CHAPTER 3
Mark 3:1-6. Parallel. Matt. 12, 9-14; Luke 6:6-10.
Mc3.1 Jesus entered the synagogue again, and there was a man there whose hand was withered. — In this episode, as in the preceding one, we see Jesus restoring the Sabbath to its true spirit, just as he had done earlier with fasting. Cf. Mark 2:18-22. This was not without necessity, for few laws had been so distorted by the Pharisees, and thereby so far removed from the intentions God had set for himself in instituting them. Jesus entered the synagogue again. «Again» refers us back to verse 21 of chapter 1, where we had already seen the Savior enter a synagogue to perform a great miracle. Chronologically, Luke 6:6 has an important note here: «Another Sabbath day came.» According to St. Mark’s account, one might think that the incident that follows took place on the same day as the harvest. A withered hand. This expression refers to a local paralysis that deprived the poor invalid of the use of his hand. Jeroboam had been miraculously afflicted with a similar ailment for his sacrilegious conduct. Cf. 1 Samuel 13:4.
Mc3.2 And they watched him to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath day, so that they could accuse him. — They were watching him. «The scribes and the Pharisees,» adds Luke 6:7. The verb is used in a negative sense (they were watching him sideways), as is clear from the context. Cf. Luke 20:20; Acts 9:24. In itself, the Greek verb simply means «to look with curiosity»; in this case, the Pharisees are watching because they are spying. To see if he would heal him on the Sabbath day. According to the prescriptions imposed by the Doctors of the Law, except in cases of extreme emergency, all medical operations were strictly forbidden on the Sabbath. See the Gospel according to St. Matthew, 12:10. Will Jesus show himself to be compliant with traditions? His adversaries certainly hope not, for they are eager to find some serious reason for accusation against him in order to accuse him. That is their sole and clearly defined goal.
Mc3.3 Jesus said to the man with the withered hand, «Stand here in the middle,», The scrutinizing stares of his enemies did not frighten Jesus. On the contrary, to better attract the attention of the entire assembly, he firmly commanded the disabled man to stand in the center of the synagogue. The divine Wonderworker wanted the light of day for his deeds.
Mc3.4 Then he said to them, «Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil, to save life or to take it away?» And they remained silent. — Then he told them, in the present tense, similarly in verses 3 and 5. St. Mark recounts the scene in a vivid and dramatic way: one would think one was still witnessing it. Is it permitted…According to St. Matthew, it was the Pharisees themselves who asked Jesus: Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath? The two accounts easily reconcile if we accept that the Savior answered their question with a similar counter-question. He readily employed this tactic to confound his insidious interrogators. But the counter-question is arranged in such a way that it truly resolves the problem posed. To do good or harm . A clever dilemma, presented in an abstract form: to do good or do bad in general, or better yet, to do harm or good. To save a life or to take it away. It is the same alternative, expressed in concrete terms, and more directly applied to the present situation. The Hebrew נפש here does not designate the soul itself, but life, every living creature. «To remove,» in Greek ἀποκτεῖναι, means to kill. Jesus will do good and save; the Pharisees and the Scribes, on that same day (cf. v. 6), will form dark plans for murder. Which of them will profane the Sabbath and its rest? Thus, according to the vigorous argument of the divine Master, doing good and doing evil are general things, independent of temporal circumstances; healing is a good work, which is very fitting for a sanctified day. «If it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath, you are watching me in vain; If this is forbidden, then God transgresses his own laws, since even on the Sabbath he allows the sun to rise, the rain to fall, and the earth to bear fruit» (Greek chain on St. Mark). But they remained silent. They are caught in the vise of the dilemma, and, to avoid compromising themselves by answering, they prefer to maintain a humiliating silence that condemns them. St. Mark alone noted this striking feature. — See in St. Matthew 12:41-42, an "ad hominem" argument addressed by Jesus to the Pharisees.
