, expectancy on the other. The man with the "withered" hand is still standing there, in full view of the audience. Jesus is about to perform the miracle demanded by this situation. He must act now, not later. For him to have waited until the following day could easily have been interpreted as an admission on his part that deeds of healing, unless in a case of life or death, were after all wrong when performed on the sabbath. Such a delay would have compounded error. This must not be. Now is the appropriate moment. So, after the scrutinizeing all-around look, Jesus says to the handicapped man, "Stretch [or: hold] out your hand." Immediately he obeys: The cure was instantaneous and complete. Cf. I Kings 13:6. Subsequent treatments or check-ups were not required. In a manner too mysterious for any mortal to comprehend, the Savior had concentrated his mind on the plight of this poor man, and by means of his power and compassion, had willed and performed the cure; and this not "in a dark corner" but in the sight of everyone present. [footnote 105] - The expression used by Mark, kai periblepsamenos autous, literally "and having looked around on them," is similar to that found in 3:34 and 10:23, in both instances referring to the manner in which Jesus looked at his disciples. In 5:32 the reference is to his looking around at the crowd in order to see who had touched him; and in 11:11 Jesus is described as having looked around at everything in the temple. On the Mount of Transifiguration the disciples "having looked around," saw no one with them but Jesus only (9:8). With the exception of 5:32 (the imperfect) Mark everywhere uses the aorist participle. Outside of Mark's Gospel this word, hence also this vivid reference to Christ's look, is found only in Lk.6:10a, where Lk parallels (probably borrows from) Mk. [footnote 106] - As to the theory endorsed by several commentators, namely, that the phrase "in anger" was omitted by Mt and Lk because they were unwilling to ascribe this emotion to Jesus, would not a more reasonable explanation for the difference between Mt and Lk's account, on the one hand, and Mk's, on the other, be this, that the latter report, being the precipitate of the preaching of lively, dramatic Simon Peter, would naturally in many instances be the most detailed and animated? TNICotNT-MARKlane123,4 - Jesus did not mistake the silence of his opponents for consent that the man should be healed. He regarded them with an anger which expressed the anger of God. In their concern for legal detail they had forgotten the mercy and grace shown by God to man when he made provision for the Sabbath. In the name of piety they had become insensitive both to the purposes of God and to the sufferings of men. Jesus' anger was tempered by a godly sorrow for men who could no longer rejoice in the tokens of God's goodness to men. When Jesus restored the man's hand he demonstrated what it means "to do good" and "to preserve life' on the Sabbath. Moreover, he provided a sign of the true observance and joy of the Sabbath. As Lord of the Sabbath Jesus delivers both the Sabbath and man from a state of distress. MARKj&d85,6 - We have here an instance of what some regard as characteristic of this gospel, and ascribe to Peter's influence upon it, to wit, the occasional description of our Saviour's feelings, looks and gestures, most of which details we owe exclusively to Mk. Three such particulars are here recorded, one external, two internal. Looking round upon (or at) them is an at mentioned by Lk also (6:10), with the addition of the strong word all. But Mk tells what feelings were expressed by this act, or at least accompanied it. One was anger, a passion belonging to our original constitution, and as such not sinful in itself, and therefore shared by the humanity of Christ, in whom it was a holy indignation or intense displeasure at what really deserves it, unalloyed by that excess or that malignity which renders human anger almost always sinful. The absence of the quality last named in this case is apparent from the other feeling mentioned, that of grief or sorrow. Grieved with is in Greek a compound verb, admitting of two explanations, one of which makes the particle in composition refer to the anger previously mentioned, being grieved (in conjunction or at the same time) with that anger. But the classical usage of such writers as Plato, Theophrastus, Diodorus, is in favour of referring the particle in question, not to the anger, but to those who caused it, so as to express a sympathetic sorrow. Looking round with anger and yet grieving (sympathizing) with them. In the very act of condemning their sin, he pitied the miserable state to which it had reduced them. The specific object of this sympathetic grief or pity was the hardness of their heart, including intellectual stupidity and insensibility of feeling. The first Greek word is less exactly rendered blindness in the margin of our Bible, and in the text of Rom.11:25; Eph.4:18. But the figure, although not suggested by the Greek word, is expressive of two things which it denotes, a state of mental and spiritual apathy or insensibility. There is here no mention of externa contact (as in 1:31,41), nor of any other order or command than that to stretch out the hand, which could only be obeyed when the miracle was wrought, and is therefore not required as a previous condition. This is often and justly used to illustrate the act of faith, which is performed in obedience to divine command and by the aid of the same power which requires it. Whole (or sound) as the other, though expunged in this place by the critics as a mere assimilation to Mt. 12:13 (compare Lk.6:10), may be used to illustrate Mark's laconic phrase, in which it is really implied." MARKmcgarvey278 - Anger mingled with grief--"being grieved for the hardness of their hearts." Anger, when rightly directed and controlled, is not a sinful feeling; but it is a dangerous one, because it is very likely to end in sinful speech or action: hence the admonition of Paul, "Be angry and sin not. Let not the sun go down on your wrath." In this case Jesus showed anger only in his look: there was none in his words. "he saith to the man."