And there was a man there which had a withered hand. Mark 3:1-5 The withered hand W. S. Houghton. I. WHAT THE WITHERED HAND MAY BE SAID TO SYMBOLIZE. 1. It represents capacity for work. By the hand the toiling millions earn their bread. 2. The hand stands as the symbol of fellowship. This is what our custom of shaking hands expresses. 3. There is one more thing symbolized by the hand — generosity. By the hand we convey our gifts. II. THE CAUSES OF THE HAND'S WITHERING. 1. The first suggestion is that, like some forms of blindness and certain deformities, it is sometimes a sad, inexplicable inheritance, possessed from birth. 2. The hand would become withered, I should think, if you fastened tight ligatures or bandages round the arm so as to impede the free circulation of blood. Our narrowness may cause the same result. 3. And then, perhaps, another cause may be cited — disuse of the hand, if long continued. Nature's gifts are cancelled, if not made use of. III. THE MEANS OF HEALING. 1. The man is made to "stand forth." The healthful effects which flow to a man when he is drawn out of the solitude of a self-shrouded life, and constrained by force of circumstances to come into contact with other human beings: We need to be stored up with all sorts of social agencies. 2. There is another thing in this narrative — obedience to Christ. His obedience evidenced his faith. ( W. S. Houghton. )

Benson Commentary Mark 3:1 And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand. Mark 3:1-5 . He entered again into the synagogue — Luke says, On another sabbath. The synagogue seems not to have been at Capernaum, but in some city which lay in his way as he went through Galilee. And there was a man which had a withered hand — His hand was not only withered, but contracted, as appears from Mark 3:5 . See the notes on Matthew 12:10-13 . And they — The scribes and Pharisees, watched him — These men, being ever unfriendly to the Saviour, carefully attended to every thing he said and did, with an expectation of finding some matter of blame in him, by which they might blast his reputation with the people. Their pride, anger, and shame, after being so often put to silence, began now to ripen into malice. Luke observes, He knew their thoughts, their malicious designs. We may therefore see, in this instance, the greatness of our blessed Lord’s courage, who resolutely performed the benevolent action he had undertaken, notwithstanding he knew it would expose him to the fiercest resentment of these wicked men. And said to the man, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. He ordered him to stand forth and show himself to the congregation, that the sight of his distress might move them to pity him; and that they might be the more sensibly struck with the miracle, when they observed the wasted hand restored to perfect soundness in an instant. Then Jesus said, Is it lawful to do good, &c. — That he might expose the malice and superstition of these scribes and Pharisees, he appealed to the dictates of their own minds, whether it was not more lawful to do good on the sabbath days, than to do evil; to save life, than to kill. He meant, more lawful for him to save men’s lives, than for them to plot his death without the least provocation. But it is justly observed here by Dr. Campbell, that in the style of Scripture, the mere negation of any thing is often expressed by the affirmation of the contrary. Thus, Luke 14:26 , not to love, or even to love less, is called, to hate; Matthew 11:25 . not to reveal, is to hide; and here, not to do good, when we can, is to do evil; not to save, is to kill. From this, and many other passages of the New Testament, it may be justly deduced, as a standing principle of Christian ethics, that not to do the good which we have the opportunity and power to do, is, in a certain degree, the same as to do the contrary evil; and not to prevent mischief, when we can, the same as to commit it. Thus, also, Dr. Whitby: “Hence, it seems to follow, that he who doth not do good to his neighbour when he can, doth evil to him; it being a want of charity, and therefore evil, to neglect any opportunity of doing good, or showing kindness to any man in misery; and that not to preserve his life when it is in danger, is to transgress that precept which saith, Thou shalt not kill.” Our Lord’s words contained a severe, but just rebuke, which in the present circumstances must have been sensibly felt. Yet these men, pretending not to understand his meaning, held their peace — Being confounded, though not convinced, therefore he answered them with an argument which the dulness of stupidity could not possibly overlook, nor the peevishness of cavilling gainsay: What man that shall have one sheep, &c. — See on Matthew 12:11 . Having uttered these convincing arguments and cutting reproofs, he looked round about on them, (Luke, on them all, ) with anger, grieved at the hardness of their hearts — Showing at once his indignation at their wickedness, and his grief for their impenitence. See on Matthew as above. He knew his arguments did not prevail with them, because they were resisting the convictions of their own minds; and was both angry at their obstinacy, and grieved on account of the consequences of it; showing these just affections of his righteous spirit by his looks, that if possible an impression might be made either on them or on the spectators. He might in this, likewise, propose to teach us the just regulation of the passions and affections of our nature, which are not sinful in themselves, otherwise he who was without sin could not have been subject to them. The evil of them lies in their being excited by wrong objects, or by right objects in an improper degree. Thus Dr. Whitby: “Hence we learn that anger is not always sinful; this passion being found in him in whom was no sin. But then it must be noted, that anger is not properly defined by philosophers, ?????? ???????????? , a desire of revenge, or, of causing grief, to him who hath provoked or hath grieved us; for this desire of revenge is always evil; and though our Saviour was angry with the Pharisees for the hardness of their hearts, yet had he no desire to revenge this sin upon them, but had a great compassion for them, and desire to remove this evil.” Mr. Scott, who quotes a part of the above note properly adds, “Our Lord’s anger was not only not sinful, but it was a holy indignation, a perfectly right state of heart, and the want of it would have been a sinful defect. It would show a want of filial respect and affection for a son to hear, without emotion, his father’s character unjustly aspersed. Would it not, then, be a want of due reverence for God, to hear his name blasphemed, without feeling and expressing an indignant disapprobation? Vengeance belongs to the ruler exclusively; and he may grieve at the necessity imposed on him of thus expressing his disapprobation of crimes; but it is his duty. Eli ought to have shown anger as well as grief when informed of the vile conduct of his sons; and to have