Mc3.5 Then, looking at them with anger and saddened by the blindness of their hearts, he said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was restored. — The entire first half of this verse contains many details specific to St. Mark. looking at them. Jesus embraces all his enemies, one after the other, with that noble and steadfast gaze before which their own eyes had to humble themselves. Our Evangelist loves to describe Jesus' gaze. Cf. Mark 3:34; 5:32; 10:23; 11:44. angrily... He also likes to describe the human feelings that stirred his soul. Here he points to a movement of holy anger. This is the only place in the Gospels where it is said that the Savior was moved by this passion. Or rather, as Fr. Luc puts it, «Anger is in us a passion; in Christ, it was an action. In us, it arises spontaneously, but Christ stirs it up. As it bursts forth in us, it disturbs the other powers of body and soul; and it cannot be repressed by free will. Excited by Christ, it moves what he wills it to move, and it disturbs nothing. It is then calmed by the action of his will.» Indeed, «Christ’s bodily senses were full of vigor, without the law of sin; and the truth of his affections was subject to the moderation brought about by the divinity and his reason» [Saint Leo I the Great, Letter 11]. In Jesus, everything was pure and perfect. Saddened. A strange association, it seems: sadness and compassion united with anger. And yet experience, as well as psychology, justifies this mixture of feelings, which are in no way contradictory. Jesus is angered by sin, he pities it. the fishermen ; Or, his anger lasts only a moment, and is immediately replaced by a vivid and lasting sympathy. From the blindness of their hearts. The Greek noun πωρώσις denotes hardening rather than blindness of heart: πωρόω even means to petrify. Cf. Mark 6:52; 8:46; John 12:40; 2 Corinthians 3:14. An implacable hatred for Jesus had hardened the hearts of the Pharisees. Extend your hand The narrative is as rapid as the events themselves. Jesus had already performed other miracles on Sabbath days. Cf. Mark 1:21-29. He would perform still others, John 5:9; 9:14; Luke 13:14; 14:1. His enemies would never forgive him for this holy freedom; thus, the apocryphal Gospels show them launching this accusation against Jesus with particular insistence at the time of his trial.
Mc3.6 The Pharisees, having gone out, immediately conspired against him with the Herodians, to try to destroy him. — The Pharisees, having gone out, immediately…But even today we see them, carried away by their fanatical rage, hatching the darkest plots. «Immediately»: they waste no moment; the hatred that spurs them on makes them quick to act. With the Herodians. On the character and tendencies of this party, see the Gospel according to St. Matthew, 22:15. They were the "conservative-liberals" of the time. They formed a party that was much more political than religious: and, precisely from a political point of view, the growing popularity of Jesus could frighten them, all the more so since the residence of the tetrarch Herod Antipas was not far away, in Tiberias. Hence their alliance with the Pharisees, although the two sects were as heterogeneous as black and white. to try to lose him. The alliance is concluded for this purpose: the clause will be faithfully executed by both sides, for, during Holy Week (Mark 12:13), we will find the contracting parties acting in concert to destroy Jesus. The details of this wicked agreement are unique to our Evangelist.
Mark 3:7-12. Parallel. Matt. 12, 5-21; Luke 6:17-19.
Mc3.7 Jesus withdrew to the sea with his disciples, and a large crowd followed him from Galilee and Judea, 8 from Jerusalem, from Idumea and beyond the Jordan. Those from the vicinity of Tyre and Sidon, having heard of the things he was doing, also came to him in great crowds. — Jesus withdrew with his disciples to the sea. «But Jesus, knowing this, withdrew from there,» we read in Matthew 12:15. It was therefore the knowledge of the Pharisees« bloodthirsty plans (v. 6) that prompted the Savior to withdraw, as a precaution, to the solitudes surrounding the lake. See Mark 1:35 and the commentary. However, as the Prophet Isaiah 35:1 had said, »Let the desert and the parched land be glad; let the desert rejoice and blossom like the rose.” Behold, the desert comes alive and is populated by the affection shown to Jesus. A large crowd followed him. This crowd, drawn, as verse 8 says, by the fame of Our Lord's works, came from all regions of Palestine: the inhabitants of the North (of Galilee, near Tyre and Sidon) met with Jesus, along with those of the East (beyond the Jordan) and the South (Judea, Jerusalem), even from the farthest South (Idumea), so as to form, the Evangelist repeats with some emphasis, an immense multitude. The city of Jerusalem, although included in Judea, is named separately because of its special importance. The words "beyond the Jordan" represent the province of Perea in its widest extent. See the Gospel according to St. Matthew, 19:1. Idumea was then part of the Jewish state, into which it had been incorporated by the Hasmonean princes: its inhabitants had had to adopt the Mosaic faith. It was ruled by Aretas, father-in-law of the tetrarch Herod. This is the only time his name appears in the writings of the New Testament. We owe to St. Mark the image of the descendants of Esau reunited, despite deep-seated hatreds, with the sons of Jacob at the feet of Christ. According to this account, only one province, Samaria, was not represented with Jesus: this stemmed from the profound antipathy that separated the Samaritans from the Jews. See the Gospel according to St. Matthew, 10:5.
