iii. 1-6. Healing of a man with his hand withered; cf. Matt. xii. 9-14; Luke vi. 6-11. All three gospels place this incident in immediate connexion with that of the plucking of the ears of corn on the sabbath. It is probably introduced at this point in order to set forth how Jesus regarded the sabbath law and what liberty he asserted under it. This miracle is important as making the fifth cause of offence with Jesus, and as being one of the seven wrought on the sabbath. The others were in the cases of the demoniac at Capernaum (Mark i. 21), Simon’s wife’s mother (Mark i. 27), the impotent man at the pool of Bethesda (John v. 9) the woman with the spirit of infirmity (Luke xiii. 14), the man born blind (John ix. 14).

1. into the synagogue. Jesus is, therefore, once more in Capernaum, and in the place of worship. The time is not distinctly indicated. The narratives of Matthew and Mark suggest the sabbath immediately following the one on which the plucking of the ears of corn took place. But Luke says simply ‘another sabbath.’his hand withered. A better rendering than the ‘having a withered hand’ of the A.V. The phrase suggests that the man was not in this condition by birth, but had become so by injury or disease. Luke, the physician, notes that it was the right hand. It was a case of hand-paralysis or atrophy. Tradition spoke of the man as a bricklayer, who asked to be cured that he might be able to work for his support. [Salmond, 1906]

watched him. The word implies minute observation, here evidently with fell intent. The traditional law allowed the giving of relief only when life was in danger. In a case like the present there was no immediate danger, and it was a breach of the law, therefore, according to the scribes, to do anything for the cure of the sufferer until the sabbath was over. These jealous watchers seem to have expected Jesus to act. [Salmond, 1906]

Stand forth. ‘Rise and come into the midst.’ Jesus sets about his healing work in a peculiarly public and formal way. He would have all men see it, as it was to be a test of his action and of his attitude to the sabbath. [Salmond, 1906]

And he saith unto them. From this we should infer that Jesus was himself the challenger. But according to Matthew the Pharisees took the initiative. Luke tells us that Jesus ‘knew their thoughts,’ and questioned them.

to do good, or to do harm. The words may mean simply ‘to act rightly or to act wrongly’ (cf. 1 Pet. ii. 15, 20). The point of the question then would be—‘Would they say that it could ever be unlawful, on sabbath day any more than on week day, to act rightly?’ The terms, however, may also mean ‘to do one a service or to do one a wrong’; and this is the sense here, as appears from the explanatory words, ‘to save a life or to kill.’ Matthew introduces here Christ’s words about the sheep fallen into a pit, in which he appeals to their own practice. The law did not prohibit beneficent work on the sabbath; even under the traditional law allowances were made, as their own acts showed. [Salmond, 1906]

held their peace. Only Mark notices this.

looked round about. An expressive word used some half dozen times by Mark (iii. 5, 34, v. 32, ix. 8, x. 23, xi. 11), and mostly of ‘the quick searching glance round the circle of his friends or enemies, which Peter remembered as characteristic of the Lord’ (Swete).

with anger, being grieved. Christ as true man had the normal feelings, emotions, and susceptibilities of man—wrath no less than grief. Anger, as righteous indignation against wrong, is an essential element in the moral nature of man. Plato gave it an integral place in man. Butler held it necessary as the balance of pity. The N.T. recognizes an anger that is legitimate, although in human nature as it is, wrath is all too apt to pass beyond the limits of the lawful (cf. Eph. iv. 26).

at the hardening of their heart. The word denotes the making of a callus, the substance that unites the ends of a fractured bone, and so the process of hardening into insensibility to truth. Here it is the hardening of mind rather than of feeling that seems particularly in view. The ‘heart,’ in Hebrew ideas, was the seat of the thoughts.

Stretch forth thy hand. On this occasion Jesus used no means. He did not even touch the sufferer. The cure was effected in a way that had nothing of the appearance of a work.