expressed it by severe coercive measures. Thus parents and masters, as well as magistrates, may sin, in not feeling and expressing just displeasure against those under their care: and anger is only sinful when it springs from selfishness and malevolence; when causeless, or above the cause; and when expressed by unhallowed words and actions.” Mark 3:2 And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him. Mark 3:3 And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth. Mark 3:4 And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace. Mark 3:5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other. Mark 3:6 And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him. Mark 3:6-12 . And the Pharisees went forth, &c. — From Matthew’s observing that they held a council against him, it seems probable that those of them, with the scribes, who were present at this miracle, were members of the sanhedrim, or great council; with the Herodians — As bitter as they and the Pharisees usually were against each other. How they might destroy him — For to such a pitch was their anger raised, that nothing but his life would satisfy them. But Jesus withdrew himself — Knowing their designs, he retired into Galilee, where he preached the word, and wrought so many miracles, that his fame was spread abroad more than ever, and great multitudes were gathered round him from all parts; not only from Judea, but from Idumea, the natives of which had now professed the Jewish religion above one hundred and fifty years; and from beyond Jordan — The regions that lay east of that river; and they about Tyre and Sidon — The Israelites who lived in those coasts. And he spake, that a small ship should wait on him — Should be in readiness near him; because of the multitude which was now flocking around him; lest they should throng him — Namely, in a manner that would be very inconvenient to him, and would prevent great numbers from either seeing his miracles or hearing his discourses. For he had healed many — Matthew, he healed them all, namely, that applied to him. Insomuch that they pressed upon him — Gr. ???? ?????????? ???? , so that they rushed, or fell upon him. The expression signifies, that they were ready to drive each other upon him, so that those nearer him could hardly stand, being pressed forward by those behind. For to touch him, as many as had plagues — Gr. ???????? , scourges, as the word properly signifies. Those very painful and afflictive disorders seem to be intended, which were frequently sent, or at least permitted of God, as a scourge or punishment of sin. And unclean spirits — That is, those who were possessed by them — when they saw him — Even though they had been entire strangers to him; fell down before him — In a posture of submission and homage; and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God — That is, the true Messiah that was to come into the world. And he charged them that they should not make him known — It was not the time yet; nor were they fit preachers. For a further explanation of this passage, see notes on Matthew 12:14-21 . Mark 3:7 But Jesus withdrew himself with his disciples to the sea: and a great multitude from Galilee followed him, and from Judaea, Mark 3:8 And from Jerusalem, and from Idumaea, and from beyond Jordan; and they about Tyre and Sidon, a great multitude, when they had heard what great things he did, came unto him. Mark 3:9 And he spake to his disciples, that a small ship should wait on him because of the multitude, lest they should throng him. Mark 3:10 For he had healed many; insomuch that they pressed upon him for to touch him, as many as had plagues. Mark 3:11 And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God. Mark 3:12 And he straitly charged them that they should not make him known. Mark 3:13 And he goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto him whom he would: and they came unto him. Mark 3:13 . He goeth up into a mountain — Thus Luke also represents him as retiring to a mountain for solemn prayer, and indeed continuing all night in that duty, before he made choice of twelve out of his disciples, and appointed them to be apostles: thereby showing, that much consideration and prayer ought to precede and accompany the choice and ordination of persons for ministers, and that nothing in so important a business should be done rashly. And calleth unto him whom he would — With regard to the eternal states of men, God always acts as a merciful Saviour and just Lawgiver, Governor, and Judge. But with regard to numberless other things, he seems to us to act as a mere Sovereign. Mark 3:14 And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, Mark 3:14-16 . He ordained, Gr. ??????? , he made, constituted, or appointed, twelve — The word is elsewhere used for appointing to an office. See 1 Samuel 12:6 — Greek; Hebrews 3:2 . Henry thinks our Lord appointed them by imposition of hands, but of this there is no proof. Indeed, this appointment seems to have been made some time before they were sent out to preach, or entered properly on their office. They were now called and appointed merely to be with him, that is, not only to attend on his public ministry, but to enjoy the benefit of his private conversation and daily instructions, that they might thereby be better fitted for the great work in which they were to be employed. If, as is generally supposed, our Lord, in appointing twelve, had a reference to the twelve patriarchs, and twelve tribes of Israel, and therefore, on the death of Judas, another was chosen to make up the number, this was only a piece of respect paid to that people, previous to the grand offer of the gospel to them. For, when they had generally rejected it, two more, Paul and Barnabas, were added, without any regard to the particular number of twelve. That he might send them forth to preach — His gospel, and thereby make way for his own visits to some places where he had not been; and to have power to heal sicknesses, &c. — And thereby to show that they were sent of God, and that he approved and confirmed their doctrine. After their election, these twelve accompanied Jesus constantly, lived with him on one common stock as his family, and never departed from him unless by his express appointment. Mark 3:15 And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils: Mark 3:16 And Simon he surnamed Peter; Mark 3:17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: Mark 3:17 . James and John he surnamed Boanerges — “This word,” says Dr. Hammond, “is the corruption of the Hebrew ??? ????? , benei ragnash, sons of earthquake, tempest, or any other commotion, such as is here styled, ?????? , thunder. And the meaning of this title may seem to be, that those two sons of Zebedee were to be special, eminent ministers of the gospel, which is called, Hebrews 12:26 , ???? ??? ??? ????????? , a voice shaking the earth, taken from Haggai 2:7 , which is directly the periphrasis of ????? , which is here rendered thunder, in the notion wherein ???? , voice, and ?????? , thunder, are