--He first, according to Mt (Mt.12:12,13), answered his own questions and the argument which they contained by saying, "Wherefore, it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath-dayss." Then he saith to the man, "Stretch forth thy hand." He did so, and it was restored. TCGTC-MARKcranfield121,2 - periblepsamenos. periblepomai (only used in the middle in NT) means 'to look round (upon)', and is used sometimes with a direct object, as here, and some- times absolutely. In the NT it occurs seven times--six times with Jesus as subject ... met' orgAs. For Jesus' anger cf. 1:41 (reading orgistheis), 10:14 (AganaktAsen). His anger here is often referred to his humanity simply (e.g. Calvin, Taylor). Is it perhaps better to think here of the oneness of his person and to regard his anger as that of the whole Christ, God and Man--and similarly with his grief (sunlupoumenos)? In Mt and Lk this reference to Jesus' anger and grief is omitted. sunlupoumenos. Sunlupeisthai properly means 'to mourn with', 'sympathize': this is the only known instance of its use simply as a strengthened form of lupeisthai. ... pwrwsei. Pwrwsis occurs in the NT in Rom.11:25; Eph.4:18, and here; pwrw in 6:52; 8:17; Jn.12:40; Rom.11:7; II Cor.3:14. Probably in the NT the idea is rather of blindness than hardness. ... apekatestathA. Note the double augment, as in 8:25. In this miracle Jesus does not touch the sufferer (as in 1:41; 7:33; 8:23,25) or use material means (as in 7:33; 8:23), but commands the man to do something with the affected limb. In this case it was something he could do before he was healed (unless Lohmeyer's suggestion that cheir in this section means 'arm', as in modern Greek, is right); in 2:11; Jn.5:8, it was something which would only be possible when he was healed. ... Mark 3:6 And the Pharisees went forth,; ...went out--ASV; The Pharisees walked straight out--Phi; Then the Pharisees left the synagogue--Gspd; and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him,; and held a consultation...against Him--Wms; began plotting against him with the partisans of Herod--NEB; how they might destroy him.; how to destroy him--RSV; to devise some means of destroying Him--Wey; to see how they could make away with him--NEB; And were giving counsel against him, that they should /destroy\ him. and the Pharisees having gone forth, immediately, with the Herodians, were taking counsel against him how they might destroy him. TRNTyeager72 - kai exelthontes hoi Pharisaioi euthus meta twn HArwdianwn sumboulion edidoun kat' sutou hopws auton apoleswsin. kai (continuative conjunction). exelthontes (aor.part.nom.pl.masc.of exerchomai, adverbial, temporal). hoi (nom.pl.masc.of the article in agreement with Pharisaioi). Pharisaioi (nom.pl.masc.of Pharisaios, subject of edidoun). euthus (adverbial). meta (preposition with the genitive of fellowship). twn (gen.pl.masc.of the article in agreement with HArwdianwn). HArwdianwn (gen.pl.masc.of HArwdianos, fellowhip). sumboulion (acc.sing.neut.of sumboulion, direct object of edidoun). edidoun (3d.per.pl.imp.act.ind.of didwmi, inceptive). kat' (preposition with the genitive of opposition). autou (gen.sing.masc.of autos, opposition). hopws (final conjunction introducing a purpose clause). auton (acc.sing.masc.of autos, direct object of apoleswsin). apoleswsin (3d.per.pl.aor.act.subj.of apollumi, purpose). Translation: "And when the Pharisees had gone away immediately they began to plot against Him with the Herodians in order to destroy Him." COMMENT: We may join euthus either to the participle exelthontes or to the main verb edidoun. The result is the same. The Pharisees did not wait around to argue with Jesus about healing the witbhered hand on the Sabbath. They had see what they hoped to see - Jesus had transgressed their conception of the law of the Sabbath, and that was the only version of the law that counted with them. Unable to reply to Jesus' reasoning that the Creator created the Sabbath for man's healing and care and therefore that healing was perfectly in order on the Sabbath, they rushed out to make an alliance with the Herodians. Note the inceptive imperfect in edidoun. "They began (and continued) to give advice to the Herodians..." Two political parties, at odds on most issues, found agreement on one issue - the Truth must be destroyed! kata with the genitive in the sense of opposition, a common idiom. The conference on ways and means to destroy Jesus took some time. Certainly there was no logical reason to oppose Him. He had won every bout which they started. He knew their scriptures better than they. Human rights were to be honored more than Sabbath traditions. If they helped a beast on the Sabbath He could heal a man. Public opinion at this point was on Jesus' side. The Pharisees and Herodians were sensitive to this fact. For further comment cf.Mt.12:9-14 and the Luke account of the same event which follows in Lk. 6:6-11. B207 - Hopws occurs with object clauses (with the meaning "that") in the NT only in Mt.12:14; 22:15 and in this verse, and in all these cases after a phrase meaning "to plan." MITGNTwuest66 - "Took counsel with the Herodians." The Nestle text has "gave counsel with the Herodians," that is, offered