And he stretched it forth. The courage that made the man stand forth was great. The faith that made him stretch forth his dead hand, and attempt the apparently impossible, was greater still. The cure followed at once; compare the O.T. case of Jeroboam (1 Kings xiii. 4). [Salmond, 1906]

went out, and straightway: mad with the sense of defeat, to scheme revenge without delay.

with the Herodians. The word ‘Herodians’ occurs only in a few cases (Matt. xxii. 16; Mark iii. 6, xii. 13). They are referred to indirectly also in Matt. viii. 15. We have no statement about them in Josephus, or any writer of these times. They may have been partisans of Antipas, or rather adherents of Herod the Great; in all probability a political rather than a religious party, favouring the Roman government and following a policy of compromise between strict Judaism and the new ideas.

took counsel. The word indicates something of a consultation, though an informal one. It points to something more than had yet been done, though not as yet to the deliberate action of an official body. Between Pharisees and Herodians there could be no natural sympathy. Opposition to this Disturber of the existing condition of things brings them together. [Salmond, 1906]

iii. 7-12. Growing popularity in Galilee, despite the antagonism of the classes; cf. Matt. xii. 15-21. The two narratives agree in reporting the withdrawal of Jesus, the numerous following, the works of healing, and the injunction to silence. Mark gives more detail, while Matthew adds the fulfilment of prophecy.

7. withdrew to the sea: with a view to safety. Matthew indicates that it was when he knew of the counsel taken against him that Jesus left Capernaum and turned again to the Sea of Galilee.

a great multitude… followed. Mark brings out not only the largeness of the following, but also (which Matthew does not give) the wide extent and variety of the territory represented. People were attracted not only from Galilee, but from Judaea and Jerusalem and Idumaea in the south, from Perea in the east, and from the parts about Tyre and Sidon in the north-west. [Salmond, 1906]

Idumaea: the Edom of the O.T., mentioned also by the name Idumaea in Isa. xxxiv. 5, 6 (A.V.: Edom in R.V.); Ezek. xxxv. 15, xxxvi. 5 (A.V.: Edom in R.V.). This is its only occurrence in the N.T. It denotes the territory occupied by the descendants of Esau, originally Mount Seir, but, after the Exile, part of Southern Palestine. By our Lord’s time the people were practically included in the Jewish nation (Herod the Great was an Idumaean), and Idumaea made part of Judaea.

from… beyond Jordan: that is, Perea, the district to the east of the Jordan, lying mostly between the Arnon and the Jabbok.

about Tyre and Sidon: that is, the Phoenician sea-coast, the north-west territory termed Phoenice in Acts (xi. 19, xv. 3, xxi. 2). [Salmond, 1906]

a little boat should wait on him. The boat was to be in constant attendance, and was to take the place which the synagogue had had hitherto as the chief scene of his teaching. [Salmond, 1906]

plagues: lit. ‘scourges,’ i.e. torturing maladies.

pressed: lit. ‘fell’ on him—a picture, in a word, of the eager, excited impetuosity of the people, which was like to crush him. They believed that if they but touched him they would experience the healing power. [Salmond, 1906]

unclean spirits: or ‘demons,’ that is, the sufferers possessed by such.

whensoever: ‘as often as,’ or it may be ‘so soon as.’

fell down: rather, ‘would fall down,’ that is in homage. The first recorded occasion of that.

the Son of God. Here probably as meaning the Messiah: a more definite title, however, than the previous ‘the Holy One of God’ (i. 23). [Salmond, 1906]

he charged them much. Why? Because, as Bengel puts it, ‘neither was this the time nor were these the preachers.’ [Salmond, 1906]

iii. 13-19. The choice of the Twelve. An event that makes a great epoch in the ministry of Jesus. All the three Synoptists record it and attach the same importance to it, although they do not all introduce it in precisely the same connexion; cf. Matt. x. 2-4, Luke vi. 12-16. The work of Jesus was growing on his hand, the feeling of the common people was with him, there was much to do for them and among them, and at the same time the hostility of the classes was taking shape. He had crowds following him, and a certain number of disciples more particularly attached to him. But the time had come when there was need of a body of adherents more closely and officially connected with him, to be with him regularly and to do certain work for him.

