Mark 3:19b and they went into an house.; And he cometh into a house--ASV; Then he went home--RSV; Then they went indoors--Mof; And he cometh into a house; and they come into a house. TRNTyeagerV199 - Kai erchetai eis oikon, Kai (continuative conjunction). erchetai (3d.per.sing.pres.ind.of erchomai, historical). eis (preposition with the accusative of extent). oikon (acc.sing.masc.of oikos, extent). Translation: "And He came into a house;..." COMMENT: The first clause is found in the KJV in verse 19. The story is more coherent if we consider it a part of what follows in verse 20. The selection of the twelve apostles is the thought of verse 19. Now the account moves on. MARK-ITGNTwuest73,4 - "And they went into an house." The verb is singular. "He comes into," referring to our Lord. There is no definite article in the Greek text. The idea is "He comes home to house-life as distinct from hill-life." Expositors says; "The formal manner in which this is stated suggests a sojourn on the hill of appreciable length, say, for some days. How occupied there? Probably in giving a course of instruction to the disciple-circle; say, that reproduced in the 'Sermon on the Mount.'" Home to Jesus in this territory was the home of Peter. This was probably where our Lord went. Translation: "And He comes home." Mark 3:20 And the multitude cometh together again,; And again the crowd gathered--Gspd; so that they could not so much as eat bread.; so that they could not even eat--RSV; so that there was no opportunity for them even to snatch a meal--Wey; and the multitude come together again, so that they could not so much as eat /bread\. And come together again doth a multitude, so that they are not able even to eat bread; TRNTyeagerV199 - kai sunerchetai palin ochlos, hwste mA dunasthai autous mAde arton phagein. kai (continuative conjunction). sunerchetai (3d.per.sing.pres.ind.of sunerchomai, historical). palin (adverbial). ho (nom.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with ochlos). ochlos (nom.sing.masc.of ochlos, subject of sunerchetai). hwste (consecutive conjunction introducing a result clause). mA (negative conjunction with the infinitive). dunasthai (pres.inf.of dunamai, result). autous (acc.pl.masc.of autos, general reference). mAde (negative paratactic disjunctive). arton (acc.sing.masc.of artos, direct object of phagein). phagein (aor.act.inf.of esthiw, complementary). Translation: "...and again the crowd assembled, with the result that they were not able even to eat bread." COMMENT: ...Note the historical present tenses, which is typical of Mark's writings. Once again the people gathered about the house and invaded the premises in such number that they were not even able to eat their meals. The result clause with hwste and the infinitive is the most common way to express result. Cf. #752 for other examples. Note the mA...mAde sequence. His friends, who were travelling with Him (Lk.8:1-3) became worried about Jesus, as we see in the next verse. MARK-ITGNTwuest74 - "The multitude cometh together again. Expositors says; "The crowd, partially dispersed, reassembles, (implying lapse of an appreciable interval). Jesus had hoped they would go away to their homes in various parts of the country during His absence on the hill, but He was disappointed. They longered on." "So that they could not so much as eat bread." Again, Expositors comments; "The crowding about the house and the demand for sight and succour of the Benefactor were so great that they (Jesus and His companions) could not find leisure, not even to take food, not to speak of taking rest, or giving instruction to His disciples." NTC-MARKhendriksen130 - At this point, after the calling of The Twelve, we might have expected some phrases from the Sermon on the Mount. Cf. Luke 6:12-49. But Mark, being predominantly the Gospel of action..., does not specialize in discourse material. There are no indications as to just when the incident (vs.20,21) took place. it must have happened sometime during the Great Galilean Ministry, but there is no definite chro- nological link. Nevertheless, there may well be a logical connection between Mk.3:20-30 and what has gone before, in 2:1-3:19. Mark has shown that the hostility of the religious authorities had advanced to the point where they were plotting Jesus' destruction (3:6), and where he, in turn, by means of the calling of The Twelve was establishing the foundation of the church in its NT manifestation. Cf.Mt.16:18,19; Rev.21:14. But now something is added to the burden of the Man of Sorrows. Not only his enemies, the Pharisees and scribes, but now also his "friends" begin to make matters difficult for him. In the sense already explained (2:1) Jesus was "at home" once more in Capernaum, his headquarters. And just as on a previous occasion the crowd had been so large that the entrance was blocked (2:4; cf.1:33), so now also the throng was so enormous that it was impossible for Jesus and his disciples--note "they"--even to eat [120]. [footnote 120] - Literally, "to eat bread." But "eating bread" had developed into the more general meaning: eating, eating a meal. See LXX on Gen.37:25; II Sam. (=II Kings.) 12:20; and for the NT Mk.7:2; Lk.14:1. MARKj&d97,8 - COMMENT 3:20-27. TIME--Midsummer and Autumn, A.D. 28. PLACE--In the house of Jesus in the city of Capernaum. PARALLEL ACCOUNTS:--Mt.12:22-30. OUTLINE--1. Opposition from friends, 20,21. 2. Opposition from enemies, 22-27. I. OPPOSITION FROM FRIENDS, 20,21. 1. This occurred at home in Capernaum. 2. The occasion of opposition was the inability to eat. 3. The form of the opposition was to bodily remove Him from His labors. 4. The reason--they feared for His sanity. II. OPPOSITION FROM ENEMIES, 22-27. 1. Jesus is accused of being in league with Satan. 2. Jesus answers in parables: (1) A kingdom divided cannot stand. (2) A house divided cannot stand. (3) Satan casting out himself is defeating himself--this would end in his own complete loss. (4) There must be someone stronger than Satan to cast out Satan. As soon as he had returned the crowd was about him again.-- the vivid description is peculiar to Mark. So that they could not so much as eat bread. So at chap. 6:31. The activity on our Lord's own part is left to be inferred, but it must have been an intense activity of teaching and healing, continued we know not how long. Mark 3:21 And when his friends heard of it,; When his family heard of this--NEB; When his relatives learned of it--Ber; they went out to lay hold on him:; ...to restrain him--Knox; set out to seize Him by force--Wey; they set out to take charge of him--NEB; set out from home to take him into custody--Rieu; for they said, He is beside himself.; for they were saying, He has lost His senses--NASB; for they said, He must be mad!--Phi; ...He is deranged!--Ber; for people were saying that he was out of his mind--NEB; And they who were near to him /hearing of it\ went out to secure him,--for they were saying-- He is beside himself! and his friends having heard, went forth to lay hold on him, for they said that he was beside himself, TRNTyeagerV200 - kai akousantes hoi par' autou exAlthon kratAsai auton, elegon gar hoti exestA. kai (continuative conjunction). akousantes (aor.act.part.nom.pl.masc.of akouw, adverbial, temporal). hoi (nom.pl.masc.of the article, subject of exAlthon). par' (preposition with the ablative, with persons). autou (abl.sing.masc.of autos, with para). exAlthon (3d.per.pl.aor.ind.of exerchomai, constative). kratAsai (aor.act.inf.of kratew, purpose). auton (acc.sing.masc.of autos, direct object of kratAsai). elegon (3d.per.pl.imp.act.ind.of legw, inceptive). gar (causal conjunction). hoti (objective conjunction introducing indirect discourse). exestA (3d.per.sing.2d.aor.act.ind.of existAmi, culminative). Translation: "And when those who were with Him heard about it, they went out to take Him into their custody, because they began to say that He had become deranged." COMMENT: The crowd was getting out of hand. His friends heard about it and went out to protect Jesus. Cf.#828. They wished to provide Him with protective custody. The phrase hoi par' autou - "Those who were with Him" refers to the group named in Lk.8:1-3. Their concern for Jesus' safety is explained by the causal clause introduced by gar. We take it that those who began to say (inceptive imperfect in elegon) that Jesus was out of His mind were the people in the crowd, not His disciples and the women with them. The rumor began and persisted, and there was danger that the mob would arrest Jesus and turn Him over to the authorities, or there might have been danger of mob violence. At least Jesus' friends thought so. The Scribes move in for the attack in the next verse. MARK-ITGNTwuest74,5 - "His friends." The Greek is hoi par' autou, "those from the side of Him." Robertson says that the idiom most likely means the kinspeople or family of Jesus, as is common in the LXX. The fact that His mother and His brothers are mentioned in vs.31, would indicate that these were the ones alluded to in this verse. The word for "friend" (philA) is not in the Greek text. "When His friends heard of it." This does not refer to what is stated in verse 20. The words "of it" are in italics in the A.V., which means that there is no expression in the Greek text answering to that meaning, but only that the translators included the words in an effort to bring out what they thought was the sense of the passage. The Greek has a participle, literally, "having heard." This refers to the entire Galilean ministry with its cures and crowds, and its strains. This news surely had reached Nazareth, hence the mission of Mary and the brothers of Jesus. The word "brethren" of 3:31 is masculine. Had sisters been included, the feminine form of adelphos would have been used, adelphA, as it is used in 3:35 and there translated "sister." The word means "from the same womb." The masculine form refers to brothers, the feminine, to sisters. "They went out." Not here, out of the home of Peter, for they were not there. They went out ostensibly from Nazareth, at which place they heard the news of our Lord's great ministry. "To lay hold on Him." The verb is kratew "to get possession of, to become master of, to take hold of, to seize." They were intending to take Him by force and against His will. "He is beside Himself." The verb is existAmi "to throw out of position, to displace, to amaze, astonish, throw into wonderment." It is used in the classics of the act of driving one out of his senses, throwing one out of his mind. The form here means "to be out of one's mind, be beside one's self, be insane." Expositors does not take this statement in its absolute sense, but says that the statement means that our Lord was in an unhealthy state of excitement bordering on insanity. Again, this authority states, "The friends of Jesus thought that much benevolence had put Him into a state of enthusiasm dangerous to the health of body and mind," and reminds the reader of Festus' words to Paul, "Much learning doth make thee mad." A note is added. "Christ's healing ministry created a need for theories about it. Herod had his theory (Mt.14), the friends of Jesus had their's, and the Pharisees, their's.... That which called forth so many theories must have been a great fact." Translation: "And having heard, those nearest to Him (in blood ties) went out for the purpose of taking Him by force. For they were saying, He is out of His mind." R614 - Hoi par' autou refers to one's family or kinsmen ("his relatives"--M52). B47 - The aorist verb exestA has the force of a perfect, denoting a present state, the result of a past action ("he has become mad"--BD342[1]). TGr56 - In this verse, many versions imply that the mother and kinsmen of Jesus considered him mad. But elegon has an impersonal subject, common in Mark. It was rumor, not his own family, that spread the doubts of his sanity. The family was anxious, having heard he had taken no food, and they wished to have a quiet word with him, especially when they heard the rumors (cf. T292). NTC-MARKhendriksen130,1,2,3 - Who were those people who thought that Jesus was bereft of his senses [121], and who therefore wanted to take him into protective custody [122]? The phrase used in the original to describe them is rather ambiguous. It means basically "those from his side." The theory according to which the reference is to Jesus' immediate family, that is, to his mother Mary and to his brothers, is held, by those who favor it, to be supported by the following considerations: a. "Family" (parents and other relatives) is the meaning of this phrase in Prov.21:21 and in a passage of the apocryphal writing Susanna 33. See context, vs.30. b. John 7:5 states, "Even his brothers did not believe in him [Jesus]." c. Here in Mark the context, vs.31-35, mentions Jesus' "mother and his brothers." d. The atmosphere of tension revealed in the chapter's closing paragraph is best explained by the supposition that Jesus' immediate family had originated--or at least given credence to-- the opinion, "He is out of his mind." On the basis of considerations such as these it is not surprising that the phrase "his family" occurs in several translations of Mk.3:21 (Beck, Good News for Modern Man, NEB, etc.). Others offer the not very different rendering "his relatives" (Phillips, Goodspeed, Berkeley, Norlie, Weymouth, Jerusalem Bible) or something similar. That the phrase used in the original does at times have this meaning has already been shown. Nevertheless, by no means all translators have adopted the rendering "his family," or even "his relatives." Several avoid it, in favor of "his friends" (AV, ARV, RSV, Living NT, R. Young). F.C.Grant states "His friends is probably the best translation." Whatever one may think of the rendering "his family" or "his relatives," the further conclusion, namely, that the passage (3:21) must be interpreted to mean that Mary and Jesus' brothers were the ones who were calling Jesus insane is not nearly as unavoidable as it may seem to be. As for the arguments that have been used in its support (see a.