counsel with the Herodians as the solution to their problem. The Herodians were a Jewish party in the time of our Lord who were evidently partisans of the Herod family. The Herods were not of proper Jewish descent, and they had supplanted a royal family not merely Jewish, but of priestly blood and rank. They also supported their authority by trying to please their Roman patrons. In doing this, they came into direct antagonism with the Pharisees. But in the case of our Lord, these two warring parties untied. The Pharisees really aimed at the life of our Lord, and thus it was helpful to gain the assistance of people having influence at court. "Went forth, and straightway." It is, "having gone out" i.e., of the synagogue, immediately, that is, on the Sabbath, they sought to destroy Him. One wonders whether our Lord when He uttered the words "to save life or to kill" (3:4), was referring to their purpose of putting Him to death. Translation: "And having gone out, the Pharisees at once with the Herodians were giving counsel against Him, how they might destroy Him." NTC-MARKhendriksen117,8 - Not only did the Pharisees leave the synagogue; they left in a huff. There were furious (Lk.6:11). The fact that a handicapped man had been delivered of his serious impediment, did not affect them in the least. It did not make them feel happy for this man. And it did not make them kindly disposed toward the Healer. What riled them was that here, before the eyes of everybody, they and their traditionalism had suffered a humiliating defeat. What a vast difference between Christ's totally unselfish anger (Mk.3:5) and their thoroughly selfish resentment! Moreover, as the word "immediately" shows, these men lost no time in planning their opponent's destruction. At once they started their scheming, choosing as their co-plotters...of all people, the thoroughly unholy, worldly adherants of Herod Antipas and his family. A strange coalition between the sanctimonious and the sacrilegious! See also 12:13 and Mt.22:16. Nevertheless, a little reflection may well lead to the conclusion that the unholy alliance was not so strange after all. The life and teaching of Jesus implied a denunciation of worldlimindedness; hence, of the mode of life that characterized, among others, the Herodians. Besides, as viewed by the Herodians, who were lovers of the political status quo, would not Christ's huge following appear to hold within its bosom the seeds of political rebellion and revolution? If, then, the Herodians are willing to be "in" on the plot to bring about the destruction of Jesus, their co-operation will be welcomed and appreciated by the Pharisees. Anything...yes, anything will do, to get rid of Jesus! TNICotNT-MARKlane124,5,6 - The decision of the Pharisees to con- spire with the Herodians to destroy Jesus is indicative of the seriousness of the conflict with authority which erupted in Galilee. The Sabbath controversies reported by Mark did not originate in subordinate departures from the scribal tradition, but were symptomatic of Jesus' entire attitude toward the oral law. Jesus refused to observe the traditional rules; he moved in grace toward sick individuals and healed them without regard to the day of the week. From the Pharisaic point of view Jesus' word and action totally undermined their interpretation of the Law, their piety and their actions. Jesus was not simply another scribe who advo- cated an independent opinion; he constituted a threat to true religion and ancestral tradition. When Jesus failed to submit to the scribal regulation of the Sabbath he broke the tradition, and authority confronted authority. It was inevitable that conflict should ensue, and that the Pharisees should seek to destroy Jesus. In their opposition to Jesus they had the support of the Herodians, who are mentioned also in 12:13 in association with the Pharisees. Apart from one reference in Josephus, the Herodians are not mentioned in any other ancient source, a fact which indicates that they were not a sect or an organized party. The word is of Latin formation (Herodiani), designating "adherents" or "partisans" of Herod; in Galilee this would mean Herod Antipas. Their name suggests a common attitude of allegiance to Herod in a country where large numbers of people chafed under his rule. In Josephus the term clearly denotes those who were sympathizers and supporters of the cause of Herod the Great. It is reasonable to understand Mark's term in the same light: in 3:6 and 12:13 the Herodians are, apparently, influential men of standing who loyally support Herod Antipas. Their concern with tribute money in 12:13 indicates that they were also loyal to the Roman control of Palestine upon which the Herodian dynasty depended. Undoubtedly they lent their support to the Pharisees because they saw Jesus as a threat to the peace and stability of the tetrarchy. The history of Herodian Galilee is marked by popular uprisings under thre leadership of quasi-messianic figures, and they may have envisioned that jesus posed this kind of peril to the land. The decision to destroy Jesus climaxes the conflicts in Galilee. God's grace toward Israel, proclaimed and demonstrated through Jesus, will be rejected by the responsible leaders of the people. Their considered intention is an ominous sign, bith for Jesus and for Israel. For Jesus it means that the passion already impinges upon him. This was inevitable from the moment he decided to submit to the Father and bear the brunt of the judgment upon the people. But Jesus now feels the sting of that decision with a new reality. It was ominous for Israel because it entailed the rejection of the Bearer of salvation. Jesus answered the question of what is permitted