13. goeth up into the mountain. One of the hills above the lake, and one with which he was familiar. Luke tells us that Jesus went there to pray, and that he continued in prayer all night. Thus did he prepare for the important act of the ordination.

calleth unto him whom he himself would. The election took place, Luke tells us, at the break of day, as Jesus came fresh from the night of communion with God. [Salmond, 1906]

And he appointed twelve. The election was a twofold one. First he called to him a certain number out of the whole body of his followers, and then from these he chose twelve—with reference no doubt to the twelve tribes.

that they might be with him. The Twelve were chosen for two great purposes. The first was that they might be his stated associates.

send them forth. The second purpose was that they should act as his messengers or delegates.

to preach: this was their primary duty, the proclamation of the good news of the kingdom. [Salmond, 1906]

authority to cast out devils: (‘demons’). Matthew adds the power of healing. This authority was to be connected with the higher duty of preaching, to further it and attest their commission. [Salmond, 1906]

Simon he surnamed Peter. Four lists of the Apostles are given (Matt. x, Mark iii, Luke vi, Acts i). In each case the list falls into three groups of four names, having Peter, Philip, John, and James the son of Alphaeus respectively at the head. Each list begins with Peter and ends with the traitor. The new name Peter, Hebrew Cephas—Rock, expressed what he was to be to the Church in worth or in official position. John (i. 48) speaks of it as given on the occasion of Simon’s first call. It may have been renewed or given with more specific distinction now. [Salmond, 1906]

Boanerges, explained as ‘sons of thunder.’ But for what reason the title was given is left untold. It may point to the ardent temper which shewed itself on certain occasions (cf. Mark ix. 38; Luke ix. 54). There is nothing in the Gospels or elsewhere in the N.T. to shew that this name, though given by Jesus himself, persisted. It is no more mentioned. [Salmond, 1906]

Andrew, and Philip: men of Bethsaida, mentioned together in John xii. 22. Philip is not introduced again in the narrative of the first three gospels.

Bartholomew: that is, ‘son of Tolmai.’ He is taken to be the same as Nathanael—for this among other reasons, that John mentions Nathanael twice but never Bartholomew, while the other evangelists speak of Bartholomew and not of Nathanael.

Thomas. Of him we see more in the Fourth Gospel (xi. 16, xiv. 5, xx. 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, xxi. 2).

James the son of Alphaeus. In distinction from James, son of Zebedee, and probably the same as ‘James the less’ or ‘the little,’ son of Mary and brother of Joses.

Thaddaeus. Probably the same as Lebbaeus, and also as Judas the son or brother of James, the head of the church of Jerusalem.

the Cananaean: not the ‘Canaanite’ nor ‘the man of Cana,’ but ‘the Cananaean’ or ‘the zealot’ (cf. Luke vi. 15). He may have been of the party known as the Zealots, a fanatical patriotic party, fiercely opposed to foreign domination. Or the name may indicate simply the disposition of the man, his jealousy for the cause which he espoused. [Salmond, 1906]

Iscariot: that is, ‘the man of Kerioth.’ But where this Kerioth was is uncertain. A Kerioth-hezron is mentioned in Joshua xv. 25. If Judas belonged to it, he would be a native of Judaea, and the only one among the Twelve that was a Judaean. A Kerioth in Moab is also referred to in Jer. xlviii. 24, 41. If this were the place in view Judas would belong to the district east of the Dead Sea. In most cases the name of this Judas is coupled with the terrible note of his treachery (Matt. x. 4; Luke vii. 16; John xii. 4, xviii. 2, 5; Acts i. 16).

into a house: or, as it may be, home, and so to Capernaum. [Salmond, 1906]

iii. 20, 21. Intervention of the Friends of Jesus. A short paragraph, given only by Mark. At this point Luke introduces the Sermon on the Plain.