-d. above), note the following: As to a. True, but the word also has other meanings. In I Macc.9:44; 11:73; 12:27; 13:52; 15:15 the meaning is probably "his men," "his envoys," "his company," "his adherants or followers." Josephus, Antiquities I.193 reflects Gen. 17:27, where many more are included than those who belonged to Abraham's immediate family. In the papyri, too, the expression used in the original has many different meanings, in accordance with the specific context in each individual case. See F.Field, Notes on the Translation of the New Testament, Cambridge, 1899, p.25. It can mean neighbors, agents, friends, etc. As to b. It is true that Jn.7:5 teaches that even Jesus' brothers "did not believe in him," but the context clearly shows that they did not consider him mentally unbalanced. Otherewise would they have said, "...show yourself to the world"? Whether or not these brothers were included in 3:21 is not known. Jn.7:5 does not prove that they were. As to c. "The words...'those with him' may mean 'his familhy,' though it is doubtful if Mark meant to anticipate vs.31 in this way" (F.C.Grant). The theory according to which vs.31-35 resume the story begun in vs.21 is questionable. To be sure, there is a relation between vs.20-30, on the one hand, and vs.31-35, on the other. But that relation is probably of a different character. See on vs.31-35. As to d. This point concerns both Jesus' brothers and his mother. For the brothers see above, unser "As to b." With respect to Mary: even though it is true that she erred at times and that her criticisms and attempts at interference with Christ's program were always firmly reproved (see Lk.2:49; Jn.2:4; and so probably also Mk.3:31-35), yet we have no reason to doubt that the relation between Mary and Jesus was ever one of tenderness and respect, proceeding from both sides (Lk.2:51; Jn.2:5; 19:26,27). There is no reason to believe that Mary's faith in God's revelation regarding her "firstborn son" (see below, on vs.33-35) was ever obliterated to the extent that she regarded Jesus as having lost his mind. The burden of proof rests entirely on those who think otherwise. Who, then, were those "friends" or "associates" of Jesus that were convinced that he had taken leave of his senses? We simply do not know! They may have been people with whom he had grown up in Nazareth, including possibly even relatives. Or, again, they may have been "persons well disposed toward Jesus, an outer circle of disciples." That there was indeed such an outer circle, probably consisting of a great number of people, is clear from many passages (Mt.11:12; Mk.12:34; 14:3, 12-16, 51, 52; 15:43; Lk.6:13, 17; 10:1; 23:50-56). What may have been the reason(s) causing these "friends," "associates," or "followers" to consider Jesus to have become demented? Many possibilities suggest themselves. They may have thought: "At times the Master acts so strangely; for example, at an earlier occasion, when everybody in Capernaum wanted him to return to that town, he said, 'Let us go elsewhere, to the next towns (1:36-38).' Also, he is constantly opposing 'the establishment,' consisting of scribes and Pharisees. That is not what is generally done by those who aspire to leadership. He pronounces pardon as if he were God himself (2:7)! Yet, on the other hand, he is on close terms with...of all people, sinners and tax collectors (2:15,16). Horrors! Moreover, his teaching, too, is unusual." As to the latter, see, for example, Mk.2:17,19,27,28; to which later on would be added such baffling passages as those found in 8:34,35; 9:43-50; 10:23,24. Because of such and similar teaching--and this by a carpenter!--were not the people of Nazareth going to take offense at him? See 6:3. All this and more should be borne in mind when we try to determine why friends of Jesus considered him bereft of reason. Nevertheless, the main consideration that led those who stood in some undefined relation to him to arrive at this judgment may well have to be found in the immediate context. That context indicates that it was especially Christ's willingness to move from one large crowd to another, teaching, healing, casting out demons (1:32-34; 2:2), and now his presence among a throng so large that he and his disciples did not even have an opportunity to eat (3:20), that led to the remark, "He is out of his mind." It was--at least seems to have been--what looked to his friends as his slighting of rest, recreation, and refreshment, that occasioned the exclamation. Add to this the fact that whenever Jesus granted sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, healing to the sick, and liberty to the demon- possessed, his heart was in it! He sympathized as no one else invested with the human nature ever sympathized before or after him. "In all their afflictions he was afflicted" (Isa.63:9). In him was fulfilled the prophecy, "Surely, he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows" (Isa.53:4). Is it not possible that all of this caused the friends to think, "He is altogether too hard on himself," and to say, "He is mentally unbalanced, is being consumed by religious frenzy"? Granted that this judgment, no matter how well intentioned, was untrue and unjust, is it not understandable? If even the Twelve, who benefited from close and constant fellowship with Jesus, were often confused (Lk.9:45; 18:34; Jn.12:16), we can well imagine that those friends of Jesus who were further removed from him might indeed have interpreted his behavior, so strange by human standards, to be that of a person who had lost his mind. In later days Christ's followers, too, have often been charged with madness. This happened to Paul (Acts 26:24). Francis of Assisi, the man with the life and commandments of Jesus ever before his eyes, was called "the mad son of Bernadone." When Martin Luther defended the supremacy of the Word of God over the traditions of men he was regarded even by some of his former sympathizers as a fool and one possessed by the devil. And see I Cor. 1:18; 3:19. [footnote 121] - The aorist exestA may be regarded as timeless. [footnote 122] - kratAsai, aor. infin. of kratew. This verb is used also in connection with Herod's arrest of John the Baptist (Mt.14:3; Mk.6:17); the attempt of the religious authorities to lay hold on Jesus (Mt.21:46; 26:4; Mk.12:12; 14:1); the actual arrest of Jesus (Mt.26:48,50,55,57; Mk.14:44,46,51); the seizure of Paul (Acts 24:6) and of the dragon (Rev.20:2). In a somewhat more general sense it can mean to grasp or grab hold of (a sheep for the purpose of rescuing it, Mt.12:11; a debotr, with evil intent, 18:28; the feet of Jesus, 28:9). At times it means to take by the hand (in a contest of healing, Mt.9:25; Mk.1:31; 9:27; or restoring to life, Mk.5:41). Still more general uses are: to attain, hold fast, support, bear in mind, restrain, retain. With such a wide variety of meanings the importance of the individual context becomes clear. In the present case the meaning is probably: by means of forceful persuasion to take Jesus into protective custody. it must be borne in mind that those who desired to do this were "friends," not enemies. TNICotNT-MARKlane138,9,40 - Mark is the sole evangelist to report this incident of gross misjudgment. The alterations to vs.21 in the manuscript tradition indicate that in some quarters of the Church it was considered inconceivable that anyone should regard Jesus as insane. The home to which Jesus returned may have been the one owned by Simon and Andrew in Capernaum. The presence of an enthusiastic multitude clamoring for attention evokes the description of 1:29-37 and 2:1-2. The absence of leisure in which to eat is mentioned again in 6:31, following the return of the disciples from their mission, and it may have been a frequent occurrence. When the report reached Jesus' family that he failed to care properly for his needs they came (presumably from Nazareth) to seize him and forcibly bring him home. The identity of those who came has been debated because Mark's colloquial expression could be translated "his family," "his relatives" or "his friends." It is natural, however, to find in 3:31-35 the proper sequel to 3:20f.; the group of people described colloquially in vs.21 is further defined by vs.31 as including Jesus' mother and his brothers. The charge leveled against Jesus is that "he has lost his mind." The Marcan term describes one who is ecstatic in the sense of psychic derangement. Reflection on Jesus' eschatological sense of mission, his urgent drive to minister, his failure properly to eat and sleep undoubtedly led the family to their conviction, but it reveals both misunderstanding and unbelief. The entire incident calls to mind passages in which the man of God is despised by family and contemporaries who mistake his zeal for God as "madness" [81]. It is unnecessary to suppose that Mary also suspected that Jesus had lost his grasp upon reality. Her presence with Jesus' brothers in 3:31, however, indicates that her faith was insufficient to resist the determination of her sons to restrain Jesus and bring him home. [footnote 81] - Cf. Zech.13:3-6, and esp. Wisd. Sol.5:1-5: "Then will the righteous man stand with great confidence in the presence of those who have afflicted him, and those who make light of his labors...They will speak to one another in repentance, and in anguish of spirit they will groan, and say, 'This is the man whom we once held in derision and made a byword of reproach--we fools! We thought that his life was madness and that his end was without honor. Why has he been numbered among the sons of God?'" MARKbarclay70,1,2,3 - Sometimes a man drops a remark which cannot be interpreted otherwise than as the product of bitter experience. Once when Jesus was enumerating the things which a man might have to face for following Him, He said, "A man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Mt.10:36.) Jesus' own family had come to the conclusion that He had taken leave of His senses, that it was time that He was taken home. Let us see if we can understand what made them feel like that. (i) Jesus had left home and had left the carpenter's business at Nazareth. No doubt it was a flourishing business from which He could at least have made a living; and quite suddenly He had flung the whole thing up and had gone out to be a wandering preacher. No sensible man, they must have been thinking, would throw up a business where the money came in every week to become a vagrant who had not any place to lay his head. (ii) Jesus was obviously on the way to a head-on collision with the orthodox leaders of His day. There are certain people who can do a man a great deal of harm, people on whose right side it is better to keep, people whose opposition can be very dangerous. No sensible man, they must have been thinking, would ever get up against the powers that be, because he would know that in any collision with them he would be bound to come off second best. No one could take on the Scribes and the Pharisees and the orthodox leaders and hope to get away with it. (iii) Jesus had newly started a little society of His own--and a very queer society it was. There were some fishermen; there was a reformed tax-collector; there was a fanatical nationalist. They were not the kind of people whom any ambitious man would particularly want to know. They were certainly were not the kind of people who would be any good to a man who was set on a career. No sensible man, they must have been thinking, would pick a crowd of friends like that. They were definitely not the kind of people a prudent man would want to get mixed up with. By His actions Jesus had made it clear that the three laws by which men tend to organize their lives meant nothing to Him. (i) He had thrown away security. In point of fact the one thing that most people in this world want more than anything else is security. They want above all things a job and a position which is secure, and where there are as few material and financial risks as possible. (ii) He had thrown away safety. In point of fact most people tend at all times to play safe. They are more concerned with the safety of any course of action than with its moral quality, its rightness or it wrongness. A course of action which involves risk is something from which they instinctively shrink. (iii) He had shown Himself utterly indifferent to the verdict of society. He had shown that He did not much care what men said about Him. In point of fact, as H.G.Wells said, for most people "the voice of their neighbours is louder than the voice of God." "What will people say?" is one of the first questions that most of us are in the habit of asking. What appalled Jesus' friends was the risks that He was taking, risks which, as they thought, no sensible man would take. When John Bunyan was in prison he was quite frankly afraid. "My imprisonment," he thought, "might end on the gallows for ought that I could tell." He did not like the thought of being hung. Then there came the day when he was ashamed of being afraid. "Methought I was ashamed to die with a pale face and tottering knees for such a cause as this." So finally he came to a conclusion as he thought of himself climbing up the ladder to the scaffold: "Wherefore, thought I, I am for going on and venturing my eternal state with Christ whether I have comfort here or no; if God doth not come in, thought I, I will leap off the ladder even blindfold into eternity, sink or swim, come