on the Sabbath by healing the man with the withered hand. Ironically, the guardians of the Sabbath determine to do harm and to kill. The decision points forward to the Passion, but it also contains the seed of self-destruction. The rejection of Jesus entails the rejection of life and redemption and leaves men prey to distress and death. This is the bitter fruit of that hardness of heart which provoked in Jesus both anger and godly sorrow. MARKbarclay61,2,3,4 - This is a crucial incident in the life of Jesus. It was already clear that Jesus and the orthodox leaders of the Jews were quite at variance. For Jesus to go back into the Synagogue at all was a brave thing to do. It was the act of a man who refused to seek safety and who was determined to look a dangerous situation in the face. In the Synagogue there was a deputation from the Sanhedrin. No one could miss them, for, in the Synagogue, the front seats were the seats of honour and they were sitting there. It was the duty of the Sanhedrin to deal with anyone who was likely to mislead the people and seduce them from the right way; and that is precisely what this deputation conceived of them- selves as doing. The last thing they were there to do was to worship and to learn; they were there to scrutinize Jesus' every action. In the Synagogue there was a man with a paralysed hand. The Greek word means that he had not been born that way but that some illness had taken the strength from him. The gospel according to the Hebrews, a gospel which is lost except for a few fragments, tells us that the man was a stone mason and that the besought Jesus to help him, for his livelihood was in his hands and he was ashamed to beg. If Jesus had been a cautious, prudent person He would have conveniently arranged not to see the man, for He knew that to heal that man was asking for trouble. It was the Sabbath day; on the Sabbath day all work was forbidden and to heal was to work. The Jewish law was quite definite and detailed about this. Medical attention could only be given if a life was in danger. To take some exam- ples--a woman in childbirth might be helped on the Sabbath. An affection of the throat might be treated. If a wall fell on anyone, enough might be cleared away to see whether he was dead or alive. If he was alive he might be helped; if he was dead the body must be left there until the next day. A fracture could not be attended to. Cold water might not be poured on a sprained hand or foot. A cut finger might be bandaged with a plain bandage but not with ointment. That is to say, at the most an injury could be kept from getting worse; it must not be made better. It is extraordinarily difficult for us to grasp this. The best way in which we can see the strict orthodox view of the Sabbath is to remember that a strict Jew would not even defend his life on the Sab- bath. In the wars of the Maccabees, when resistance broke out, some of the Jewish rebels took refuge in some caves. The Syrian soldiers pursued them. Josephus, the Jewish historian, tells us that they gave them the chance to surrender and they would not, so "they fought against them on the Sabbath day, and they burned them as they were in caves, without resistance and without so much as stopping up the entrances of the caves. They refused to defend them- selves on that day because they were not willing to break in upon the honour they owed to the Sabbath, even in such dis- tress; for our law requires that we rest on that day." When Pompey, the Roman general, was besieging Jerusalem, the de- fenders took refuge in the Temple precincts. Pompey proceeded to build a mound which would overtop them and from which he might bombard them. He knew the beliefs of the Jews and he built on the Sabbath day, and the Jews lifted not one hand to defend themselves or to hinder the building, although they knew that by their Sabbath inactivity they were signing their own death warrant. The Romans, who had compulsory military service, had in the end to exempt the Jews from army service because no strict Jew would fight on the Sabbath. The orthodox Jewish attitude to the Sabbath was completely rigid and unbending. Jesus knew that. This man life was not in the least danger. Physically he would be no worse off if he were left until tomorrow. For Jesus this was a test case, and He met it fairly and squarely. He told the man to rise and to come out of his place and stand where everyone could see him. There were probably two reasons for that. Very likely Jesus wished to make one last effort to waken sympathy for the stricken man by showing everyone his wretchedness. Quite certainly Jesus wished to take the step He was going to take in such a way that no one could possibly fail to see it. He asked the experts in the law two questions. Is it lawful to do good or to do evil on the Sabbath day? He put them in a dilemma. They were bound to admit that it was lawful to do good; and it was a good thing He proposed to do. They were bound to deny that it was lawful to do evil; and, yet, surely it was an evil thing to leave a man in wretchedness when it was quite possible to help him. Then He asked, Is it lawful to save a life or to kill it? Here He was driving the thing home. He was taking steps to save this wretched man's life; they were thinking out methods of killing Him. On any reckoning it was surely a better thing to be thinking about helping a man than it was to be thinking of killing a man. No wonder they had nothing to say! Then Jesus with a word of power healed the man; whereat the Pharisees went out and tried to hatch a plot with the Herodians to kill Him. This shows the length to which the Pharisees would go. No Pharisee would have anything to do with a