Mc3.9 And he told his disciples to always have a boat at his disposal, so that he would not be pressed by the crowd. — A boat. In Greek and Latin, a diminutive: a small boat, a skiff. That is Jesus' fleet. He said… to keep her ready…that is to say, «he commanded.» An order as interesting in itself as in its purpose. H. Étienne gives the following definition of the verb used here in the original Greek text: «With patience and perseverance, I insist, I strive, or I repeat the same thing regularly and frequently.» What Jesus was asking, therefore, was that the boat in question be set aside for his use and be constantly at his disposal on the shore of the lake. Thanks to this means, he could, on the one hand, escape from time to time and reach the solitudes of the East, and on the other hand, preach more comfortably from this improvised pulpit, without being too crowded. — It has been observed that Our Lord seems to have loved lakes and mountains, the two natural landscapes that contain the most beauty and speak most to sensitive and delicate souls.
Mc3.10 Because he healed many people, all those who had any ailment rushed to touch him. — He cured many of them. It appears that in the public life of the Savior there were periods more specifically devoted to miracles, and others largely reserved for preaching, although these two were regularly intertwined to support one another. The period currently described by St. Mark was a time of numerous wonders. They all... threw themselves upon him; Literally, to the point that we stumbled upon him. A completely graphic style, which reproduces the scene before our eyes. To touch. The reason for this haste was the poor sick people. And good Jesus let himself be cared for. Some harm, The Greek word μάστιγας (mastigas) means whips or lashes. This word, like the Hebrew שוט (R 1, 1 Kings 12:11), figuratively designates all kinds of physical suffering. Cf. verses 29, 34; Luke 7:21. Its use in this sense stemmed from the ancient belief that illnesses were always divine punishments.
Mc3.11 The unclean spirits, seeing him, prostrated themselves before him and cried out, "You are the Son of God!", — The unclean spirits… prostrated themselves. What a beautiful and striking contrast. The sick They throw themselves upon Jesus to obtain their healing; the possessed prostrate themselves before him, recognizing his messianic character, and no doubt imploring him, as in other circumstances, to leave them in peace. Note that the unclean spirits are spoken of as if they had done one and the same thing as the unfortunate people they had seized. See our commentary on St. Matthew. When he saw him indicates a habitual and constant fact.
Mc3.12 but he forbade them, with great threats, to reveal his identity. — The Son of God, That is to say, the Messiah insofar as he was supposed to have the closest relationship with God, it is unlikely that this title, in the mouths of demons, had the strict meaning of "Natural Son of God." He defended them, with severe threats… We have looked above [cf. Mark 1.35 and the note] for the reasons why Jesus Christ thus imposed silence on the demons, St. Matthew, in the parallel passage, Matt. 12, 17-21, points out a beautiful prophecy of Isaiah which Jesus was fulfilling at that time in the most perfect way.
Mark 3, 13-19. Parallel. Matt. 10, 2-4; Luke 6:12-16.