heaven, come hell; Lord Jesus, if Thou wilt catch me, do: if not, I will venture for Thy name." That is precisely what Jesus was willing to do. I will venture for Thy name. That was the essence of the life of Jesus, and that--not safety and security--should be the motto of the Christian man and the mainspring of the Christian life. MARKj&d98,9 - "His friends" of vs.21 are "his mother and his brethren" of vs.31. Their coming and calling for him is narrated by Matthew and Luke as well as by Mark, but Mark alone tells of their setting out in search of him and of their motive. Considerably later his brethren did not believe on him (Jn.7:5), and probably they persuaded his mother on this occasion, playing, perhaps, upon the anxiety of maternal love. These "brethren" appear to be the "James and Joses and Juda and Simon" of Mk.6:3. The question, What was their relation to Jesus? will probably never be settled with unanimous consent. The data being insufficient to furnish a positive decision, temperament and feeling, as well as theological prepossessions, will always be elements in the formation of opinions on the subject. The theories are: (That they were children of Joseph and Mary, younger than Jesus; (2) That they were children of Joseph by a former marriage; (3) That they were cousins, probably orphaned, and in some way adopted into the family. The first is rejected by all Roman Catholic interpreters, by all who share their feeling as to the superior holiness of virginity, and by some besides who feel that reverence is best satisfied by regarding the Only-begotten of God as also the only offspring of his mother. Yet the scriptural argument for it is very strong .... and its adherents claim--probably correctly--that no other view would ever have been thought of but for unscriptural ideas of our Lord's mother. If the first theory is rejected, there is no choice between the second and the third. His friends heard of it--of the great throng that was about him and of the busy life he was living--and went out from their home in Nazareth, where they were all living, mother, brothers, and sisters, a little later, when Jesus visited the place (6:1-6). The news reached them there, and brought them down to Capernaum, a distance of perhaps twenty miles. They came to lay hold on him--i.e. by force, as one who was not fit to take care of himself. They said, He is beside himself, insane--a conclusion from the excited life that he seemed to them to be living; perhaps the more plausible from the quietness and placidity of the years that he spent with them at Nazareth. Strangers misapprehended him thus (Jn.10:20), but so did his nearest friends. Unbelief will misapprehend whether its opportunities be small or great. Even the "mother and brethren" cannot know Jesus except they be true "mother and brethren." Mark 3:22 And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said,; The Scribes who had come down from Jerusalem were saying--Phi; The doctors of the law, too,..., said--NEB; He hath Beelzebub,; He is possessed by Beelzebul--RSV; He has Beelzebul in him-- Wey; and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils.; and through the prince of the demons he casts out the demons--ABUV; and by the help of...He drives out the demons-- Wms; and it is by the power of the Prince of the demons that the expels the demons--Wey; And /the Scribes who from Jerusalem' had come down\ were saying-- He hath /Beelsebul\; and-- /In the ruler of the demons\ casteth he out the demons. and the scribes who are from Jerusalem having come down, said-- 'He hath Beelzebul,' and-- 'By the ruler of the demons he doth cast out the demons.' TRNTyeagerV200,1 - kai hoi grammateis hoi apo `Ierosolumwn katabantes elegon hoti Beelzeboul echei, kai hoti en tw archonti twn daimoniwn ekballei ta daimonia. kai (continuative conjunction). hoi (nom.pl.masc.of the article in agreement with grammateis). grammateis (nom.pl.masc.of grammateus, subject of elegon). hoi (nom.pl.masc.of the article in agreement with katabantes). apo (preposition with the ablative of separation). Hierosolumwn (abl.sing.masc.of Hierosolumwn, separation). katabantes (2d.aor.act.part.nom.pl.masc.of katabainw, apposition with grammateis). elegon (3d.per.pl.imp.act.ind.of legw, inceptive). hoti (objective conjunction introducing indirect discourse). Beelzeboul (acc.sing.masc.of Beelzeboul, direct object of echei). echei (3d.per.sing.pres.act.ind.of echw, progressive). kai (adjunctive conjunction joining objective clauses). hoti (conjunction introducing an object clause in indirect discourse). en (preposition with the instrumental of agent). tw (instru.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with archonti). archonti (instru.sing.masc.of archwn, agent). twn (gen.pl.neut.of the article in agreement with daimoniwn). daimoniwn (gen.pl.neut.of daimonion, relationship). ekballei (3d.per.sing.pres.act.ind.of ekballw, customary). ta (acc.pl.neut.of the article in agreement with daimonia). daimonia (acc.pl.neut.of daimonion, direct object of ekballei). Translation: "And the scribes who had come down from Jerusalem began to spread the rumor that He had Beelzeboul, and that through the agency of the prince of the demons He was casting out the demons." COMMENT: The scribes are described as those who had recently come down from Jerusalem (down because it is down the mountain). Matthew says that it was the Pharisees who also started the rumor, here ascribed by Mark to the Scribes. No doubt both groups did so. The inceptive imperfect in elegon indicates that they started the rumor which probably spread rapidly throughout the crowd. They were saying that Jesus had Beelzeboul, or more properly that Beelzeboul had Him. Another rumor had it that Jesus was using the chief demon as His agent by whom He cast out other demons. MARK-ITGNTwuest75,6 - "The scribes which came from Jerusalem." The local Pharisees who had made an alliance with the Herodians to kill our Lord, had probably sent word to the Jerusalem authorities with a view to enlisting their aid against Jesus. "He hath Beelzebub." The implication is that Beelzebub has Him, is using Him as his agent. Expositors says: "The expression points to something more than an alliance, as in Matthew, to possession, and that on a grand scale: a divine possession by a base deity doubtless, god of flies (Beelzebub) or god of dung (Beelzebul), still a god, a sort of Satanic incarnation." The spelling Beelzebub idffers but slightly from Beelzeboub, god of the Ekronites. Thayer speaks of certain who teach that the Jews transferred this name of the Philistine god to Satan in contempt. At all events, it is a title of the Devil. "The prince of the devils." The English word "prince" brings to mind a son of royalty, one of noble ineage, one of noble character and bearing. The Greek word is archwn. The word, archA means "the first in a series of things or persons." Thus, archwn, when applied to an individual, refers to one who is first in order of importance or power. Satan is the prince of the devils in the sense that he is their ruler, the first among them in importance, privilege, and power. The word "devils" here is the translation of daimonion referring to demons. Here we have the case of a fallen angel, Satan, as ruler over a different order of beings than himself, the demons. In saying that Jesus cast out demons through the help of the prince of the demons, the Pharisees were arguing upon the basis of the assumption that spirits are cast out by the aid of some other spirit stronger than those ejected. The religious leadersof Israel were trying to break the force of the attesting power of our Lord's miracles done in the energy of the Holy Spirit, by saying that He performed them in dependence upon Satan, thus disproving His claims to Messiahship and linking Him with the Devil. This is the so-called unpardonable sin. It cannot be committed today, since the conditions are not here which made it possible in the first century. (??????). Our Lord is not here in humiliation attempting to gain a foothold for His claims and teaching by means of attesting miracles. [Ed. Could not men deliberately insist that what the HS is doing through the body of Christ today is of the devil? Would they not be doing the same thing that the Jewish leaders were doing at this point?][What would it be if men took the works of the devil and accredited it to the Holy Spirit????] Translation: "And the scribes, the one from Jerusalem, having come down, kept on saying, He has Beezeboul, and by means of the ruler of the demons He is casting out the demons." NTC-MARKhendriksen134,5 - The "friends," we may assume, meant well. The enemies did not: ... Scribes had been sent to spy on Jesus. Down from Jerusalem--elevation about 2400 feet above sea level--they came to Galilee, the Sea of Galilee being about 600 feet below sea level. However, when these law experts, probably delegated by the Sanhedrin, descended toward Capernaum, they must have considered their descent ideological--Jerusalem being the citadel of Jewish orthodoxy--fully as much as merely physical. They came down when Jesus had just healed a demon- possessed man who could neither see nor speak. As a result of this multiple miracle, "All the people were amazed and were saying, 'Surely this cannot be the Son of David?'" (Mt.12:22,23; cf. Lk.11:14). Mark, paralleling Mt.12:24-32; Lk.11:15-23, continues the story from here on. In its main points the account is the same in all the Synoptics [128]. The scribes are not going to allow the people to remain thoroughly amazed, even to the point of entertaining messianic notions with respect to Jesus. For his demon expulsions and other miracles they offer an entirely different, in fact a sharply conflicting, explanation: Jesus, being possessed by Beelzebul, is casting out demons by strenght derived from that prince or ruler of the demons! When these men mentioned Beelzebul, of whom were they thinking? Opinions differ. In the OT we read about Baal- zebub = Beelzebub. But whatever may have caused the name Beelzebub to be changed to Beelzebul [129], one fact is clear, Beelzebul is defintely the prince of the demons. Beelzebul is Satan. A comparison of vs.22a with 22b and with 23; of Mt.9:34 with 12:24; and 12:26 with 12:27 proves this. The charge leveled against Jesus by scribes and Pharisees was wicked. it was the result of envy. Cf. Mt.27:18. They felt that they were beginning to lose their following, and this they were unable to endure. How completely different had been the attitude of John the Baptist (Jn.3:26,30). The thoroughly shameful character of the charge becomes apparent also from the fact that it regards Beelzebul not an an evil spirit exerting his sinsiter influence upon Jesus from the outside; no, Beelzebul is regarded as being inside the soul of Jesus. The latter is said to have--that is, to be possessed by--this unclean spirit (Mk.3:22,30; cf. Jn.8:48). The charge, then, amounts to this, that Jesus, indwelt by and in league with Satan, is by the power derived from that evil spirit driving out demons. Christ's reply follows in vs.23-30, which may be divided as follows: a. refutation of the charge (vs.23-26); b. explanation of Christ's demon expulsions and other miracles (vs.27); c. exhortation (vs.28-30) [footnote 128] - Mark, however, adds a few touches not found--or not found in that exact form--in the other two: that the investigators were scribes (Mt.: Pharisees); that Jesus summoned them and spoke to them in parables; that he asked them, "How can Satan cast out Satan?"; and told them that whoever utters blasphemy against the HS is guilty of an everlasting sin. Also, the explanatory note at the close of Mark's account (vs.30) is found only in that Gospel. On the other hand, Mt. and Lk. add details not found in Mk. Both show that Jesus had read the thoughts of his critics; that he asked them, "By whom do y o u r sons cast out demons?" (followed by a "therefore" clause); and told them, "He who is not with me is against me..." and "But if it is by the Spirit"--Lk.: by the finger--"of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon y o u." In fact, throughout the story there are minor differences--see esp. Lk.11:21,22--, so that it is very clear that each Gospel writer has his own style. [footnote 129] - It was as Baal-zebub (II Kgs.1:2,3,6; LXX IV Kingd. 