Gentile or a man who did not keep the law; such people were unclean. The Herodians were the court entourage of Herod; they were continually coming into contact with Romans and dealing with them and living with them. For all normal purposes the Pharisees would have considered them unclean; but now they are prepared to enter into, what was for them, an unholy alliance. In their hearts there was a hate which would stop at nothing. Now this passage is fundamental because it shows the clash of two ideas of religion. (i) To the Pharisee religion was ritual; it meant obeying certain rules and laws and regulations. Jesus broke these regulations and they were genuinely convinced that He was a bad man. it is like the man who believes that religion consists in going to Church, reading the Bible, saying grace at meals, even having family worship, and carrying out all the external acts which are looked on as religious, and who yet never put himself out to do anything for anyone in his life, who has no sense of sympathy, no desire to sacrifice, who is serene in his rigid orthodoxy, and deaf to the call of need and blind to the tears of the world. (ii) To Jesus religion was service. It was love of God and love of men. Ritual was irrelevant compared with love in action. "Our Friend, our Brother, and our Lord, What may Thy service be? Nor name, nor form, nor ritual word, But simply following Thee." To Jesus the most important thing in the world was not the correct performance of a ritual, but spontaneous answer to the cry of human need. MARKmcgarvey278,9 - They took counsel not as to whether they should destroy him, but as to "how they might destroy him." They took the Herodians, the political partisans of Herod, into their confidence, because they were looking to Herod as the effective instrument for the destruction of Jesus. He had already shown his aptitude for such work by the manner in which he had disposed of John, and now they want his services again. Unlike Jesus, who was angry and sinned not, they were angry and sinned. Their malignity, provoked by so slight a cause, would amaze us, did not history furnish so many examples of men who sought the destruction of those by whom their erroneous teachings were exposed. TCGTC-MARKcranfield122 - This verse implies that the subject of paretAroun in v.2 was the Pharisees. twn hArwdianwn, i.e. the friends and supporters of Herod Antipas. ... As Jesus was Herod's subject, it was important to get Herod turned against him. The Herodians would care little or nothing for Pharisaic ideals. So the Pharisees in seeking their help were acting somewhat unscrupulously. hopws auton apoleswsin. The first explicit reference to the intention of Jesus' adversaries to compass his death: there have been hints before .... The comples of conflict- stories (2:1-3:6) illustrates the growth of opposition. That this incident is placed in its correct chronological position in the ministry we cannot, of course, be sure; but it is intrinsically likely that the intention of his opponents to bring about his death developed quite early in the course of it. MARKj&d86,7 - One of the most important circumstances of this case, for the sake of which it was perhaps recorded (see v.1), is the effect which it produced upon the Pharisees or High-Church Jewish party, whose religious tenets brought them into constant opposition to the Sadducees or latitudi- narians, as their political or national exclusiveness arrayed them against the Herodians or followers of Herod, and as such defenders of the Roman domination, of which the Herods were the instruments and agents. Herod the Great, created king by the Romans, and enabled by their aid to take possession of his kingdom, was devoted to their service both from interest and inclination; and although upon his death his dominions were divided, and his eldest son Archelaus had been superseded in Judea by Roman procurators, two other sons of Herod were still reigning (Lk.3:1), Antipas in Galilee, Samaria, and Perea, and Philip in Trachonitis and Iturea. Even in Judea, the Herodian interest and party still existed, as the most extreme political antithesis to that of the Pharisees. It is therefore a clear proof of growing hatred to our Saviour, that these opposite extremes should now begin to coalesce for his destruction, an alliance which appears to have continued till its object was accomplished. Going out (from the synagogue) immediately, as soon as the miracle was wrought, and therefore in full view of the proof which it afforded of our Lord's divine legation; a conclusive confirmation of that hardness and judicial blind- ness which had excited his own grief and anger. Took counsel is a phrase peculiar to Mt (12:14; 22:15; 27:1; 28:12), Mk's equivalent to which is made counsel, i.e. consultation. How they might destroy him, not for any past offenses, but how they might take advantage of his words or acts to rid them of so dangerous an enemy. The motives of this concerted opposition were no doubt varous, religious, political, and personal, in different degrees and cases. That it should have been deliberately organized, at this time, out of such discordant elements and in the face of such conclusive evidence, can only be ascribed to the infatuation under which they acted (Lk.6:11)." (J.A.Alexander). SIDELIGHTS "We see from these verses, what extravagant importance is attached to trifles by those who are mere formalists in religion. The Pharisees were mere formalists, if there ever were any in the world. They seem to have thought exclusively of the outward part, the husk, the shell, and the ceremonial of religion. They even added to these externals by traditions of their own. Their godliness was made up