Mc3.13 Having then gone up the mountain, he called those whom he himself wished, and they came to him. — Having then climbed the mountain. The mountain that witnessed the selection of the twelve Apostles was most likely Kouroun-Hattin, described in the Gospel of Matthew 5:1. It was situated a short distance from the lake, which it overlooks with its twin peaks. The article in the Greek text suggests that it was a famous mountain in the region. It was there, therefore, that Jesus, after a mysterious prayer and a solitary vigil (Luke 6:12), chose from among his already numerous disciples twelve special men, destined for a higher role, and whom he wished to educate from then on in preparation for their crucial role in his work. He called He undoubtedly proclaimed their names before the assembly, pointing them out one by one and gathering them around his side. It was a very solemn moment: it is solemnly described in the otherwise quite simple narrative of our Evangelist. Those that he himself wanted. A word of the utmost gravity, which denotes on Jesus' part a completely free choice, although based on God's eternal plans. He called those whom he willed. "You did not choose me, but I chose you," he would later say to the Twelve, John 15:16. The Apostles themselves, therefore, had nothing to do with their calling, just as their successors at various levels, Bishops or Priests, should have nothing to do with theirs. "No one takes this honor upon themselves, but is called by God, like Aaron." Hebrews 5:4. No one, not even Christ, continues the great Apostle: "So it is with Christ: He did not glorify himself to become a high priest; He received it from God, who told him… «You are a priest of the order of Melchizedek forever.» And they came to him. Thus, the inner circle of the Twelve was definitively constituted; the previous vocations of which the members of the Apostolic College had been the object were only preliminary and preparatory steps to the great installation made at this moment by Jesus.
Mc3.14 He appointed twelve men to be with him and to be sent out to preach., 15 with the power to cure diseases and drive out demons. — In these two verses, St. Mark clearly defines the office and role of the Apostles. He established twelve…The Evangelist's first note, therefore, concerns the number of the Apostles. It was a mystical number: twelve Apostles, just as there had been twelve patriarchs. See the Gospel according to St. Matthew, 10:2. To have them with him. The second piece of information from St. Mark concerns one of the principal roles of Jesus' chosen ones: the Apostles were to live regularly with the Master, to witness his preaching, his miracles, his conduct, and to receive his direct instruction. Cf. Acts 1:21. And to send them to preach…Third piece of information, which determines another apostolic function. Apostle means sent: the Twelve will be, as their name expresses, the ambassadors of Jesus, his legates at his side; he will send them to bring, first to Palestine, then throughout the whole world, the good news of salvation. And he gave them power…So that his Apostles might be able to exercise the ministry of preaching with greater authority, Jesus endowed them with extraordinary, supernatural powers, which would serve as their credentials. These powers are no different from those we have seen the Savior himself exercise on various occasions according to the Gospel account. They are of two kinds: one will enable the Apostles to heal illnesses, and the other will allow them to cast out demons with a word.
Mc3.16 He gave Simon the nickname Peter., After outlining the powers conferred by Jesus upon his Apostles, the Evangelist provides a complete list of the Twelve, which we will only briefly review. Our commentary on Matthew 10:2-4 contains considerable detail on similar lists found in the writings of the New Testament, their internal organization, each Apostle individually, and the entire apostolic college. Simon… The list begins in a rather extraordinary way from a stylistic point of view. Some Greek manuscripts have the variant «the first, Simon,» which appears to be a borrowing from Matthew 10:2. The name of Pierre. Until now, St. Mark has always given the prince of the Apostles his original name of Simon; henceforth he will call him Peter. This symbolic name, which made Simon the unshakeable rock on which Jesus was to found his Church, had been promised to the son of Jonah from his first encounter with Our Lord, John 1:42; but he did not receive it definitively until the last period of the Public Life, Matthew 16:18.