1:2,3,6 Baal mnian), that is, lord of the carrion-fly, and thus also protector against this nuisance, that Baal was worshiped at Ekron. King Ahazia, who sent messengers to inquire of Baal-zebub whether he would recover from the results of his fall, was told that because of this disloyalty to Jehovah he would die. The NT passages substitute Beel[=Baal] zebul for -zebub. Beelzebul means "lord of the dwelling." The reason for the change in spelling is not clear. it may have amounted to no more than an accident of popular pronunciation. Another explanation is that there is here a play on words, for -zebul resembles zebel: dung. Thus, those who despised the Baal of Ekron were able, by means of slight change in pronunciation, to heap scorn upon him by conveying the thought that he was noting but a "lord of dung." TNICotNT-MARKlane140,1,2 - This section (vs.22-30) follows naturally in the Marcan sequence through topical association -- the listing of charges against Jesus. The conviction that he is deranged (vs.21) finds a more serious echo in the repeated accusation that he is possessed (vs.22 and 30). By framing the incident with the scribes in this way Mark announces his intention that 3:22-30 be understood as a self-contained unit. The arrival of a delegation of legal specialists from Jerusalem suggests that the Galilean mission of Jesus had attracted the critical attention of the Sanhedrin. The scribes know that Jesus has a considerable following and that he possesses the power to expel demons. It is possible that they were official emissaries from the Great Sanhedrin who came to examine Jesus' miracles and to determine whether Capernaum should be declared a "seduced city," they prey of an apostate preacher. Such a declaration required a thorough investigation made on the spot by official envoys in order to determine the extent of the defection and to distinguish between the instigators, the apostates and the innocent. The scribes bring two separate, but related accusations against Jesus: he is demon-possessed, and he casts out demons through collusion with the prince of the demons. The first accusation is repeated in the concluding statement "they were saying he was possessed by an unclean spirit" (vs.30). Jesus answers the second charge directly with the parabolic language of vs.24-27; the pronouncement of vs.28- 29 implies his answer to the first. These accusations were utterly serious and bordered on blasphemy. The name "Beelzebul" occurs in no other Jewish writing, which may indicate that it was a passing colloquialism for a demon-prince. This is suggested both by the scribal reference to "the prince of demons" and by the general reference to possession by an unclean spirit in vs.30. By their accusations the scribes brand Jesus' work as unlawful, and consign him to the category of a magician. The related charge of sorcery became widespread and is attested both in the Talmud and early Patristic literature [88]. [footnote 88] - The key Ttannaitic texts are TB Sanhedrin 43a (Baraitha): "Yeshu of Nazareth was hanged on the day of preparation for the Passover because he practiced sorcery and led the people astray"; 107b (Baraitha): "And a master has said, 'Yeshu the Nazarene practiced magic and led Israel astray'"; cf. Sotah 47a; TJ Hagiga II. 2. Early Patristic texts include Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, ch.69: Jews who witnessed Jesus' mighty works claimed that what they saw was magic "and they dared to say that he was a magician and seducer of the people" (kai gar magon einai auton etolmwn legein kai laoplanon); cf. Chs.17, 108, 117; Origen, Against Celsus I:6, "Celsus says that Christians are strong through the names and the enchantments of certain demons...He further laid it to the Savior's charge that he had been enabled to perform the fancied miraculous feats by sorcery..." (goAteia); cf. I. 28, 68, 71: II. 9, 14, 16, 44, 48, 49, 51: III. 1; V. 51. In VIII. 9,39 Celsus calls Jesus a demon. Tertullian, Against Marcion III. 6 reports that the Jews persecuted Jesus "in the capacity of a man whom they took to be a magician with miraculous signs and a rival in teaching." ... E. Stauffer, ... has argued that the Tannaitic formulation, "Jesus practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy" stems from the official records of the Great Sanhedrin of the AD 32. There is, however, no evidence that the Sanhedrin adduced Jesus' "sorcery" as incriminating testimony against him in its official verdict at his trial. Contrast P. Winter, ... "The charge of magic is legendary and developed during the second century among Jews who had heard from Christians something of what the Gospels report of Jesus' miracles. Not disposed to deny the veracity of the miracle stories, Jews attributed Jesus' miracles. not disposed to deny the veracity of the miracle stories, Jews attributed Jesus' marvelous deeds to magical arts." MARKj&d99,100 - Mark omits the occasion of this conversation, which is carefully given by Matthew and Luke--namely; the healing of the blind and dumb demonicac (Mt.12:22), which caused many to inquire, "Is not this the Son of David?"-- i.e. the Messiah. The scene is still "at home," and most probably in the house of Peter. "Pharisees" are present (Mt), and so (Mk) are the scribes which came down from Jerusalem. This language distinctly indicates an embassy, men who had come on purpose to watch and harm him. It is not to be assumed that they were the same as the men mentioned at Lk.5:17, for some time had elapsed and meanwhile Jesus had been absent from Capernaum. But, whether the same or not, these were spies.--Indignant at the suggestion that this was the Christ, they were ready with their explanation of his mighty works, the reality of which they thus explicitly admitted. He hath Beelzebub, or, as the best manuscripts agree, "Beelzebul." The name has been variously interpreted. The name from which it came was Baalzebub, "lord of flies," the god of the Philistines worshipped at Ekron (2 Kgs.1:2) and consulted as an oracle. The god was named, doubtless, from his supposed control over the swarms of flies and similar insects that torment the East. After a time the Jews, thinking all heathen deities to be evil spirits, adopted this name as a title of the chief of evil spirits, but changed it by one letter, making Beelzebub into Beelzebul. Some think that in this change they intentionally degraded and insulted it, even as a word, by turning it into a name which meant "lord of dung" or "of the dunghill." But othersk, apparently with better reason, make it mean "lord of the mansion" or "of the dwelling"--i.e. lord of the place in which evil spirits dwell, or, substantially, "head of the family of evil spirits," he who rules them as a man rules his household. This sense best corresponds to the form of the word (Meyer) and best suits the allusions in the NT. So here: "He hath Beelzebul" means "he is possessed by the spirit who is lord of all the rest, and who orders them in and out at his pleasure, as a man commands his servants."-- Thus the second clause of their charge is the application of the first. By the prince of the devils casteth he out devils, or demons. In the Greek the use of the recitative hoti ("that") before each of these clauses seems to indicate that two separate remarks are quoted. One says, "that he hath Beelzebul." Another, "that by the prince of the demons casteth he out demons." Luke adds that others, tempting him, asked of him a sign from heaven. Mark 3:23 And he called them unto him,; And He called them to Himself-- NASB; So he called them to come forward--NEB; and said unto them in parables,; and began speaking to them in parables-- NASB; and addressed them allegorically--Rieu; How can Satan cast out Satan?; How is it possible for Satan to expel Satan--Wey And, calling them near, /in parables\ began he to say unto them-- How can /Satan\ cast /Satan\ out? And, having called them near, in similes he said to them, 'How is the Adversary able to cast out the Adversary? TRNTyeagerV201,2 - kai proskalesamenos autous en parabolais elegen autois, Pws dunatai Satanas Satanan ekballein; kai (inferential conjunction). proskalesamenos (aor.mid.part.nom.sing.masc.of proskalew, adverbial, temporal). autous (acc.pl.masc.of autos, direct object of proskalesamenos). en (preposition with the instrumental of means). parabolais (instru.pl.jem.of parabolA, means). elegen (3d.per.sing.imp.act.ind.of legw, inceptive). autois (dat.pl.masc.of autos, indirect object of elegen). Pws (interrogative conjunction, introducing direct question). dunatai (3d.per.sing.pres.ind.of dunamai, direct question). Satanas (nom.sing.masc.of Satanas, subject of dunatai). Satanan (acc.sing.masc.of Satanas, direct object of ekballein). ekballein (pres.act.inf.of ekballw, complementary). Translation: "Therefore when He had called them to Him He began to speak to them in parables: 'How can Satan cast out Satan?'" COMMENT: kai is inferential. Jesus heard the rumors that were circulating about and summoned the people to His side in order to counteract the argument of the Scribes and Pharisees. Jesus' authority is evident in the fact that He was able to command the people to come near so that He could speak to them. The blasphemy was unspeakable. Cf.#883 to see that Beelzeboul was the "god of filth" and "god of flies." A lesser person than Jesus would have gone about among the people asking them to listen to his rebuttal. jesus calls them to His side. Why did they obey the summons? In view of the charge that Jesus was in league with Beelzeboul they should have avoided Him. Yet they could not - dared not resist His summons. He stood majestically in their midst and said, "Come to me." They came. Note the inceptive imperfect in elegen. "He began to speak to them." He made the same point in a different way with His question in the next verse. MARK-ITGNTwuest76,7 - "He called them unto Him." Expositors says; "Jesus, not overawed by the Jerusalem authorities, invites them to come within talking distance, that He may reason the matter with them." "In parables." The word is from paraballw "to throw alongside." A parable is a concrete illustration thrown alongside of a truth to explain it. Jesus used figures here, kingdom, house, plundering the house of a strong man. "How can Satan cast out Satan?" "How" is pws which means "how is it possible?" Our Lord by His question is declaring the impossibility of Satan casting out Satan. Our Lord's argument is briefly;--Granted for the moment that spirits are cast out by the aid of other spirits. More is needed in the latter than superior strength. There must be a motive, and Satan would have no desire to operate against himself. Translation: "And having called them to Him, He was speaking to them in parables; How is it possible for Satan to cast out Satan?" Mark 3:24 And if a kingdom be divided against itself,; If a kingdom is disunited--Gspd; If one part of a kingdom fights another-- Beck; If a kingdom is divided by internal strife--Rieu; For if civil war breaks out in a kingdom--Wey; that kingdom cannot stand.; that kingdom cannot last--Gspd; that kingdom will come to destruction--Bas; And that kingdom cannot be made to stand; and if a kingdom against itself be divided, that kingdom cannot be made to stand; TRNTyeagerV202 - kai ean basileia eph' heautAn meristhA, ou dunatai stathAnai hA basileia ekeinA. kai (emphatic conjunction). ean (conditional particle introducing a third-class condition). basileia (nom.sing.fem.of basileia, subject of meristhA). eph' (preposition with the accusation to express hostility). heautAn (acc.sing.fem.of heautos, hostility). meristhA (3d.per.sing.aor.pass.subj.of merizw, third-class condition). ou (negative conjunction with the indicative). dunatai (3d.per.sing.pres.act.ind.of dunamai, customary). stathAnai (aor.pass.inf.of histAmi, complementary). hA (nom.sing.fem.of the article in agreement with basileia). basileia (nom.sing.fem.of basileia, subject of dunatai). ekeinA (nom.sing.fem.of ekeinos, in agreement with basileia). Translation: "In fact, if a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom is not able to stand." COMMENT: We have a third-class condition with ean and the subjunctive meristhA in the protasis and the present indicative in the apodosis. It is a hypothetical case. Jesus is not speaking of any specific kingdom thus disunited. The conclusion states with finality that such a kingdom is not viable. epi with the accusative often expresses hostility or opposition. Cf.#47 for other examples. This passage of scripture was used by Abraham Lincoln in his famous Cooper's Union speech in New York during his presidential campaign in 1860. R602 - The preposition epi has the sense of "against" in vs.24ff. Mark 3:25 And if a house be divided against itself,; if a household is divided...--NEB; and if a family splits into parties--Wey; that house cannot stand.; that house will not be able to stand--ASV; ...will never stand--NEB; that family cannot continue--Wey And the house shall be unable to stand; and if a house against itself be divided, that house cannot be made to stand; TRNTyeagerV203 - kai ean oikia eph' heautAn meristhA, ou dunAsetai hA oikia ekeinA stathAnai. kai (continuative conjunction). ean (conditional particle introducing a third-class condition). oikia (nom.sing.fem.of oikia, subject of meristhA). eph' (preposition with the accusative, expressing hostility). heautAn (acc.sing.fem.of heautos, hostility). meristhA (3d.per.sing.aor.pass.subj.of merizw, third-class condition). ou (negative conjunction with the indicative). dunAsetai (3d.per.sing.fut.ind.of dunamai, predictive). hA (nom.sing.fem.of the article in agreement with oikia). oikia (nom.sing.fem.of oikia, subject of dunAsetai). ekeinA (nom.sing.fem.of ekeinos, in agreement with oikia). stAnai (aor.act.inf.of histAmi, complementary). Translation: "And if a house is divided against itself, that house shall not be able to stand." COMMENT: Here Jesus changed the grammatical pattern. We still have the third-class condition, but with the future indicative in the apodosis rather than the indicative as in vs.24. The thought is essentially the same. The divided house cannot stand at the moment (vs.24) nor can it stand at any future time (vs.25). Divisions bring discord and ultimate destruction, whether in political kingdoms, social structures, households or philosophical systems. The Scribes had started this argument with their talk about Satan and his alledged occupation of Jesus. Jesus replied in kind (vs.24). Then He established His principle that enduring systems are not internally discordant (vs.24,25). Now He returns to the application of all of this to Satan himself, in the next verse. Mark 3:26 And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided,; ...has risen up against himself, and is divided--RSV; ...is in rebellion against himself, he is divided--NEB; he cannot stand, but hath an end.; ...but is coming to an end--RSV; and cannot stand; and that is the end of him--NEB; he cannot stand--his end has come--Rieu; ...