of washings and fastings and peculiarities in dress and will-worship, while repentance and faith and holiness were comparatively overlooked. The Pharisees would probably have found no fault if the disciples had been guilty of some offense against the moral law. They would have winked at covetousness, or perjury, or extortions, or excess, because they were sins to which they themselves were inclined. We see, in the second place, from these verses, the value of a knowledge of Holy Scripture. Our Lord replies to the accusation of the Pharisees by a reference to Holy Scripture. He reminds His enemies of the conduct of David, when "he had need and was an hungered." "Have ye never read what David did?" They could not deny that the writer of the book of Psalms, and the man after God's own heart, was not likely to set a bad example. Let us observe in thse verses, how our Lord Jesus Christ was watched by His enemies. We read that "they watched Him, whether He would heal him on the Sabbath Day, that they might accuse Him." What a melancholy proof we have here of the wickedness of human nature! It was the Sabbath Day when these things happened. It was in the synagogue, where men were assembled to hear the Word and worship God. Yet even on the day of God, and at the time of worshipping God, these wretched formalists were plotting mischief against our Lord. The very men who pretended to such strictness and sanctity in little things were full of malicious and angry thoughts in the midst of the congregation. (Prov.5:14). Let us observe, in the last place, the feelings which the conduct of our Lord's enemies called forth in His heart. We are told that "He looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts." This expression is very remarkable, and demands special attention. It is meant to remind us that our Lord Jesus Christ was a man like our selves in all things, sin only excepted. Whatever sinless feelings belong to the constitution of man, our Lord partook of, and knew by experience. We read that He "marvelled," that He "rejoiced," that He "wept," that He "loved," and here we read that He felt "anger." It is plain from these words that there is an "anger" which is lawful, right, and not sinful. There is an indignation which is justifiable, and on some occasions may be properly manifested. The words of Solomon and St. Paul both seem to teach the same lesson. "The north wind driveth away rain, so doth an angry countenance a backbiting tongue." "Be ye angry and sin not." (Prov.25:23; Eph.4:26)." (J.C.Ryle) THE ESSENTIAL TALMUDsteinsaltz108-115 - The Sabbath. The concept of the Sabbath is a fundamental part of Judaism, and its importance is stressed from the story of the Creation in the Book of Genesis to the explicit precept in the Ten Command- ments to refrain from labor on the seventh day. The basic injunction "Thou shalt not labor on the Sabbath" is repeated several times in the Torah and reiterated again and again by the prophets. The basic view of the Sabbath as a day of rest appears very simple but arouses a number of problems when put into practice. First and foremost, it is necessary to establish the definition of "labor." The term may be interkpretefd to mean any work that entails excessive effort or activity for which payment is rendered, or in many other ways. Each of these definitions lends a new dimension to the interdict and changes the way in which the Sabbath is observed. The oral tradition, which relies on detailed analysis of the biblical sources, arrives at another conclusion as to the nature of the labor forbidden on the Sabbath, based to a large extent on the concept of imitatio Dei suggested by the sources on this question in the Torah itself. The prohibition is not related to the definition of labor or to payment of money but to the injunction to refrain from acts of deliberate creation in the physical world. Just as God ceased from His labor--creation of the world--on the Sabbath, so the children of Israel are called upon to refrain from creative work on this day. This general abstract definition was not formulated thus in the Talmud, where generalized and abstract definitions are avoided. Furthermore, no single definition could cover all the complex problems likely to develop. Instead, the Talmud chose an elemental model for those actions prohibited on the Sabbath--the work of construction of the Tabernacle in the desert, explicitly prohibited by the Torah. A large part of the halakhic discussion in the Talmud on forbidden and permitted acts is an elaboration and expansion of this basic model and the derivation of practical conclusions from it. First it was necessary to analyze the categories of basic activities carried out during the construction of the Tabernacle, and this analysis was summed up in a list of "thirty- nine basic labors," or acts of creation, that were undoubtedly carried out at that time and constitue avodah, that is, prototypes of the work forbidden and permitted on the Sabbath. The mishnah in which this list appears classifies the types of work by objective, from preparation and cultivation to processing of leather, metal, and fabrics. Each of these thirty-nine avodah, or basic categories of labor, has its offspring (toladot), a type of labor similar in essence, although differing in detail. The unique character of talmudic literature is discernible in the ways in which various subjects are related to one another. Milking cows, for example, comes under the category of "threshing." The classification appears meaningless at first glace, but the association becomes clear when the internal logical structure is analyzed: threshing is an action aimed at extracting the edible content from an object that