promiscuously used for the same thing.” If the learned reader will consult Dr. Lightfoot and Grotius, he will receive further information concerning the derivation of the word Boanerges. Whitby thinks, “Christ gave James and John this name from a foresight of the heat and zeal of their temper, of which they quickly gave an instance in their desire to call down fire from heaven to consume the Samaritans. Hence we find, in the Acts, Peter and John are the chief speakers and actors in the defence and propagation of the gospel; and the zeal of James and Peter seems to be the reason why the one was slain by Herod, and the other imprisoned in order to the like execution.” Doubtless our Lord, in giving them this name, had respect to three things: the warmth and impetuosity of their spirits, their fervent manner of preaching, and the power of their word. Mark 3:18 And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite, Mark 3:19 And Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him: and they went into an house. Mark 3:19-21 . And they went into a house — It appears, from the manner in which Mark here connects this with the names of the apostles, that it happened very quickly after their being chosen. The other evangelists, indeed, inform us of some previous events which happened in the meantime, but they might be despatched in a few hours. And the multitude cometh together — Assembled again about the doors and windows of the house, and pressed so eagerly upon him; that they — Christ and his disciples, or the members of the family — could not so much as eat bread — Or take any sustenance, though it was the proper hour for it. And when his friends heard of it — Greek, ?? ??? ’ ????? ; “a common phrase,” says Dr. Campbell, “for denoting sui, (so the Vulgate,) his friends, propinqui, cognati, his kinsmen or relations. I prefer,” says he, “the word kinsmen, as the circumstances of the story evince that it is not his disciples who are meant.” This interpretation of the expression the doctor defends very ably by a critical examination of the original text, and an elaborate exposition of the verse; but which is too long to be inserted here. They went — Or, went forth, namely, from their own homes; to lay hold on him — Namely, says Grotius, “that they might take him away from that house, in which he was pressed, to another place:” for they said, ??? ?????? , that he faints, or, may faint; so Grotius, Dr. Whitby, and some others, understand the word, thinking it “absurd to say, that Christ did, either in his gestures or in his actions, show any symptoms of transportation or excess of mind; nor could his kindred, they think, have any reason to conceive thus of him, who had never given the least symptoms of any such excess, though those of them who believed not in him, might have such unworthy thoughts of him.” Dr. Hammond, however, justly observes that the word here used “doth, in all places of the New Testament but this and 2 Corinthians 5:13 , signify being amazed, or astonished, or in some sudden perturbation of mind, depriving a person of the exercise of his faculties. And in the place just referred to, it is opposed to ????????? , sobriety, or temper. And thus in the Old Testament it is variously used for excess, vehemency, or commotion of mind. Psalm 31:22 , we read, I said in my haste, &c., where the Greek is, ?? ?? ???????? ??? , in the excess, or vehemence of my mind. Accordingly, here he supposes the word may be most fitly taken for a commotions, excess, vehemence, or transportation of mind, acting or speaking in zeal, (above what is ordinarily called temper and sobriety; ) or in such a manner as they were wont to act or speak who were moved by some extraordinary influence, as the prophets, and other inspired persons, according to that of Chrysostom, ????? ??????? ????? ?? ??????????? , It belongs to prophets to be thus transported, which sense of the word is suited to the place, for in this chapter Christ begins to show himself in the full lustre of his office; he cures on the sabbath day, which the Pharisees conceived to be unlawful; looks about him with anger, or some incitation of mind; is followed by great multitudes; heals the diseased, and is flocked to for that purpose; is called openly the Son of God by the demoniacs; makes twelve disciples, and commissions them to preach and to do cures. Upon this the Pharisees and Herodians take counsel against him, and those of their faction say, He acts by Beelzebub, and is possessed by him, that is, that he was actuated by some principal evil spirit, and did all his miracles thereby; and so was not to be followed, but abhorred by men. And they who uttered not these high blasphemies against him, yet thought and said, ??? ?????? , that he was in an excess, or transportation of mind, and this, it seems, was the conceit of his own kindred. They had a special prejudice against him, chap. Mark 6:4 ; and did not believe on him, John 7:5 ; and accordingly, hearing a report of his doing these extraordinary things, they came out, ???????? , to lay hold on, or get him into their hands, and take him home with them, for they said he was guilty of some excesses.” The above interpretation supposes the sense of the expression to be nearly the same with that which is given by our translators, He is beside himself, which has the sanction of the Vulgate, in furorem versus est, and which, as has been noticed, is fully justified by Dr. Campbell, who concludes his defence of it in the following words: “I cannot help observing, on the whole, that in the way the verse is here rendered, no signification is assigned to the words which it is not universally allowed they frequently bear; no force is put upon the construction, but every thing interpreted in the manner which would most readily occur to a reader of common understanding, who, without any preconceived opinion, entered on the study. On the contrary, there is none of the other interpretations which does not, as has been shown, offer some violence to the words or to the syntax; in consequence of which, the sense extracted is far from being that which would most readily present itself to an unprejudiced reader. It hardly admits a doubt, that the only thing which has hindered the universal concurrence of translators in the common version, is the unfavourable light it puts our Lord’s relations in. But that their disposition was, at least, not always favourable to his claims, we have the best authority for asserting.” Mark 3:20 And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread. Mark 3:21 And when his friends heard of it , they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself. Mark 3:22 And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils. Mark 3:22 . The scribes (and Pharisees, Matthew 12:22 ) who had come down from Jerusalem, &c. — Purposely, on the devil’s errand; and not without success. For the common people now began to drink in the poison from these learned, good, honourable men! He hath Beelzebub — At command; is in league with him: And by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils — How easily may a man of learning elude the strongest proof of a work of God! How readily can he account for every incident, without ever taking God into the question! See note on Matthew 9:34 ; Matthew 12:22-32 , where this passage occurs, and is explained at large. Mark 3:23 And he called them unto him , and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? Mark 3:24 And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. Mark 3:25 And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. Mark 3:26 And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. Mark 3:27 No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house. Mark 3:28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: Mark 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: Mark 3:30 Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit. Mark 3:30 . Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit — That is, because they said, he hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth out devils, Mark 3:22 . Is it not astonishing that men who have ever read these words should doubt what is the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost? Can any words declare more plainly that it is “the ascribing those miracles to the power of the devil, which Christ wrought by the power of the Holy Ghost?” Mark 3:31 There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. Mark 3:31-35 . There came then his brethren and his mother — Having at length made their way through the crowd, so as to come to the door. His brethren are here named first, as being first and most earnest in the design of taking him; for neither did these of his brethren believe on him. They sent to him, calling him — They sent one into the house, who called him aloud by name. Looking round on them who sat about him — With the utmost sweetness: he said, Behold my mother and my brethren — In this preference of his true disciples even to the Virgin Mary, considered merely as his mother after the flesh, he not only shows his high and tender affection for them, but seems designedly to guard against those excessive and idolatrous honours which he foresaw would, in after ages, be paid to her. See the notes on Matthew 12:46-50 . Mark 3:32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. Mark 3:33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? Mark 3:34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! Mark 3:35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother. Benson Commentary on the Old and New Testaments Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com . Used by Permission.

Expositor's Bible Commentary Mark 3:1 And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand. Chapter 3 CHAPTER 3:1-6 ( Mark 3:1-6 ) THE WITHERED HAND "And He entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had his hand withered. And they watched Him, whether He would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse Him. And He saith unto the man that had his hand withered, Stand forth. And He saith unto them, Is it lawful on the sabbath day to do good or to do harm? to save a life, or to kill? But they held their peace. And when He had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their heart, He saith unto the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he stretched it forth: and his hand was restored. And the Pharisees went out, and straightway with the Herodians took counsel against Him, how they might destroy Him." Mark 3:1-6 (R.V.) IN the controversies just recorded, we have recognized the ideal Teacher, clear to discern and quick to exhibit the decisive point at issue, careless of small pedantries, armed with principles and precedents which go to the heart of the dispute. But the perfect man must be competent in more than theory; and we have now a marvelous example of tact, decision and self-control in action. When Sabbath observance is again discussed, his enemies have resolved to push matters to extremity. They watch, no longer to cavil, but that they may accuse Him. It is in the synagogue; and their expectations are sharpened by the presence of a pitiable object, a man whose hand is not only paralyzed in the sinews, but withered up and hopeless. St. Luke tells us that it was the right hand, which deepened his misery. And St. Matthew records that they asked Christ, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath day? thus urging Him by a challenge to the deed which they condemned. What a miserable state of mind! They believe that Jesus can work the cure, since this is the very basis of their plot; and yet their hostility is not shaken, for belief in a miracle is not conversion; to acknowledge a prodigy is one thing, and to surrender the will is quite another. Or how should we see around us so many Christians in theory, reprobates in life? They long to see the man healed, yet there is no compassion in this desire, hatred urges them to wish what mercy impels Christ to grant. But while He relieves the sufferer, He will also expose their malice. Therefore He makes His intention public, and whets their expectation, by calling the man forth into the midst. And then He meets their question with another: Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath day or evil, to save life or to kill? And when they preserved their calculated silence, we know how He pressed the question home, reminding them that not one of them would fail to draw his own sheep out of a pit upon the Sabbath day. Selfishness made the difference, for a man was better than a sheep, but did not, like the sheep, belong to them. They do not answer: instead of warning Him away from guilt, they eagerly await the incriminating act: we can almost see the spiteful subtle smile playing about their bloodless lips; and Jesus marks them well. He looked round about them in anger, but not in bitter personal resentment, for He was grieved at the hardness of their hearts, and pitied them also, even while enduring such contradiction of sinners against Himself. This is the first mention by St. Mark of that impressive gaze, afterwards so frequent in every Gospel, which searched the scribe who answered well, and melted the heart of Peter. And now, by one brief utterance, their prey breaks through their meshes. Any touch would have been a work, a formal infraction of the law. Therefore there is no touch, neither is the helpless man bidden to take up any burden, or instigated to the slightest ritual irregularity. Jesus only bids him do what was forbidden to none, but what had been impossible for him to perform; and the man succeeds, he does stretch forth his hand: he is healed: the work is done. Yet nothing has been done; as a work of healing not even a word has been said. For He who would so often defy their malice has chosen to show once how easily He can evade it, and not one of them is more free from any blame, however technical, than He. The Pharisees are so utterly baffled, so helpless in His hands, so "filled with madness": that they invoke against