--his days are certainly numbered--Phi; And he cannot stand, but hath /an end\. and if the Adversary did rise against himself, and hath been divided, he cannot be made to stand, but hath an end. TRNTyeagerV203,4 - kai ei ho Satanas anestA eph' heauton kai emeristhA, ou dunatai stAnai, alla telos echei. kai (inferential conjunction). ei (conditional particle in a first-class condition). ho (nom.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with Satanas). Satanas (nom.sing.masc.of Satanas, subject of anestA and emeristhA). anestA (3d.per.sing.aor.act.ind.of anistAmi, constative). eph' (preposition with the accusative, expressing hostility). heauton (acc.sing.masc.of heauotos, hostility). kai (adjunctive conjunction joining verbs). emeristhA (3d.per.sing.aor.pass.ind.of merizw, constative). ou (negative conjunction with the indicative). dunatai (3d.per.sing.pres.ind.of dunamai, customary). stAnai (aor.act.inf.of histAmi, complementary). alla (alternative conjunction). telos (acc.sing.neut.of telos, direct object of echei). echei (3d.per.sing.pres.act.ind.of echw, customary). Translation: "Therefore since Satan has risen up against himself and has been divided, he is not able to stand, but has an end." COMMENT: Here Jesus changed the form of the conditional sentence more basicly than the change between vs.24 and vs.25. In those verses both sentences were third-class conditions. The only change was from the present tense in the apodosis of the first to the future tense in the apodosis of the second. Here the condition changes from a third-class to a first-class condition. ei with the indicative in both protasis and apodosis. That it is not a second-class contrary to fact condition is clear from the fact that the present tense is used in the apodosis. Second- class conditions use only secondary tenses. In the third- class conditions Jesus was saying, "If a kingdom (house) should be divided...k.t.l. - I am not saying that it is..." But in vs.26, with His use of ei and the indicative, both in "if clause" and conclusion, Jesus is reasoning like the Scribes. For the sake of the argument Jesus assumes the Scribes' attitude. They had said that Satan's kingdom was divided. Jesus was casting out demons, but He was doing it through the agency of the prince of the demon world. Beelzeboul was casting out his own demons! Jesus is not saying that He really believes that that is true, but He is assuming as true what they said they really believed to be true. "Satan is rishing up against himself and is being divided." Thus in the conclusion, Jesus drove them to logical confusion. Satan shall not be able to stand, but is heading for collapse. If he is stupid enough to fight against himself, his kingdom is distined to fall. All of this goes to prove how faulty the reasoning of the Scribes really was. The truth was that Satan was not fighting Satan. The Son of God was in full battle array against the kingdom of darkness. Let us remember what had just occurred (Mt.12:22). Jesus had healed a demoniac so completely that the blind and dumb both spake and saw and the people were frightened out of their wits. This was not Satan against Satan, as the Scribes were saying. This was the Son of God against Satan and the evidence is that He was greater than Satan, else He could not have healed the demoniac. It is this principle that Jesus now lays down in the next verse. MARK-INGNTwuest77 - Expositors sums up the argument in these three verses very well in the following: "The theory in question is futile because it is not gratuitously to be imputed to any rational agents, to a kingdom (v.24), to a house (v.25), and therefore not to Satan (v.26). NTC-MARKhendriksen135,6 - Refutation, vs.23-26. ... In all three accounts the charge of the antagonists is given in the third person. What is in their minds is being expressed behind Christ's back. So now Jesus summons these slanderers into his presence. he give them an opportunity to make their charge before the very face of the One whom they deride, and to answer his refutation if they care to do so. Understandably they do not avail themselves of this opportunity: they cannot answer his refutation. Jesus points out that the charge is ridiculous. If it were true, Satan would be casting out Satan. How can that be? Have the scribes pictured kSatan as a prince or rule of a domain? In their own terms, and making use of "parables"-- here meaning "brief illustrative comparisons"--, Jesus answers them. If their charge were true, the ruler would be destroying his own realm; the prince, his own princedom. First, he would be sending out his envoys, the demons, to work havoc in the hearts and lives of men, destroying them body and soul, often little by little. Afterward, as it were in base ingratitude and suicidal folly, he would be supplying the very power needed for the shameful defeat and expulsion of his own obedient servants. No kingdom, thus divided against itself, can maintain itself. Under similar conditions any household, too, would go down to ruin. If this is actually what Beelzebul is doing, "He cannot stand, but has an end," says Jesus literally. MARKj&d100,1 - The whole 23rd verse is peculiar to Mark. He called them--the scribes from Jerusalem--bespeaking their attention and bring them face to face with himself and their own words. The wonderful calmness and self-control of this reply cannot be too distinctly noticed in connection with the fearful charge that had just been brought against him. No more terrible accusation than this was possible; it was the direct charge of a positive and practical league with infernal powers. But he, "when he was reviled, reviled not again: when he suffered, he threatened not" (I Pet.2:23).-- He said unto them in parables. In illustrative comparisons. The word does not require a narrative, such as we often associate with it. The point lies in the fact of a comparison. But here the fact to be confirmed is given the first question (vs.23); it is then confirmed and illustrated by two comparisons, of the kingdom and the household, in vs.24,25 and it is restated directly in vs.26.--How can Satan cast out Satan? The principle is that no intelligent power works against itself and defeats its own purposes. Observe what is here assumed: it is assumed that the dominion of Satan is an intelligent dominion, with character and purposes; that the kingdom of evil is one intelligent kingdom, managed by one mind who knows what he is doing. The individual spirits that torment men are not identified personally with Satan, but they are identified morally with him; so that their presence is his presence, and when they are cast out he is cast out. Now, it is said that in a kingdom there must be unity of counsel, illustrated first by the case of a kingdom among men. It is notorious that divided counsels, going into action, are the ruin of a state; divided counsels or, more exactly, contradictory counsels-- not between rulers and subjects, but in the government itself. How, then if the kingdom of "the prince of the demons" be thus divided against itself and act against its own purposes? Illustrated next by the case of a household, regarded, not as made up of individuals, who may disagree, but as under the rule of a "householder," "goodman of the house," "lord of the mansion." If it acts against the character and counsels that govern it, it will be a failure. How, then, if the "lord of the mansion" be thus divide against himself, acting for the defeat of his own work?And now is made the application. If Satan were casting out demons, he would be rishing up against himself. His sole purpose is to injure men. If he brings in health, calmness, purity, reason, godly gratitude, piety, to the souls of men, and if he sets them free from the bondage by which they are held away from these blessings, he will be acting directly against his own nature. Such a work as that of Jesus cannot possibly be attributed to hi, any more than demoniacal possession can be attributed to God. Judge a work by its moral affinities. If it is good, it is not of the devil, for he never delivers men from evil. If such a rising up of Satan against himself as the work of Christ would be were proved real, there would be more than danger to his kingdom. He cannot stand, but hath an end, would be the true word. A kingdom so broken would be no kingdom at all. Mark 3:27 No man can enter into a strong man's house,; On the other hand, no one can break...--NEB; Indeed, no one can go...Wey; But one cannot break into the Strong One's house--Rieu; and spoil his goods,; and plunder...--ABUV; and make off with...--NEB; and carry off his property--Wey; and rob him-- Nor; except he will first bind the strong man;; unless he first binds...--RSV; unless he has first tied...--NEB; and then he will spoil his house.; then indeed he may plunder his house--RSV; then he can ransack the house--NEB; after that he can make a clean sweep of his house--Wms; But unless /first' the mighty one\ he bind, and /then' his house\ will he plunder! 'No one is able the vessels of the strong man--having entered into his house--to spoil, if first he may not bind the strong man, and then his house he will spoil. TRNTyeagerV204,5 - all' ou dunatai oudeis eis tAn oikian tou ischurou eiselthwn ta skeuA autou diarpasai ean mA prwton ton ischuron dAsA, kai tote tAn oikian autou diarpasei. all' (alternative conjunction). ou (negative conjunction with the indicative). dunatai (3d.per.sing.pres.ind.of dunamai, aoristic). oudeis (nom.sing.masc.of oudeis, subject of dunatai). eis (preposition with the accusative of extent). tAn (acc.sing.fem.of the article in agreement with oikian). oikian (acc.sing.fem.of oikia, extent). tou (gen.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with ischurou). ischurou (gen.sing.masc.of ischuros, possession). eiselthwn (aor.part.nom.sing.masc.of eiserchomai, adverbial, temporal). ta (acc.pl.neut.of the article in agreement with skeuA). skeuA (acc.pl.neut.of skeuos, direct object of diarpasai). autou (gen.sing.masc.of autos, possession). diarpasai (aor.act.inf.of diarpazw, complementary). ean (conditional particle in a third-class condition). mA (negative conjunction with the subjunctive). prwton (acc.sing.neut.of prwtos, adverb of time). ton (acc.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with ischuron). ischuron (acc.sing.masc.of ischuros, direct object of dAsA). dAsA (3d.per.sing.aor.act.subj.of dew, third-class condition, constative). kai (continuative conjunction). tote (temporal conjunction). tAn (acc.sing.fem.of the article in agreement with oikian). oikian (acc.sing.fem.of oikia, direct object of diarpasei). autou (gen.sing.masc.of autos, possession). diarpasei (3d.per.sing.fut.act.ind.of diarpazw, predictive). Translation: "On the contrary no man is able to enter into the house of the strong man and plunder his household goods if he does not first tie up the strong man; only then will he ransack his house." COMMENT: One can enter the strong man's house without violence, but once his intent is to rob, the strong man resists and must first of all be bound before the pillage can take place. In this context skeuA means general household property - personal possessions. The third-class condition indicates that first the strong man must be bound. Jesus had just robbed Satan of his property (Mt.12:22). Thus, according to Jesus' parable He must already have entered the strong man's (Satan's) house (the world), and He must already have bound the strong man. Is Satan bound, and, if so, when was he bound? Cf.#998 for passages where dew applies to Satan. When the Scribes said that Jesus was in league with Satan, they were talking about the Sovereign God Incarnate in human flesh, who, having entered the strong man's house, in incarnation, had just given evidence (Mt.12:22) that He had tied up the strong man. How heinous, then, their crime of ascribing unto Jesus an unclean spirit. (I Jn.4:4). The unfolding of these events made it particularly apropos for Jesus to speak next about the unpardonable sin in vs.28 and 29. MARK-ITGNTwuest77 - "Spoil" is the translation of diarpazw "to plunder, thoroughly ransack." Robertson says this presents the picture of Satan, plundering the demons, the very tools by which he carries on his business. The goods of the strong man are ta skeuA, used of any apparatus, equipment, or furniture, used of utensils; hence the choice of this particular word is most fitting, suggesting the idea that the demons are the equipment Satan uses to further his ends. Translation: "But no one is able, having entered the house of the strong man, to thoroughly ransack his equipment, unless first the binds this strong man, and then he will thoroughly plunder his house." NTC-MARKhendriksen136,7 - Explanation. Having refuted the Pharisees' contention, Jesus now presents the true explanation of his victories over the demons and their lord: ... The rhetorical question of Mt.12:29 becomes a positive statement here. The idea conveyed is the same in both cases. In ordinary life the burglar does not receive willing help from the home owner. Instead, in order to get what he wants the intruder first ties up the owner. Then he burglarizes. Jesus by word and deed is depriving Satan of those values which the evil one regards as his own and over which he has been exercising his sinister control (Lk.13:16). The Lord is casting out Beelzebul's servants, the demons, and is restoring that whhich through their agency Satan has been doing to men's souls and bodies. Jesus is doing all this because by means of his incarnation, his victory over the devil in the desert of temptation, his words of authority addressed to the demons, his entire activity, he has begun to bind Beelzebul, a process of binding or curtailment of power that was going to be further strengthened by means of his victory over Satan on the cross (Col.2:15) and in the resurrection, ascension, and coronation (Rev.12:5, 