is not itself ear-marked at the time for consumption; milking fulfills the same function, although in a different sphere. Typology is only one facet of the problem, however, and there is also a quantitative side to the discussion. To state that a certain task is forbidden on the Sabbath is to create a general prohibition, specifying what should not be done. It is still necessary to define what marks certain acts as trivial, from the practical point of view, as for example, when a bad intention was present but was not implemented in an act of creation. Writing is forbidden on the Sabbath, but what are the significant limits of writing? In this case the sages decided that two letters constituted a significant unit so that the writing of more than one letter should be regarded as work in the fullest sense of the word. An act of creation calls for qualitative as well as quantitative definition. It is obvious that spoiling, defacing, and destroying are not labors unless they form part of a network of positive acts. He who destroys a building is not regarded as engaging in work unless the act of destruction is carried out for purposes of building a new structure that makes use of the destroyed object or replaces it. Then there is the question of intention (kavanah). According to the Talmud melekhet mahshevet (intentional work) was prohibited by the Torah; this implies that work which does not call for mental effort is not creative. An man who carries out a certain action unthinkingly and later discovers that he has created something is not engaging in work, since his efforts lack the component of intention. This subject is not easily defined, since there will always be a question of the nature of the intention that transforms mere action into creative work. There were sages who restricted the concept of kavanah, claiming that intentional work is any labor that a man carries out with prior knowledge of its consequences. Other scholars held that intention has more precise significance and that anyone carrying out an activity that he did not originally intend to execute in this way could not be regarded as having worked on the Sabbath. An extreme example of this attitude is the view of the tanna R. Simeon Ben Yohai that a man who intended to pick a certain bunch of grapes and picked another bunch instead had not truly been working--even if, as far as he was concerned, there was no practical difference between them. The definitions and differences of opinion on this subject often extremely subtle, fine distinctions being drawn between various aspects of intention, knowledge, and intentional and unpremeditated consequences. Although the network of explicit interdicts contained in the Torah or deriving directly from it is wide ranging, it was exten- ded even further in ancient times by the creation of various re- strictions--seyagim (literally fences) aimed at preserving the framework of the Sabbath--although the restricted activities had not always been explicitly prohibited by the Torah. These re- strictions are extremely ancient, and some undoubtedly date from the Torah era itself. The Talmud noted that some generations had taken a very stringent view of Sabbath prohibitions, both out of zealous regard for the sanctity of the day and because the need was felt to observe the strict letter of the law when the public was lax. In due course a tendency developed to belittle the im- portance of some of these restrictions, because it was felt that the people had accepted the idea of Sabbath observance and that the introduction of further restrictions was therefore super- fluous. At the same time, attention was always paid to those re- strictions that were given the name of shevut (rest) in the mishnaic period and were aimed at highlighting the image of the Sabbath as a day of rest. A classic example of such an ancient restriction is the band on commerce on the Sabbath. Commerce as such does not belong within the general framework of creative work, since whatever it produces is not physically evident. Nevertheless, we know that this ban existed as far back as the days of the first prophets, and even when a large proportion of the population took up pagan worship all stoes were closed on the Sabbath and it was unthinkable to trade on that day. In the beginning of the Second Temple period (in Nehemiah's day), the Jews refrained from trading even with non-Jews on the day of rest. The shevut prohibitions are wide ranging and are among the first examples of the introduction of additional restrictions in order to preserve the basic nucleus of precepts. The shevut rules encompassed many acts that were not prohibited in themselves but could, however unintentionally, bring about strictly forbidden actions. For example, the practice of medicine was forbidden on the Sabbath (unless a question of life and death were involved), as was the playing of musical instruments. It is interesting to note that the Temple was "extraterritorial" as far as shevut prohibitions were concerned. Most of them were not observed in the Temple on the assumption that the priests could be trusted to observe all precepts and that the needs of the Temple itself were sacred. The ancient bans, which were the subject of protracted and inconclusive debate for centuries, included the ban on multzeh (literally excluded or out of bounds). This was essentially a prohibition against the handling of certain objects and utensils that were related to work forbidden on the Sabbath. The assumption was that a man handling such objects on the Sabbath might--out of forgetfulness or habit--engage in work. According to talmudic tradition, the ban was strictly observed at the beginning of the Second Temple