20. not so much as eat bread. A graphic touch, recalling the actual scene—the crowd gathering as eagerly and tumultuously as before, and taking complete possession of him, so that he had no opportunity even to take food of any kind. [Salmond, 1906]

friends. Probably, as suggested by the ‘went out,’ his relatives. His mother and his brethren had come in all likelihood from Nazareth, anxious about him.

lay hold on him: to protect him from his own want of care and thought, as they deemed it.

beside himself. They took his absorption in his strange work as a sign of religious frenzy. [Salmond, 1906]

scribes which came down from Jerusalem. Mark is most definite here. Matthew speaks only of ‘Pharisees,’ and Luke only of ‘some of them.’ Those in view were no doubt scribes of the Pharisaic party. Matthew and Luke shew what led to this accusation, viz. the healing of one ‘possessed with a devil, blind and dumb.’ The people concluded that the Healer was the Son of David. The scribes gave another explanation.

Beelzebub: rather, ‘Beelzebul.’ The former is the name given to the god of Ekron (2 Kings i. 6), and is thought by some to mean ‘the god of flies.’ The form Beelzebul is of doubtful origin. Some take it to mean ‘the lord of filth’; others make it ‘the lord of the habitation,’ whether as the god of the air (Eph. ii. 2) or as the god of the nether world.

By (or ‘in’) the prince of the devils (‘demons’); cf. John xiv. 30, xvi. 11; Eph. ii. 2. A poor and unknown man like this, they thought, could not of himself do the works he undoubtedly did. He must be in collusion with the powers of evil, and so related to them that their prince works in him. [Salmond, 1906]

in parables. The first occurrence of the word in this Gospel. The word ‘parable’ in the O.T. represents a term which is used for proverbs (1 Sam. x. 12; Prov. i. 1, &c.), dark, enigmatic utterances (Ps. lxxviii. 2; Prov. i. 6), mystical, prophetic intimations (Num. xxiii. 7, 18, &c.), and figurative speech with more or less of a narrative in it (Ezek. xvii. 1-10). In the N.T. it is applied to proverbial sayings (Luke vi. 23); institutions, persons, or events of a typical or suggestive character (Heb. ix. 9, xi. 19); illustrative statements or comparisons (Matt. xv. 15; Luke vi. 39); but usually in the Gospels to comparisons or similitudes containing something of a story. Here it has the more general sense of an illustrative or analogical statement. The Fourth Gospel has allegories, not parables proper.

How can Satan cast out Satan? Only Mark gives this question. Jesus speaks not of the ‘prince of the demons,’ but of ‘Satan,’ the ‘adversary’ (the ordinary Jewish name for the Spirit of evil). In the O.T. the references to Satan are few, the most definite being in Job i. 6, 12; Zech. iii. 1, 2. In the N.T. there is a frequency of allusion to Satan, under a number of names and in a variety of aspects, that contrasts remarkably with the reticence of the O.T. [Salmond, 1906]

cannot stand. The argument conveyed by the opening question in verse 23 is developed in three particular and parallel cases—a divided kingdom, a divided house, a divided Satan. In each the consequence would be the destruction of the subject. If Satan were in collusion with Jesus and lent him his power, he would be his own destroyer. [Salmond, 1906]

the strong man. Another succinct ‘parable’ or similitude; cf. Isa. xlix. 24, 25. It gives the positive side of the refutation. Not only is Jesus not in alliance with Satan—he is Satan’s spoiler. The ‘goods’ of the strong man are explained by Luke (xi. 22) as his ‘armour’ and his ‘spoils’—not only his possessions, but his weapons, the very things by which he is wont to conquer. [Salmond, 1906]