9-12). He has done, is doing, and will do this through the power not of Beelzebul himself surely but of the Holy Spirit (see vs.28,29). yes, the devil is being, and is progressively goint to be, deprived of his "goods," his "furniture," that is, of the souls and bodies of men, and this not only through healings and demon expulsions but also through a mighty missionary program, reaching first the Jews but later on also the nations in general (Jn.12:31,32; Rom.1:16). Is not this the key to the understanding of Rev.20:3? Note how also in Lk.10:17,18 the "fall of Satan as lightning from heaven" is recorded in connection with the return and report of the seventy missionaries. It is clear, then, that Christ's miracles, far from being proof of Beelzebul's dominion, as if the evil one were the Great Enabler, are instead a prophecy of his certain doom. Already his realm is being broken down, and a glorious kingdom, which had existed for ages, is now arising in a marvelously new form. And Beelzebul, active and mighty though he be, can do nothing to prevent it, for he is bound. His power is being very seriously curtailed through the coming and work of Christ. TNICotNT-MARKlane142,3 - Jesus addresses himself to the charge of collusion with Beelzebul through pithy proverbial sayings which expose the fallacy in the scribal accusation: Satan is not able to cast out Satan. By tacitly substituting "Satan" for "Beelzebul" Jesus brings the controversy within the perspective of his mission as a direct confrontation with Satan. His argument is cumulative in its force: If what you say is true there exists the impossible circumstance that Satan is destroying his own realm. For it is self-evident that kingdom divided against itself will fall, while a household divided against itself cannot be established. If your accusation is factual, then Satan has become divided in his allegiance. This should mean that he has become powerless. Yet this is clearly not so. Satan remains strong, and this fact exposes the fallacy of your charge. To this point Jesus has concentrated on the second charge. With vs.27 he directs himself also to the accusation that he is demon-possessed. Satan is the strong man whose strength is evidenced in the enslavement of men through sin, possession, disease and death; the demons are his servants in this destructive work. He is like a champion who exercises his sovereignty in the sphere of death. Only one who is stronger than he can enter into his realm, bind him and plunder his goods. This Jesus has done. The expulsion of demons is nothing less than a forceful attack on the lordship of Satan. Jesus' ability to cast out demons means that one stronger than Satan has come to restrain his activity and to release the enslaved [92]. The heart of Jesus' mission is to confront Satan and to crush him on all fields, and in the fulfilment of his task he is conscious of being the agent of irresistable power. Jesus' statement raises the pressing question of the source of his power. The pronouncement on blasphemy indicates that Jesus' works are accomplished through the power of the Holy Spirit. it is as the Bearer of the Spirit that he stands as the Champion of God in the battle with Satan. In the face of the claim that he is possessed by an unclean spirit Jesus affirms that he possesses the Spirit of God. MARKbarclay73,4 - The orthodox officials never questioned Jesus' power to exorcise demons. They did not need to, for exorcism was a common phenomenon then, as it still is now, in the East. What they did say was that Jesus' power over the demons was due to the fact that He was in league with the king of the demons, that, as one commentator puts it, "it was by the great demon He cast out the little demons." People have always believed in "black magic," and that is what they claimed that Jesus was practising. But Jesus had no difficulty in exploding that argument. The essence of exorcism has always been that the exorcist calls in to his aid some stronger power to drive out the weaker demon. So Jesus says: "Just think! If there is internal dissension in a kingdom, that kingdom cannot last. If there are quarrels in a house, that house will not endure long. If Satan is actually making war with his own demons then he is finished as an effective power, because civil war has begun in the kingdom of Satan." "Put it another way," Jesus said. "Suppose you want to rob a strong man. You have no hope of doing so until you have got the strong man under subjection. Once you have got him tied up you can plunder his goods--but not until then." The defeat of the demons did not show that Jesus was in alliance with Satan; it showed that Satan's defences had been breached; a stronger name had arrived; the conquest of Satan had begun. Two things emerge here. (i) Jesus accepts the picture of life as a struggle. He sees in life the essential struggle between the power of evil and the power of God. Jesus did not waste His time in speculations about problems to which there is not answer. He did not stop to argue about where evil came from; but He did deal with it most effectively. One of the odd things is that we spend a good deal of time in discussion groups and the like discussing the origin of evil; but we spend less time working out practical methods of tackling the problem and dealing with it. Someone put it this way--suppose a man wakes up to find his house on fire, he does not sit down in a chair and embark upon the reading of treatise entitled "The Origin of Fires in Private Houses." He grabs such defences as he can muster and deals with the fire. Jesus saw the essential struggle between good and evil which is at the heart of life and which is raging in the world; He did not speculate about it. He dealt with it and gave to others the power to overcome evil and to do the right. (ii) Jesus regarded the defeat of disease as part of the conquest of Satan. This is an essential part of Jesus' thought. He desired, and He was able, to save men's bodies as well as men's souls. The doctor and the scientist who meet the challenge of disease are sharing in the defeat of Satan as much as the preacher of the word. The doctor and the minister are not doing different work; they are doing the same work. They are not rivals; they are allies in God's warfare against the opposing power of evil. [Ed. In the sense Barclay is talking about what he says is true, but the doctors' work, no matter how good it is, is only temporary. God's work done through the preacher is eternal. God will correct all the doctors' mistakes with a new and eternal body.] MARKj&d101 - More than this does Christ's work mean. The verse should begin with "but"--But no man can enter, etc. Not only does Christ's merciful and holy work prove him to be no ally of Satan, but if Satan's kingdom is being taken away from him, the fact proves the presence of Satan's conqueror. No one can plunder the property of a strong "lord of the mansion" until he has bound the "lord of the mansion" himself; so, if Jesus is doing a great triumphant work of mercy in setting men free from the inferior agents of Satan's kingdom, he must already be master over Satan himself. The defeat of the Lord precedes the defeat of the servants; if the master were at liberty and had the power, he would not suffer his goods to be spoiled.--Perhaps there is a special touch of triumph in the closing words. And then he will spoil his house; as if Jesus were regarding the end as absolutely sure and the work as actually begun. Compare Jn.12:31: "Now is the judgment of this world; now shall the prince of this world be cast out." Here speaks, in Jesus, the consciousness that he is absolutely the conqueror and destroyer of Satan's kingdom. Here, as a transition to the solemn words that Mark adds immediately, Matthew and Luke insert, "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." There are only two sides in this conflict, and they are the side of the "strong man armed" and the side of the "stronger than he." Not to be with the conqueror of Satan is to be with Satan." (W.N.Clarke). Mark 3:28 Verily I say unto you,; Truly...--RSV; I tell you this--NEB; I tell you the truth--Beck; In solemn truth I tell you--Mon; I assure you--Ber; All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men,; All their sins shall be forgiven...--ASV; all men's sins can be forgiven--Phi; and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:; and whatever blasphemies they utter-- RSV; and all the abusive things they say--Gspd; and all the slanders that they utter--TCNT; /Verily\ I say unto you-- /All things\ shall be forgiven unto the sons of men,-- The sins and the profanities wherewithal they shall profane; 'Verily I say to you, that all the sins shall be forgiven to the sons of men, and evil speakings with which they might speak evil, TRNTyeagerV206 - amAn legw humin hoti panta aphethAsetai tois huiois twn anthrwpwn, ta hamartAmata kai hai blasphAmiai hosa ean blasphAmAswsin. amAn (explicative). legw (1st.per.sing.pres.act.ind.of legw, aoristic). humin (dat.pl.masc.of su, indirect object of legw). hoti (conjunction introducing an object clause in indirect discourse). panta (nom.pl.neut.of pas, in agreement with hamartAmata). aphethAsetai (3d.per.sing.fut.pass.ind.of aphiAmi, predictive). tois (dat.pl.masc.of the article in agreement with huiois). huiois (dat.pl.masc.of huios, personal advantage). twn (gen.pl.masc.of the article in agreement with anthrwpwn). anthrwpwn (gen.pl.masc.of anthrwpos, definition). ta (nom.pl.neut.of the article in agreement with amartAmata). hamartAmata (nom.pl.neut.of hamartAma, subject of aphethAsetai). sin - Mk.3:28; Rom.3:25; I Cor.6:18. damnation - Mk.3:29. Meaning: Cf.#'s 111, 1260, 791. Apparently hamartAma is more nefarious - a more deliberate sin while hamartia is used of any shortcoming. Translated "damnation" in Mk.3:29. kai (adjunctive conjunction joining nouns). hai (nom.pl.fem.of the article in agreement with blasphAmiai). blasphAmiai (3d.per.pl.aor.act.subj.of blasphAmew, third-class condition). Translation: "Truly I am telling you that all shall be forgiven for the sons of men, whatever sins (they may commit) and blasphemies which they may utter." COMMENT: Jesus has established His analogy and made His point (vs.27). Now He gets specific in vs.28-30. hoti introduces indirect discourse. Note that panta is in emphasis. Everything shall be forgiven for the sons of men. This is a sweeping general statement of available salvation for the human race. This forgiveness includes ta hamartAmata kai hai blasphAmiai - nefarious and deliberate sins (#2181) and evil speakings (#1001). But there is one exception to this which He tells us about in the next verse. MARK-ITGNTwuest77,8 - Expositors has a valuable not: "Jesus now changes His tone." Thus far He has reasoned with the scribes, now He solemnly warns to this effect. You do not believe your own theory; you know as well as I how absurd it is, and that I must be casting out devils by a very different spirit from Beelzebub. You are therefore not merely mistaken theorists, you are men in a very perilous moral condition." "Blaspheme." This word is the transliteration of blasphAmew "to speak reproachfully, to rail at, revile, calumniate." Thus the word means "malicious misrepresentation." It is used specifically of those who by contemptuous speech intentionally come short of the reverence due to God or to sacred things. Here the words speak of the action of the scribes, who, knowing that our Lord was performing miracles in the power of the Holy Spirit, deliberately and knowingly attribute them to Satan, and do this in an attempt to break the attesting power of the miracles our Lord was performing. This is the so-called unpardonable sin. R732 - The pronoun hosa has both hamartAmata and blasphAmiai as antecedents and naturally is neuter. MARKj&d102,3,4 - COMMENT TIME--Autumn of 28 A.D. PLACE--At home in Capernaum. PARALLEL ACCOUNTS -- Mt.12:31-37. OUTLINE--1. Forgiveness promised, vs.28. 2. One exception, vs.29. 3. The cause of such a severe warning, vs.30. ANALYSIS 3:28-30 I. FORGIVENESS PROMISED, vs.28. 1. Promised with great certainty. 2. To all the sons of men. 3. All sins and blasphemies. II. ONE EXCEPTION, vs.29. 1. Applies to all. 2. The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. 3. An eternal sin with no forgiveness. III. THE CAUSE OF SUCH A SEVERE WARNING, vs.30. 1. The Pharisees and scribes involved. 2. The words, "He hath an unclean spirit" caused the warning. "I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven...He hath an unclean spirit." We learn clearly from this place in what this fearful sin consists: the only one of all the evils which the sons of men commit which will not be forgiven. Those with whom the Lord was now remonstrating were in danger of committing it, "because they said, He hath an unclean spirit." This was, in point of fact, almost equivalent to their calling the Lord an Incarnation of Satan. Mark 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost; but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit--ASV; but whoever slanders the Holy Spirit--NEB; But whoever reviles the holy Spirit--Gspd; hath never forgiveness,; has no forgiveness forever--ABUV; can never be forgiven--NEB; remains unforgiven to the end--TCNT; but is in danger of eternal damnation:; but is guilty of an eternal sin--ASV; ...of a sin that has no end--Wms; he has to answer for an enduring sin-- TCNT; But Hath no forgiveness, unto times age-abiding,-- But is guilty of /an age-abiding' sin\: but whoever may speak evil in regard to the Holy Spirit hath not forgiveness- to the age, but is in danger of age-during judgment; TRNTyeagerV207 - hos d' an blasphAmAsA eis to pneuma to hagion ouk echei aphesin eis ton aiwna, alla enochos estin aiwniou hamartAmatos -- hos (nom.sing.masc.of hos, subject of blasphAmAsA). d' (adversative conjunction). an (conditional particle in a relative clause, more probable condition). blasphAmAsA (3d.per.sing.aor.act.ind.of blasphAmew, more probable condition). eis (preposition with the accusative, hostility). to (acc.sing.neut.of the article in agreement with pneuma). pneuma (acc.sing.neut.of pneuma, hostility). to (acc.sing.neut.of the article in agreement with hagion). hagion (acc.sing.neut.of hagios, in agreement with pneuma). ouk (negative conjunction with the indicative). echei (3d.per.sing.pres.act.ind.of echw, aoristic). aphesin (acc.sing.fem.of aphesis, direct object of echei). eis (preposition with the accusative of time extent). ton (acc.