period, under the Great Assembly. In later generations it was reexamined, and scholars tried to classify the various interdicts in this sphere into those that shouldbe observed strictly and those that were less stringently observed, on the basis of classification into objects unfit for Sabbathuse and those used for permitted work. Here too there were scholars who tended to take a more liberal view, while others wanted to maintain the restriction almost in its original form, and extremely subtle distinctions were drawn between various kinds of actions and objects. Yet the nature of the Sabbath is such that it cannot be associated only with prohibitions and negation. To a certain extent, its meaning ( and this what distinguishes it from imitations adopted by other peoples) lies in the fact that it is not a day of gloom, hedged in by strict prohibitions. The phrase "Call the Sabbath a delight" (Isa.58:13) inspired several customs included within the generic term Oneg Shabbat (Sabbath delight). They include, for example, the three Sabbath festive meals, the injunction to wear festive garments in honor of the Sabbath, and so on. The lighting of Sabbath candles was also originally part of the Oneg Shabbat, a way of insuring that the Sabbath meal would be eaten in the light. The Torah exhortation: "Remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it," which was originally a general in- junction to mark the commencement of the Sabbath by word and deed, was also stylized, together with the benedictions and pray- ers. A Sabbath kiddush (sanctification), a special benediction recited over a glass of wine, was composed. The manifestations of Oneg Shabbat (it was even said that "sleep is a delight on the Sabbath") included spiritual aspects. The sages introduced the reading of a portion of the Torah--which came to be known as parashat ha-shavua (the portion of the week)--on Sabbath morning and during the minhah prayer. In the talmudic era, scholars preached on Sabbath afternoon. In short, the sages fashioned the image of this day as a time of "sanctity, rest, and delight." Another aspect of the Sabbath laws was the construction of a whole network of fixed boundaries within which a man is permitted to act, to walk, and so on. The view that Sabbath rest entails remaining in one place was stated in the Torah: "Let no man go out of his place on the seventh day" (Ex.16:29); this is the very first Sabbath precept, actually preceding the Ten Commandments. The injunction was taken literally by various sects, including the Karaites, who refrained from going out of doors on the Sab- bath for any purpose whatsoever. The oral tradtion is more liberal on this question but also much more complicated. The first elaboration of this theory is the "Sabbath boundary" (tehum Shabbat), the area in which a man is permitted to walk on the Sabbath. The boundaries were determined, to a certain extent, on the basis of the conditions prevailing when the Jews lived on their own land, and certain cities had 2,000 cubits of land adjacent to them on either side. But after the transition to un- walled settlements or irregularly constructed large cities, many problems arose, and it was necessary to determine more flexible rules for the Sabbath bounds. The ban on carrying objects on the Sabbath was more limited in scope but wider in its theoretical significance and relation to the everyday world. This ancient ban was widely studied in the Second Temple period, and it was necessary to create a theoretical model in order to include all types of buildings, streets, and courtyards in one framework and thus further solution of numerous queries. Some interdicts were spelled out in the Torah, and the Second Temple period the sages added new bans, as well as enactments aimed at making life easier. Generally speaking, "four authorities" were established for the Sabbath, that is, four types of areas defined according to the way in which they were bordered and by practical usage. These range from mekom petur (exempt location), an unrestricted area where carrying burdnes on the Sabbath is permitted; karmelit, semi-built-up areas, fileds and oceans, on which there are certain restrictions; reshut ha-yahid, the private domain, which is clearly demarcated; and reshut ha-rabim, the public domain. The precise demarcation of these areas and determination of the relationship between them is an involved subject in its own right, but becomes even more complicated with the intorduction of the concept of iruvin. Attributed to King Soilomon, iruvin is, in essence, the expansion of the concept of the fixed boundary. The establishment of permanent borders between various locations is undoubtedly important for defining the nature of these places, as regards Sabbath laws, property rights, and so forth. But here the concept of boundaries is extended to forms of demarcation that are not so evident to the eye, although, to a certain extent, they are no less real. In a way this denotes the transition from a concrete, simple approach to a more abstract and modern view of borderlines between objects (countries, public and private domains, etc.) that no longer depend on physical demarcation but are, rather, related to symbols and conceptual recognition. The Iruvin tractate of the Talmud, which deals with this whole range of subjects, contains practical and theoretical discussions of the essence of borders as such. In the most general sense, the numerous Sabbath laws are an expanding network of minute details deriving from several basic concepts, which eventually create an almost Gothic structure made up of thousands upon thousands of tiny and meticulously fashioned details clustered around the original form.