this new foe the help of their natural enemies, the Herodians. These appear on the stage because the immense spread of the Messianic movement endangers the Idumaean dynasty. When first the wise men sought an infant King of the Jews, the Herod of that day was troubled. That instinct which struck at His cradle is now reawakened, and will not slumber again until the fatal day when the new Herod shall set Him at nought and mock Him. In the meanwhile these strange allies perplex themselves with the hard question, How is it possible to destroy so acute a foe. While observing their malice, and the exquisite skill which baffles it, we must not lose sight of other lessons. It is to be observed that no offense to hypocrites, no danger to Himself, prevented Jesus from removing human suffering. And also that He expects from the man a certain cooperation involving faith: he must stand forth in the midst; every one must see his unhappiness; he is to assume a position which will become ridiculous unless a miracle is wrought. Then he must make an effort. In the act of stretching forth his hand the strength to stretch it forth is given; but he would not have tried the experiment unless he trusted before he discovered the power. Such is the faith demanded of our sin-stricken and helpless souls; a faith which confesses its wretchedness, believes in the good will of God and the promises of Christ, and receives the experience of blessing through having acted on the belief that already the blessing is a fact in the Divine volition. Nor may we overlook the mysterious impalpable spiritual power which effects its purposes without a touch, or even an explicit work of healing import. What is it but the power of Him Who spake and it was done, Who commanded and it stood fast? And all this vividness of look and bearing, this innocent subtlety of device combined with a boldness which stung His foes to madness, all this richness and verisimilitude of detail, this truth to the character of Jesus, this spiritual freedom from the trammels of a system petrified and grown rigid, this observance in a secular act of the requirements of the spiritual kingdom, all this wealth of internal evidence goes to attest one of the minor miracles which skeptics declare to be incredible. Mark 3:7 But Jesus withdrew himself with his disciples to the sea: and a great multitude from Galilee followed him, and from Judaea, CHAPTER 3:7-19 ( Mark 3:7-19 ) THE CHOICE OF THE TWELVE "And Jesus with His disciples withdrew to the sea: and a great multitude from Galilee followed: and from Judea, and from Jerusalem, and from Idumea, and beyond Jordan, and about Tyre and Sidon, a great multitude, hearing what great things He did, came unto Him. And He spake to His disciples, that a little boat should wait on Him because of the crowd, lest they should throng Him: for He had healed many; insomuch that as many as had plagues pressed upon Him the they might touch Him. And the unclean spirits, whensoever they beheld Him, fell down before Him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God. And He charged them much that they should not make Him known. And He goeth up into the mountain, and calleth unto Him whom He himself would: and they went unto Him. And He appointed twelve, that they might be with Him, and that He might send them forth to preach, and to have authority to cast out devils: and Simon He surnamed Peter; and James the sons of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and them He surnamed Boanerges, which is, Sons of thunder: and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddeus, and Simon the Cananaen, and Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed Him." Mark 3:7-19 (R.V.) WE have reached a crisis in the labors of the Lord when hatred which has become deadly is preparing a blow. The Pharisees are aware, by a series of experiences, that His method is destructive to their system, that He is too fearless to make terms with them, that He will strip the mask off their faces. Their rage was presently intensified by an immense extension of His fame. And therefore He withdrew from the plots which ripen most easily in cities, the hotbeds of intrigue, to the open coast. It is His first retreat before opposition, and careful readers of the Gospels must observe that whenever the pressure of His enemies became extreme, He turned for safety to the simple fishermen, among whom they had no party, since they had preached no gospel to the poor, and that He was frequently conveyed by water from point to point, easily reached by followers, who sometimes indeed outran Him upon foot, but where treason had to begin its wiles afresh. Hither, perhaps camping along the beach, came a great multitude not only from Galilee but also from Judea, and even from the capital, of the headquarters of the priesthood, and by a journey of several days from Idumea, and from Tyre and Sidon, so that afterwards, even there, He could not be hid. Many came to see what great things He did, but others bore with them some afflicted friend, or were themselves sore stricken by disease. And Jesus gave like a God, opening His hand and satisfying their desires, "for power went out of Him, and healed them all." Not yet had the unbelief of man restrained the compassion of His heart, and forced Him to exhibit another phase of the mind of God, by refusing to give that which is holy to the dogs. As yet, therefore, He healeth all their diseases. Then arose an unbecoming and irreverent rush of as many as had plagues to touch Him. A more subtle danger mingled itself with this peril from undue eagerness. For unclean spirits, who knew His mysterious personality, observed that this was still a secret, and was no part of His teaching, since His disciples could not bear it yet. Many months afterwards, flesh and blood had not revealed it even to Peter. And therefore the demons made malicious haste to proclaim Him the Son of God, and Jesus was obliged to charge them much that they should not make Him known. This action of His may teach His followers to be discreet. Falsehood indeed is always evil, but at times reticence is a duty, because certain truths are a medicine too powerful for some stages of spiritual disease. The strong sun which ripens the grain in autumn, would burn up the tender germs of spring. But it was necessary to teach as well as to heal. And Jesus showed His ready practical ingenuity, by arranging that a little boat should wait on Him, and furnish at once a pulpit and a retreat. And now Jesus took action distinctly Messianic. The harvest of souls was plenteous, but the appointed laborers were unfaithful, and a new organization was to take their place. The sacraments and the apostolate are indeed the only two institutions bestowed upon His Church by Christ Himself; but the latter is enough to show that, so early in His course, He saw His way to a revolution. He appointed twelve apostles, in clear allusion to the tribes of a new Israel, a spiritual circumcision, another peculiar people. A new Jerusalem should arise, with their