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with aiwna). aiwna (acc.sing.masc.of aiwn, time extent). alla (alternative conjunction). enochos (nom.sing.masc.of enochos, predicate adjective). estin (3d.per.sing.pres.ind.of eimi, aoristic). aiwniou (gen.sing.masc.of aiwnios, in agreement with hamartAmatos). hamartAmatos (gen.sing.masc.of hamartAma, definition). Translation: "But whoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit has no forgiveness ever - rather he is liable for a sin that persists forever. COMMENT: The relative clause with hos has an and the subjunctive in blasphAmAsA. The protasis is a more probable future condition. Jesus is saying that the sin which the Scribes had just committed, when they said that what was actually done by the Holy Spirit had been done by Beelzeboul, would be committed again by someone. The Scribes had blasphemed against (eis with the accusative) the Holy Spirit. Since the function of the Holy Spirit is to call the sinner to repentance and faith (Jn.16:7-11; I Cor.12:3; Jn.6:44), rejection of His call is blasphemy against Him. Thus the sin for which there is no forgiveness is the sin for which there is no atonement, viz., the sin of rejecting the Holy Spirit's invitation to partake of the nature of Christ. Note that we also have eis with the accusative of time extent. There will be no forgiveness "into the ages" which agrees with the adjective aiwniou which defines hamartAmatos. The sin described is one which cannot be obliterated; hence there is no forgiveness of it. Note that blasphAmAsA eis to pneuma to hagion of Mk.3:29 is parallel to hos d' an eipA kata tou pneumatos tou hagiou of Mt.12:32. MARK-ITGNTwuest78 - "Eternal damnation." Vincent is most emphatic in his denunciation of the translation offered here by the A.V. He says, "An utterly false rendering. Rightly as Revision, of an eternal sin. So Wycliffe, everlasting trespass. The A.V. has gone wrong in gollowing Tyndale, who, in turn, followed the erroneous text of Erasmus, krisews, judgment, wrongly rendering damnation." The Nestle text has aiwniou hamartAmatos, "an eternal sin." Expositors says; "As this is equivalent to hath never forgiveness," we must conceive of the sin as eternal in its guilt, not in itself as a sin. The idea is that of an unpardonable sin, not of a sin eternally repeating itself." For the sake of absolute accuracy, we would suggest that the Greek word aiwnios which means "without beginning or end, that which always has been and always will be" in certain contests, also means "without end, never to cease, everlasting" in other contexts. For instance, we should speak of the sufferings of the lost in the next world, nto as eternal, for these have a beginning, but as everlasting. And when speaking of the life which God gives the believing sinner, we should use the word "eternal," for, although the person receives that life at a point in time and he begins to experience it, yet that life is eternal in its being, having had no beginning and having no ending, for Christ Jesus is that life. So here, it wouls seem that the word qualifying "sin" should be "everlasting." That is, this sin is everlasting in its guilt. MARKj&d103,4 - In order to see something of the wickedness of this sin we must realize that all our Lord's teaching was on the side of God and goodness, and all His miracles, especially that of the expulsion of evil spirits, were done to enforce such teaching, and to set forth the character of God--the God Who sent Him, as at once a holy and benevolent God, desirous to free men from the yoke of all moral and spiritual as well as of all physical evil. To call the Spirit of such an One as our Lord an evil spirit was the extremest form of that wickedness denounced by the prophet when he said: "Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness" (Is.5:20). For a man to have a mind which could deliberately ascribe such a spirit to the Saviour is, as far as man can, to cut himself off from redemption--to make the acceptance of redemption impossible to him. This will be more clearly seen if we remember certain words said on this occasion by the Lord, which are only given in St. Matthew, "Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man it shall be forgiven him, but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him." A man might, through prejudice, speak against the claims of Jesus to be the Messiah. He might not be the Messiah whom he expected. He might be led away by false hopes of an earthly temporal Messiah, to reject the true one. Such an one might continue in infidelity, but the door of repentance and faith would be open to him, because, as Saul of Tarsus, what he did in rejecting Christ he did ignorantly and in unbelief. But if such an one had an opportunity of observing the Spirit of Christ--the Spirit of goodness and love displayed in all His character and discourses, and enforced by His mighty deeds, all on the side of benevolence and holiness, and yet deliberately called such a kSpirit the Spirit of Evil, then there was nothing left in him for Redemption to take hold of. He was reprobate in the deepest sense of the word. He had first given himself over, and then he was given over by God, to a reprobate mind--that is, to his own evil, absolutely evil, self. But if a person thus ascribed the works of Christ to the power of evil, whould that not be blaspheming against the Son of Man--not against the Holy Spirit? No, we are told that both the teaching and the mighty works of Christ were done by the Spirit (Acts 1:2; Mt.12:28). Christ taught very emphatically that He did nothing of Himself. He must, consequently, act by some spiritual power not His own. Was that power Divine or diabolical? Of God, or of God's enemy? If a man deliberately said it was from God's enemy he displayed an intensity of perverse and malicious wickedness almost incredible. Mark 3:30 Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.; --for they had said, He has an unclean spirit--RSV; This was because they were saying,...--Knox; because they were saying-- /An impure spirit\ he hath! because they said, 'He hath an unclean spirit.' TRNTyeagerV208 - hoti elegon, Pneuma akatharton echei. Translation: "Because they were saying, 'He has an unclean spirit.'" COMMENT: Here Mark tells us why Jesus' words of vs.28 and 29 were spoken. The entire passage from vs.22 contributes to the thought. In order to point out their illogicality (vs.22) Jesus spoke the material of vs.23-27, after which He issued the warning of vs.28 and 29. See Mt.12:32 for comment on the unpardonable sin. MARK-ITGNTwuest78 - Translation: "Surely, of a truth, I am saying to you, All sins shall be forgiven the sons of men and all malicious misrepresentations, as many as they use to defame, but whoever maliciously misrepresents the Holy Spirit, never has forgiveness, but he is guilty of an everlasting sin: because they kept on saying, he has an unclean spirit." NTC-MARKhendriksen137,8,9,40 - Exhortation. vs.28-30. ... Luke's parallel section (11:14-23) does not contain this earnest warning; but see Lk.12:10. The parallel in Mt.12:31,32 is very similar. With a deeply earnest "Amen I say to y o u" Jesus introduces this exhortation. As to this "Amen," which in Mark's Gospel occurs here for the first time, in Hebrew it refers, in general, to ideas of truth and faithfulness. It occurs in statements which affirm or confirm a solemn truth. In the OT the single Amen is found in Deut.27:15, 16-26; I Kgs.1:36; I Chron.16:36; Neh.5:13; Ps.106:48; and Jer.28:6. The double Amen is found in Num.5:22; Neh.8:6; Ps.41:13; 72:19; and 89:52. In the NT the word Amen, is an adverbial accusative, combines the ideas of truthfulness and solemnity. The rendering "verily"="in very truth" of the AV is certainly not bad, but today is considered somewhat archaic. Whether "truly" (RSV, NAS) conveys that same fulness of meaning or whether, through association with such phrases as "yours truly," it has lost some of the strength or solemnity usually associated with "verily," is a matter with respect to which opinions differ. In every case--let the reader examine this for himself with the use of a Concordance--in which this word occurs in the NT it introduces a statement which not only expresses a truth or fact--as, for example, 2x2=4 would be a fact--but an important, a solemn fact, one that in many cases is at variance with popularopinion or expectation or at least causes some surprise. It is for that reason that I have adopted the rendering "I solemnly declare." The words that follow the solemn introduction state that "all things," meaning all sins, and specifically in the present connection all blasphemies, will be forgiven to the children of men. The reference is, of course, to all sins of which men sincerely repent. That applies also to Mt.12:31; Lk.12:10. To be sure, in none of these passages is the condition of repentance mentioned. That it was, however, implied is clear from Mk.1:15; 2:17; 6:12; cf. Mt.4:17; 12:41; Lk.5:32; 13:3,5; 15:7; 17:34. See also Ps.32:1,5; Prov.28:13; James 5:16; I Jn.1:9. This rule holds also with respect to that very heinous sin, namely, blasphemy. In this connection we must be careful, however, to bear in mind that Scripture at times uses this word in a broader sense than we do. Among us "blasphemy" may be defined as "defiant irreverence." In this connection we think, for example, of such crimes as cursing God or the king who reigns by the grace of God, of willful degradation of things considered holy, pulling them down to the realm of the secular, or of claiming for the secular or purely human the honor that belongs to God alone. In Greek, however, a more general sense as also ascribed to the word "blasphemy," namely, the use of insolent language directed against either God or man, defamation, railing, reviling (Eph.4:31; Col.3:8; I Tim.6:4). Accordingly, when Jesus assures us that "all things will be forgiven to the sons of men, all their sins and whatever blasphemies they utter" is using the term "blasphemy" in the most general sense. However, when he makes an exception-- "but whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall never receive forgiveness"--he is referring to a son which even in our English language would be considered "blasphemy." Cf. Mk.2:7; Lk.5:21; Jn.10:30,33; Rev.13:1,5,6; 16:9,11; 17:3). Nevertheless, even for all but one kind of defiant irreverence there is forgiveness. If this were not true how could Peter's sin have been forgiven (Mk.14:71), and how could he have been reinstated (Jn.21:15-17)? How could Saul (=Paul) of Tarsus have been pardoned (I Tim.1:12-17)? On the other hand, for "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" there is never forgiveness. Such a person is guilty of "an everlasting sin"; that is, never will his sin be blotted out. The question remains, "How is it to be understood that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unpardonable?" As to other sins, no matter how grievous or gruesome, there is pardon for them. There is forgiveness for David's sin of adultery, dishonesty, and murder (II Sam.12:13; Ps.51: cf. Ps.32); for the "many" sins of the woman of Luke 7; for the prodigal son's "riotous living" (Lk.15:13, 21-24); for Simon Peter's triple denial accompanied by profanity (Mt.26:74,75; Lk.22:31,32; Jn.18:15-18, 25-27; 21:15-17); and for Paul's pre-conversion merciless persecution of Christians (Acts 9:1; 22:4; 26:9-11; I Cor.15:9; Eph.3:8; Phil.3:6). But for the man who "speaks against the Holy Spirit" there is no pardon. Why not? Here, as always when the text itself is not immediately clear, the context must be our guide. From it we learn that the scribes are crediting Satan with that which the Holy Spirit, through Christ, was achieving. Moreover, they are doing this willfully, deliberately. In spite of all the evidences to the contrary they still affirm that Jesus is expelling demons by the power of Beelzebul. Not only this, but they are making progress in sin, as a comparison between 2:7; 3:6; and 3:22 clearly shows. Now to be forgiven implies that the sinner be truly penitent. Among the scribes here indicated such genuine sorrow for sin was totally lacking. For penitence they substituted hardening, for confession plotting. Thus, by means of their own criminal and completely inexcusable callousness, they were dooming themselves. Their sin is unpardonable because they were unwilling to tread the path that leads to pardon. For a thief, an adulterer, and a murderer there is hope. The message of the gospel may cause him to cry out, "O God be merciful to me, the sinner." But when a man has become hardened, so that he has made up his mind not to pay any attention to the promptings of the Spirit, not even to listen to his pleading and warning voice, he has placed himself on the road that leads to perdition. He has sinned the sin "unto death" (I Jn.5:16; see also Heb.6:4-8). For anyone who is truly penitent, no matter how shameful his transgressions may have been, there is no reason to despair (Ps.103:12; Isa.1:18; 44:22; 55:6,7; Mic.7:18-20; I Jn.1:9). On the other hand, there is no excuse for being indifferent, as if the subject of the unpardonable sin is of not concern to the average church member. The blasphemy against the holy Spirit is the result of gradual progress in sin. Grieving the Spirit (Eph.4:30), if unrepented of, leads to resisting the Spirit (Acts 7:51), which, if persisted in, develops into quenching the Spirit (I Thess.5:19). The true solution is found in Ps.95:7b,8a, "Today O that y o u would listen to his voice. Harden not y o u r hearts!" Cf. Heb.3:7,8a. Mark adds: "(He said this) because they were saying, He has an unclean spirit." This is one of these explanatory statements found frequently in Mark's Gospel. Cf. 4:33,34; 7:3,4; 7:19b; 15:16. The word "they" refers to the scribes, calling attention to what these men were saying, as recorded in vs.22. The idea that the words of blasphemy, "He has an unclean spirit" would imply that these enemies of Jesus did not regard Beelzebul to be Satan but rather some other evil spirit is unacceptable. It nor more means this than Jn.4:24 would mean that God is merely one among many spirits, as if they and he were on the same level. The identification Beelzebul=Satan has already been established. And, of course, he too is "an unclean spirit," the worst of them all. TNICotNT-MARKlane144,5,6 - On the basis of the Gospel of Luke and the Coptic Gospel of Thomas it has been argued that vs.28-29 are separate sayings which circulated in the tradition unattached to this immediate context [95]. While this is possible, it is by no means a necessary conclusion. Mark clearly intends vs.28-29 to be interpreted from within the specific context provided by vs.22-27, since vs.30 repeats the substance of vs.22. When understood from the perspective of the controversy with the scribes these verses are appropriate and intelligible. When divorced from this context and viewed generally they raise insoluble questions, well illustrated in the history of the interpretation of this passage. Vs.28 provides the first instance of the recurring formula of introduction, "Amen, I say unto you...", which in the NT is strictly limited to the sayings of Jesus. His use of "Amen" to introduce and endorse his own words is without analogy in the whole of Jewish literature and in the remainder of the NT. According to idiomatic Jewish usage "Amen" was regularly used to affirm, approve, or appropriate the words of another person, even in those few instances where it occurs at the head of a phrase (I Kings 1:36; Jer.11:5; 28:6; M.Sotah II. 5). Jesus' practice of prefacing his words with an "Amen" to strengthen the solemn affirmation which follows introduced a completely new manner of speaking. "Amen" denotes that his words are reliable and true because he is totally committed to do and speak the will of God. As such, the Amen-formulation is not only a highly significant characteristic of Jesus' speech, but a Christological affirmation: Jesus is the true witness of God [98]. Jesus affirms that all the sins of men are open to forgiveness, with one fearful exception. Blasphemy against the HS forever removes a man beyond the sphere where forgiveness is possible. This solemn warning must be interpreted in the light of the specific situation in which it was uttered. Blasphemy is an expression of defiant hostility to ward God. The scribes were thoroughly familiar with this concept under the rubric "the profanation of the Name," which generally denoted speech which defies God's power and majesty. The scribal tradition considered blasphemy no less seriously than did Jesus. "The Holy One, blessed be he, pardons everything else, but on profanation of the Name [i.e. blasphemy] he takes vengeance immediately." This is the danger to which the scribes exposed themselves when they attributed to the agency of Satan the redemption brought by Jesus. The expulsion of demons was a sign of the intrusion of the Kingdom of God. Yet the scribal accusations against Jesus amount to a denial of the power and greatness of the Spirit of God. By assigning the action of God to a demonic origin the scribes betray a perversion of spirit which, in defiance of the truth, chooses to call light darkness. In this historical context, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit denotes the conscious and deliberate rejection of the saving power and grace of God released through Jesus' word and act [101]. Jesus' action in releasing men from demonic possession was a revelation of the Kingdom of God which called for decision. Yet his true dignity remained veiled, and the failure of the scribes to recognize him as the Bearer of the Spirit and the Conqueror of Satan could be forgiven. The considered judgment that his power was demonic, however, betrayed a defiant resistance to the Holy Spirit. This severe warning was not addressed to laymen but to carefully trained legal specialists whose task was to interpret the biblical Law to the people. It was their responsibility to be aware of God's redemptive action. Their insensitivity to the Spirit through whom Jesus was qualified for his mission exposed them to grave peril. Their own tradition condemned their gross callousness as sharply as Jesus' word. The admonition concerning blasphemy of the HS is not to be divorced from this historical context and applied generally. Mark emphasizes this by terminating the incident with a reference to the specific accusation that Jesus was possessed by an unclean spirit. The use of the imperfect tense of the verb in the explanatory note, "because they were saying that he is possessed," implies repetition and a fixed attitude of mind, the tokens of callousness which brought the scribes to the brink of unforgivable blasphemy [102]. [footnote 95] - Luke has placed the statement about blasphemy against the HS in a different context (Lk.12:10); in the Gospel of Thomas, Logion 44, it is found unattached to any context. [footnote 98] - Cf. H. Schlier, TWNT ... aptly cites Jerome's comment on the "Amen" formula: "Christ swears: we ought to believe Christ swearing. For 'Amen, amen, I say unto you' in the NT is the equivalent of 'As I live, saith the Lord' in the OT." [footnote 101] - O.E.Evans, "The Unforgivable Sin," ... comments on Mk.3:28f.; "This can hardly refer to the mere utterance of a formula in which the word 'Spirit' appears. It denotes the conscious and wicked rejection of the saving power and grace of God towards man. Only the man who sets himself against forgiveness is excluded from it." Cf. K. Rengstorf, TWNT, ... "This sin is committed when a man recognizes the mission of Jesus by the Holy Spirit but defies and resists and curses it. The saying shows the seriousness of the situation. It is the last time, in which the lordship of God breaks in." [footnote 102] - Cranfield, ... rightly adds a pastoral note. "It is a matter of great importance pastorally that we can say with absolute confidence to anyone who is overwhelmed by the fear that he has committed this sin, that the fact that he is so troubled is itself a sure proof that he has not committed it." A person so insensitive to the Spirit that he attributes what is of God to demonic origin will not be conscious of having committed the ultimate transgression. MARKbarclay75,6,7 - If we are to understand what this terrible saying means we must first understand the circumstances in which it was said. It was said by Jesus when the Scribes and Pharisees had declared that the cures He wrought were wrought not by the power of God, but by the power of the devil. These men had been able to look at the incarnate love of God and to think it the incarnate power of Satan. We must begin by remembering one thing. Jesus could not have used the phrase the HS in the full Christian sense of the term; because the Spirit in all His fulness did not come to men until Jesus had returned to His glory. It was not until Pentecost that there came to men the supreme experience of the HS. Jesus, speaking to Jews, must have used the term The HS in the Jewish sense of the term. Now in Jewish thought the HS had two great functions. First, He revealed God's truth to men; and second, He enabled men to recognize that truth when they saw it and heard it. That will give us the key to this passage. (i) The HS enabled men to recognize God's truth when it entered their lives. But if a man refuses to exercise any God-given faculty he will in the end lose it. If a man lived in the dark long enough he would lose the ability to see. If a man stayed in bed long enough he would lose the power to walk. If a man refuses to do any serious study he loses the power to study. And if a man refuses the guidance of God's Spirit often enough he becomes in the end incapable of recognizing that truth when he sees it. Evil to him becomes good and good becomes evil. He can look on the goodness of God and call it the evil of Satan. (ii) Why should such a sin have no forgiveness? H.B. Swete says, "To identify the source of good with the impersonation of eveil implies a moral wreck for which the Incarnation itself provides no remedy." A.J.Rawlinson calls it "essential wickedness," as if here we see the quintessence of all evil. Bengel said that all other sins are human but this sin is Satanic. Why should all this be so? Consider the effect of Jesus on a man. The very first effect of Jesus on any man is to make that man see his own utter unworthiness in comparison with the beauty and the loveliness of the life of Jesus. "Depart from me," said Peter, "for I am a sinful man." (Lk.5:8). When Tokichi Ishii first read the story of the Gospel he said, "I stopped. I was stabbed to the heart as if pierced by a five-inch nail. Shall I call it the love of Christ? Shall I call it His compassion? I do not know what to call it. I only know that I believed and my hardness of heart was changed." The first reaction was that he was stabbed to the heart. Now the result of that sense of unworthiness, and the result of that stabbed heart is a heartfelt penitence, and penitence is the only condition of forgiveness. But, if a man has got himself into such a state, by repeated refusals to listen to the promptings of the HS, that he cannot see anything lovely in Jesus at all, then the sight of Jesus will not give him any sense of sin; because he has no sense of sin he cannot be penitent, and because he is not penitent he cannot be forgiven. One of the Lucifer legends tells how one day a priest noticed in his congregation a magnificently handsome young man. After the service the young man stayed for confession. He confessed so many and such terrible sins that the priest's hair stood on end. "You must have lived long to have done all that," the priest said. "My name is Lucifer and I fell from heaven at the beginning of time," said the young man. "Even so," said the priest, "say that you are sorry, say that you repent and even you can be forgiven." The young man looked at the priest for a moment and then turned and strode away. He would not and could not say it; and therefore he had to go on still desolate and still damned. There is only one condition of forgiveness and that is penitence. [Ed. This is true in that real penitence leads to complete obedience to God]. But if a man, by repeated refusals of God's guidance, has lost the ability to recognize goodness when he sees it, if he has got his moral values inverted until evil to him is good and good to him is evil, then, even when he is confronted by Jesus, he is conscious of no sin; he cannot repent and therefore he can never be forgiven. That is the sin against the HS. So long as a man sees loveliness in Christ, so long as he hates his sin even if he cannot leave it, even if he is in the mud and the mire, he can still be forgiven. It is only when he has made himself such that the sight of Christ is nothing to him that he has shut himself out forever from the love of God, for then, even the Incarnation itself, has been unable to move his heart. MARKj&d104 - Some of the most acute observations on this difficult subject are to be found in Calvin's "Commentary on the Synoptics." "Shall any unbeliever curse God? It is as if a blind man were dashing against a wall.But no man curses the Spirit, who is not enlightened by Him, and conscious of ungodly rebellion against Him; for it is not a superfluous distinction, that all other blasphemies shall be forgiven, except that one blasphemy which id directed against the Spirit. If a man shall simply blaspheme against God, he is not declared to be beyond the hope of pardon, but of those who have offered outrage to the Spirit it is said that God will never forgive them. Why is this but because those only are blasphemers against the Spirit, who slander His gifts and power contrary to the conviction of their own mind?" Two observations on all this may not be out of place: 1. It is clear that no one can have committed the sin against the Holy Ghost who desires the influence of the Holy Ghost to deliver him from sin, and make him love God, for such an one must believe that the power exhibited in Christ was on the side of God and goodness. He must believe that Christ was actuated and impelled by a holy and good spirit, which must be from God. 2. Looked at in the light of this one exception to the forgiving power of God, how exceedingly broad and large is the promise implied in the 28th verse, "Verily, I say unto you, ALL sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men." The one exception proves the universality of the rule. If any sinner has a mind to lay hold on the Divine mercy, no memory of past sin need deter him; and the state of mind which he has towards sin, and his desire of deliverance, forbids the idea that he has committed the one unpardonable sin." (M.F.Sadler).