Verily. In John’s Gospel we get the double form, Verily, verily. In the O.T. it is used, as we use Amen, as a conclusion. In the Gospels it is a grave and emphatic formula introducing something that is to be said.All their sins. The point seems to be all kinds or classes of sins, with special reference to one kind or class which might well seem worse than any other. The scribes had accused Jesus of blasphemy, yet even for such an offence against himself, he says, there is forgiveness. [Salmond, 1906]

against the Holy Spirit. There is, however, this one exception, though only one, to the general assurance of forgiveness. What is meant by this blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? Some say it is something entirely peculiar to these Pharisaic slanderers of our Lord, with nothing like it in the present conditions of life. Others think it has no essential relation to the case of these Pharisees. The truth lies between these extremes. These scribes had seen an unmistakable instance of the working of a holy, supernatural power in the healing deeds of Christ. They had hardened themselves against that witness, and they had done this so relentlessly that they did not hesitate to ascribe those deeds of grace and goodness to Satanic power, dishonouring the Holy Spirit. To speak ill of the Son of Man, as he was seen in common human nature, might not imply hopeless evil and might be forgiven. To deal thus with the Holy Ghost, as if the power which was unmistakably His were the power of an evil spirit, revealed a mind so set against light and so lost to conviction as to lack the first conditions of forgiveness.

hath never forgiveness: ‘hath not forgiveness for ever,’ ‘hath forgiveness nevermore’—an absolute negation, meaning that neither in this dispensation nor in any other is there forgiveness for such a sin.

guilty of an eternal sin. Each word here is of moment: ‘guilty,’ meaning literally involved in, subject to, the consequences of something; ‘eternal,’ in its natural sense of enduring for ever; ‘sin,’ not ‘damnation’ as in the A.V. It is in the nature of things, therefore, that the blasphemy in question should not have forgiveness. The impossibility lies in the fact that the man is involved in a sin that persists, a fixed disposition or character. An enduring sin carries an enduring punishment with it and in itself. [Salmond, 1906]

because they said, He hath an unclean spirit: perhaps an explanation added by the evangelist himself, shewing how it was the accusation made by these scribes that led to this solemn declaration. [Salmond, 1906]

iii. 31-35. The Mother and the Brethren: cf. Matt. xii. 46-50; Luke viii. 19-21. Luke brings in this paragraph after the Parable of the Sower. Matthew attaches it definitely to our Lord’s reply to the request for a sign. Here the connexion is with the appearance of the friends (verse 21).

31. his brethren: they are named in v. 3, and in Matt. xiii. 55. They are taken by some to have been half-brothers, sons of Joseph by a former marriage (the Epiphanian theory); by others, to have been cousins, sons of a sister of the Virgin Mary (the Hieronymian theory, or theory of Jerome); by others still, to have been brothers in the proper sense, younger sons of Joseph and Mary (the Helvidian theory). The last view is favoured by the natural sense of the word, the inference from the term ‘first-born son’ (Matt. i. 25; Luke ii. 7) and the mention of the mother (with the ordinary sense of that word) along with the brethren.

standing without: they are unable to get in by reason of the crowd, and, therefore, send a message to Jesus, which perhaps was passed from mouth to mouth till it reached those immediately about him. [Salmond, 1906]

seek for thee: moved probably by anxiety about him. There is nothing to indicate either that they claimed any guardianship over him, or that he gave the audience asked for. [Salmond, 1906]

answereth them. In the first instance those who conveyed the message, and then the others, the mother and the brothers probably being without. [Salmond, 1906]

looking round … about: a characteristic action, but meaning something different from the indignant survey in iii. 5.

them which sat round about him: doubtless the disciples, as the words following imply. [Salmond, 1906]

the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. There is no harshness in this declaration; nothing to suggest that he thought of disowning his own relations, or made little of natural human ties and affections, or bade us do so. But he gives us to understand that there is a higher relationship still, a family of God that is greater than the human family. Kinship to him is not of birth, but of the Spirit, and has its essence in obedience, the doing of his Father’s will. ‘He speaks in the full consciousness of his being the Son of God, who has duties incumbent on him in virtue of his mission’ (Meyer). [Salmond, 1906]