name engraven upon its twelve foundation stones. But since all great changes arrive, not by manufacture but by growth, and in cooperation with existing circumstances, since nations and constitutions are not made but evolved, so was it also with the Church of Christ. The first distinct and formal announcement of a new sheepfold, entered by a new and living Way, only came when evoked by the action of His enemies in casting out the man who was born blind. By that time, the apostles were almost ready to take their place in it. They had learned much. They had watched the marvelous career to which their testimony should be rendered. By exercise they had learned the reality, and by failure the condition of the miraculous powers which they should transmit. But long before, at the period we have now reached, the apostles had been chosen under pressure of the necessity to meet the hostility of the Pharisees with a counter-agency, and to spread the knowledge of His power and doctrine farther than One Teacher, however endowed, could reach. They were to be workers together with Him. St. Mark tells us that He went up into the mountain, the well known hill of the neighborhood, as St. Luke also implies, and there called unto Him whom He Himself would. The emphasis refutes a curious conjecture, that Judas may have been urged upon Him with such importunity by the rest that to reject became a worse evil than to receive him. (Lange, Life of Christ, ii. p. 179,) The choice was all His own, and in their early enthusiasm not one whom He summoned refused the call. Out of these He chose the Twelve, elect of the election. We learn from St. Luke ( Luke 6:12 ) that His choice, fraught with such momentous issues, was made after a whole night of prayer, and from St. Matthew that He also commanded the whole body of His disciples to pray the Lord of the Harvest, not that they themselves should be chosen, but that He would send forth laborers into His harvest. Now who were these by whose agency the downward course of humanity was reversed, and the traditions of a Divine faith were poured into a new mold? It must not be forgotten that their ranks were afterwards recruited from the purest Hebrew blood and ripest culture of the time. The addition of Saul of Tarsus proved that knowledge and position were no more proscribed than indispensable. Yet is it in the last degree suggestive, that Jesus drew His personal followers from classes, not indeed oppressed by want, but lowly, unwarped by the prejudices of the time, living in close contact with nature and with unsophisticated men, speaking and thinking the words and thoughts of the race and not of its coteries, and face to face with the great primitive wants and sorrows over which artificial refinement spreads a thin, but often a baffling veil. With one exception the Nazarene called Galileans to His ministry; and the Carpenter was followed by a group of fishermen, by a despised publican, by a zealot whose love of Israel had betrayed him into wild and lawless theories at least, perhaps into evil deeds, and by several whose previous life and subsequent labors are unknown to earthly fame. Such are the Judges enthroned over the twelve tribes of Israel. A mere comparison of the lists refutes the notion that any one Evangelist has worked up the materials of another, so diverse are they, and yet so easily reconciled. Matthew in one is Levi in another. Thaddaeus, Jude, and Lebbaeus, are interchangeable. The order of the Twelve differs in all the four lists, and yet there are such agreement, even in this respect, as to prove that all the Evangelists were writing about what they understood. Divide the Twelve into three ranks of four, and in none of the four catalogues will any name, or its equivalent, be found to have wandered out of its subdivision, out of the first, second, or third rank, in which doubtless that apostle habitually followed Jesus. Within each rank there is the utmost diversity of place, except that the foremost name in each is never varied; Peter, Philip, and the Lesser James, hold the first, fifth, and ninth place in every catalogue. And the traitor is always last. These are coincidences too slight for design and too striking for accident, they are the natural signs of truth. For they indicate, without obtruding or explaining, some arrangement of the ranks, and some leadership of an individual in each. Moreover, the group of the apostles presents a wonderfully lifelike aspect. Fear, ambition, rivalry, perplexity, silence when speech is called for, and speech when silence is befitting, vows, failures, and yet real loyalty, alas! we know them all. The incidents which are recorded of the chosen of Christ no inventor of the second century would have dared to devise; and as we study them, we feel the touch of genuine life; not of colossal statues such as repose beneath the dome of St. Peter's but of men, genuine, simple and even somewhat childlike, yet full of strong, fresh, unsophisticated feeling, fit therefore to become a great power, and especially so in the capacity of witnesses for an ennobling yet controverted fact. Mark 3:14 And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, CHAPTER 3:14-19 ( Mark 3:14-19 ) CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TWELVE "And He appointed twelve, that they might be with Him, and that He might send them forth to preach, and to have authority to cast out devils: and Simon He surnamed Peter; and James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and them He surnamed Boanerges, which is, Sons of thunder; and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddeaus, and Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot which also betrayed Him." Mark 3:14-19 (R.V.) THE pictures of the Twelve, then, are drawn from a living group. And when they are examined in detail, this appearance of vitality is strengthened, by the richest and most vivid indications of individual character, such indeed as in several cases to throw light upon the choice of Jesus. To invent such touches is the last attainment of dramatic genius, and the artist rarely succeeds except by deliberate and palpable character-painting. The whole story of Hamlet and of Lear is constructed with this end in view, but no one has ever conjectured that the Gospels were psychological studies. If, them, we can discover several well-defined characters, harmoniously drawn by various writers, as natural as the central figure is supernatural, and to be recognized equally in the common and the miraculous narratives, this will be an evidence of the utmost value. We are all familiar with the impetuous vigor of St. Peter, a quality which betrayed him into grave and well-nigh fatal errors, but when chastened by suffering made him a noble and formidable leader of the Twelve. We recognize it when he says, "Thou shalt never wash my feet," "Though all men should deny Thee, yet will I never deny Thee," "Lord, to whom should we go? Thou hast the words of everlasting life," "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," and in his rebuke of Jesus for self-sacrifice, and in his rash blow in the garden. Does this, the best established mental quality of any apostle, fail or grow faint in the miraculous stories which are condemned as the accretions of a later time? In such stories he is related to have cried out, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord," he would walk upon the sea to Jesus, he proposed to shelter Moses and Elijah from the night air in booths (a notion so natural to a bewildered man, so exquisite in its officious well-meaning absurdity as to prove itself, for who could have invented it?), he ventured into the empty sepulcher while John stood awe-stricken at the portal, he plunged into the lake to seek his risen Master on the shore, and he was presently the first to draw the net to land. Observe the restless curiosity which beckoned to John to ask who was the traitor, and compare it with his question, "Lord, and what shall this man do?" But the second of these was after the resurrection, and in answer to a prophecy. Everywhere we find a real person and the same, and the vehemence is everywhere that of a warm heart, which could fail signally but could weep bitterly as well, which could learn not to claim, though twice invited, greater love than that of others, but when asked "Lovest thou Me" at all, broke out into the passionate appeal, "Lord, Thou knowest all things, Thou knowest that I love Thee." Dull is the ear of the critic which fails to recognize here the voice of Simon. Yet the story implies the resurrection. The mind of Jesus was too lofty and grave for epigram; but He put the willful self-reliance which Peter had to subdue even to crucifixion, into one delicate and subtle phrase: "When thou wast young, thou girdest thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest." That self-willed stride, with the loins girded, is the natural gait of Peter, when he was young. St. James, the first apostolic martyr, seems to have over-topped for a while his greater brother St. John, before whom he is usually named, and who is once distinguished as "the brother of James." He shares with him the title of a Son of Thunder ( Mark 3:17 ). They were together in desiring to rival the fiery and avenging miracle of Elijah, and to partake of the profound baptism and bitter cup of Christ. It is an undesigned coincidence in character, that while the latter of these events is recorded by St. Matthew and St. Mark, the former, which, it will be observed implies perfect confidence in the supernatural power of Christ, is found in St. Luke alone, who has not mentioned the title it justifies so curiously ( Matthew 20:20 ; Mark 10:35 ; Luke 9:54 ). It is more remarkable that he whom Christ bade to share his distinctive title with another, should not once be named as having acted or spoken by himself. With a fire like that of Peter, but no such power of initiative and of chieftainship, how natural it is that his appointed task was martyrdom. Is it objected that his brother also, the great apostle St. John, received only a share in that divided title? But the family trait is quite as palpable in him. The deeds of John were seldom wrought upon his own responsibility, never if we except the bringing of Peter into the palace of the high priest. He is a keen observer and a deep thinker. But he cannot, like his Master, combine the quality of leader with those of student and sage. In company with Andrew he found the Messiah. We have seen James leading him for a time. It was in obedience to a sign from Peter that he asked who was the traitor. With Peter, when Jesus was arrested, he followed afar off. It is very characteristic that he shrank from entering the sepulcher until Peter, coming up behind, when in first, although it was John who thereupon "saw and believed." [5] With like discernment, he was the first to recognize Jesus beside the lake, but then it was equally natural that he should tell Peter, and follow in the ship, dragging the net to land, as that Peter should gird himself and plunge into the lake. Peter, when Jesus drew him aside, turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following, with the same silent, gentle, and sociable affection, which had so recently joined him with the saddest and tenderest of all companions underneath the cross. At this point there is a delicate and suggestive turn of phrase. By what incident would any pen except his own have chosen to describe the beloved disciple as Peter then beheld him? Assuredly we should have written, The disciple whom Jesus loved, who also followed Him to Calvary, and to whom He confided His mother. But from St. John himself there would have been a trace of boastfulness in such a phrase. Now the author of the Fourth Gospel, choosing rather to speak of privilege than service, wrote "The disciple whom Jesus loved, which also leaned back on His breast at the supper, and said, Lord, who is he that betrayeth Thee?" St. John was again with St. Peter at the Beautiful Gate, and although it was not he who healed the cripple, yet his cooperation is implied in the words, "Peter, fastening his eyes on him, with John." And when the Council would fain have silence them, the boldness which spoke in Peter's reply was "the boldness of Peter and John." Could any series of events justify more perfectly a title which implied much zeal, yet zeal that did not demand a specific unshared epithet? But these events are interwoven with the miraculous narratives. Add to this the keenness and deliberation which so much of his story exhibits, which at the beginning tendered no hasty homage, but followed Jesus to examine and to learn, which saw the meaning of the orderly arrangement of the grave clothes in the empty tomb, which was first to recognize the Lord upon the beach, which before this had felt something in Christ's regard for the least and weakest, inconsistent with the forbidding of any one to cast out devils, and we have the very qualities required to supplement those of Peter, without being discordant or uncongenial. And therefore it is with Peter, even more than with his brother, that we have seen John associated. In fact Christ, who sent out His apostles by two and two, joins these in such small matters as the tracking a man with a pitcher into the house where He would keep the Passover. And so, when Mary of Magdala would announce the resurrection, she found the penitent Simon in company with this loving John, comforted, and ready to seek the tomb where he met the Lord of all Pardons. All this is not only coherent, and full of vital force, but it also strengthens powerfully the evidence for his authorship of the Gospel, written the last, looking deepest into sacred mysteries, and comparatively unconcerned for the mere flow of narrative, but tender with private and loving discourse, with thoughts of the protecting Shepherd, the sustaining Vine, the Friend Who wept by a grave, Who loved John, Who provided amid tortures for His mother, Who knew that Peter loved Him, and bade him feed the lambs -- and yet thunderous as becomes a Boanerges, with indignation half suppressed against "the Jews" (so called as if he had renounced his murderous nation), against the selfish high-priest of "that same year," and against the son of perdition, for whom certain astute worldlings have surmised that his wrath was such as they best understand, personal, and perhaps a little spiteful. The temperament of John revealed throughout, was that of August, brooding and warm and hushed and fruitful, with low rumblings of tempest in the night. It is remarkable that such another family resemblance as between James and John exists between Peter and Andrew. The directness and self-sacrifice of his greater brother may be discovered in the few incidents recorded of Andrew also. At the beginning, and after one interview with Jesus, when he finds his brother, and becomes the first of the Twelve to spread the gospel, he utters the short unhesitating announcement, "We have found the Messiah." When Philip is uncertain about introducing the Greeks who would see Jesus, he consults Andrew, and there is no more hesitation, Andrew and Philip tell Jesus. And in just the same way, when Philip argues that two hundred pennyworth of bread are not enough for the multitude, Andrew intervenes with practical information about the five barley loaves and the two small fishes, insufficient although they seem. A man prompt and ready, and not blind to the resources that exist because they appear scanty. Twice we have found Philip mentioned in conjunction with him. It was Philip, apparently accosted by the Greeks because of his Gentile name, who could not take upon himself the responsibility of telling Jesus of their wish. And it was he, when consulted about the feeding of the five thousand, who went off into a calculation of the price of the food required -- two hundred pennyworth, he says, would not suffice. Is it not highly consistent with this slow deliberation, that he should have accosted Nathanael with a statement so measured and explicit: "We have found Him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of Joseph." What a contrast to Andrew's terse announcement, "We have found the Messiah." And how natural that Philip should answer the objection, "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" with the passionless reasonable invitation, "Come and see." It was in the same unimaginative prosaic way that he said long after, "Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us." To this comparatively sluggish temperament, therefore, Jesus Himself had to address the first demand He made on any. "Follow me, He said, and was obeyed. It would not be easy to compress into such brief and incidental notices a more graphic indication of character. Of the others we know little except the names. The choice of Matthew, the man of business, is chiefly explained by the nature of his Gospel, so explicit, orderly, and methodical, and until it approaches the crucifixion, so devoid of fire. But when we come to Thomas, we are once more aware of a defined and vivid personality, somewhat perplexed and melancholy, of little hope but settled loyalty. All three saying reported of him belong to a dejected temperament: "Let us also go, that we may died with Him" -- as if there could be no brighter meaning than death in Christ's proposal to interrupt a dead man's sleep. "Lord, we know not whither Thou goest, and how can we know the way?" -- these words express exactly the same despondent failure to apprehend. And so it comes to pass that nothing short of tangible experience will convince him of the resurrection. And yet there is a warm and devoted heart to be recognized in the proposal to share Christ's death, in the yearning to know whither He went, and even in that agony of unbelief, which dwelt upon the cruel details of suffering, until it gave way to one glad cry of recognition and of worship; therefore his demand was granted, although a richer blessing was reserved for those who, not having seen, believed. [5] It is also very natural that, in telling the story, he should remember how, while hesitating to enter, he "stooped down" to gaze, in the wild dawn of his new hope. Mark 3:19 And Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him: and they went into an house. CHAPTER 3:19 ( Mark 3:19 ) THE APOSTLE JUDAS "And Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed Him." Mark 3:19 (R.V.) THE evidential value of what has been written about the apostles will, to some minds, seem to be overborne by the difficulties which start up at the name of Judas. And yet the fact that Jesus chose him -- that awful fact which has offended many -- is in harmony with all that we see around us, with the prodigious powers bestowed upon Napoleon and Voltaire, bestowed in full knowledge of the dark results, yet given because the issues of human freewill never cancel the trusts imposed on human responsibility. Therefore the issues of the freewill of Judas did not cancel the trust imposed upon his responsibility; and Jesus acted not on His foreknowledge of the future, but on the mighty possibilities, for good as for evil, which heaved in the bosom of the fated man as he stood upon the mountain sward. In the story of Judas, the principles which rule the world are made visible. From Adam to this day men have been trusted who failed and fell, and out of their very downfall, but not be precipitating it, the plans of God have evolved themselves. It is not possible to make such a study of the character of Judas as of some others of the Twelve. A traitor is naturally taciturn. No word of his draws our attention to the fact that he had gained possession of the bag, even though one who had sat at the receipt of custom might more naturally have become the treasurer. We do not hear his voice above the rest, until St. John explains the source of the general discontent, which remonstrated against the waste of ointment. He is silent even at the feast, in despite of the words which revealed his guilty secret, until a slow and tardy question is wrung from him, not "Is it I, Lord?" but "Rabbi, is it I?" His influence is like that of a subtle poison, not discerned until its effects betray it. But many words of Jesus acquire new force and energy when we observe that, whatever their drift beside, they were plainly calculated to influence and warn Iscariot. Such are the repeated and urgent warnings against covetousness, from the first parable, spoken so shortly after his vocation, which reckons the deceitfulness of riches and the lust of other things among the tares that choke the seed, down to the declaration that they who trust in riches shall hardly enter the kingdom. Such are the denunciations against hypocrisy, spoken openly, as in the Sermon on the Mount, or to His own apart, as when He warned them of the leaven of the Pharisees which is hypocrisy, that secret vice which was eating out the soul of one among them. Such were the opportunities given to retread without utter dishonor, as when He said, "Do ye also will to go away? . . . Did I not choose you th