Mc3.17 Then he chose James, son of Zebedee, and John, brother of James, to whom he gave the surname Boanerges, that is, sons of thunder, — James, son of Zebedee, Or Saint James the Greater, the only Apostle whose death is recounted in the New Testament, Acts 12:2. Jeans, the disciple whom Jesus loved, cf. John 13:23; 19:26, and the one of the Twelve who lived the longest. he gave the nickname… A special feature of St. Mark. Thus, the Savior had bestowed mysterious nicknames upon his three privileged disciples. Boanergès. This word greatly puzzled ancient philologists and commentators, who found nothing in the Hebrew language that corresponded exactly to it. They therefore believed it to be more or less corrupted by its Greek origins or by copyists. «The sons of Zebedee were called sons of thunder. Not as most think: Boanerges, but as it is read, after correction: Benereem» [Saint Jerome of Stridon, in Danielem, c. 2]. And elsewhere: «In Hebrew benereem: sons of thunder, which word, through corruption, is usually written boanerges» [Saint Jerome of Stridon, Liber interpretationis nominum Hebraicorum]. But although the most common Hebrew expression for thunder is indeed רעם, rehem, there are two other rarer and more poetic ones, רגש, reghesch, and רגז, reghez (cf. Job 37:2), which have the same meaning (compare Chaldean and Arabic) and which could have served, one or the other, to form the nickname of the sons of Zebedee. It is true that בני־רנש, B'nè-réghesch, or בני־רגז, B'nè-reghez, still differ from Boanerges; but the agreement becomes as perfect as possible if one remembers that, according to Aramaic and Galilean pronunciation, the simple Sheva, or silent e, regularly became oa. Thus we obtain, with רגש, Bouné-réghesch; with רגז, Boané-reghez, and this latter expression is entirely identical to the Greek Βοανεργές. That is to say, Son of Thunder, that is to say, «thunderous»; indeed, in Semitic languages, by combining the words בן, בר, with a noun, one forms the corresponding adjective or concrete noun. But what is the meaning of this strange nickname? Let us say first that Jesus, in imposing it on James and John, had no intention whatsoever of inflicting censure upon them, as has often been repeated following Olshausen. The ancients had better understood this act of the divine Master. «He calls the sons of Zebedee thus because they were to spread throughout the earth the grand and sublime ordinances of the divinity» [St. John Chrysostom ap. Saint Thomas Aquinas, [Catena aurea in marcum.] It is therefore a delicate praise that Jesus thus addresses to the two brothers, a magnificent prophecy he makes about them. The classical writers also use the word thunder as a symbol of irresistible eloquence. For Columella, Demosthenes and Plato are "thunderers." It is probable, however, that Jesus Christ, by this epithet, was also alluding to the ardent character and enterprising zeal of the sons of Zebedee, a zeal and character of which we see some traces in the Gospels. Cf. Luke 9:54; Mark 9:38; 10:37. Since the epithet Boanerges is collective and cannot be used to designate the two brothers individually, it is understandable that it did not appear elsewhere in the Gospel narrative.
Mc3.18 Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddeus, Simon the Zealot, — André. While St. Matthew, 10, 2-4, and St. Luke, 6, 11-16, associate the Apostles two by two, St. Mark simply mentions them one after the other, separating their names with a conjunction. Saint Andrew Here closes the first of the three apostolic groups: named immediately after his brother in the lists of the first and third Gospels, he occupies only the fourth position in that of the second. Cf. Acts 1:13. Philippe…St. Philip, who first heard the beautiful words «Follow me» (John 1:43), although he only later received the actual call from Christ; St. Bartholomew, who is generally confused with the good Nathanael (John 1:45 ff.); St. Matthew, who is no different from the tax collector Levi (cf. Mark 2:14); and St. Thomas, called Didymus in Greek (John 11:16; 21:2), constitute the second group. — The third group consists of St. James the Less (son of Alphaeus); Thaddeus, also called Lebbaeus and more commonly St. Jude; Simon the Canaanite, that is, the Zealot; and finally, the traitor, to whom a special verse has been reserved.
Mc3.19 and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. —Judas, The man from Cariot (see Matthew 10:4 and the commentary) ignominiously closes the list, just as Simon Peter gloriously opened it. Who betrayed him?. This infamous mark is almost always added to his name in the Gospel, like a just and perpetual stain. Origen, unable to explain the mystery of this wretched traitor's calling, imagined that he had not actually been called by Jesus like the other Apostles, but that he had inserted himself into the apostolic college, where he was merely tolerated. This peculiar opinion is refuted by the explicit text we read above, verse 13, which applies to Judas just as well as to the others: "He called to him those whom he himself chose." If one is initially surprised that Jesus could have chosen a traitor to place among his Apostles, one need only remember that he "had not chosen him to be a traitor and had given him all the graces necessary to fulfill his calling." The Savior wanted to teach us that we can lose ourselves in the holiest vocations, and that by allowing evil, divine Wisdom was to draw a greater good from it and make it serve its glory« [Pierre Auguste Théophile Dehaut, The Gospel Explained, Defended, 5th ed., vol. 2, p. 496.].
Mark 3:20-35. Parallel. Matt. 12, 24-50; Luke 11:15-32; 8, 19-21.
Mc3.20 They returned home and the crowd gathered there again, so that they could not even eat their meal. — They returned. Jesus with his close companions, that is, with the twelve Apostles he had just chosen. — to the house. It was probably in Capernaum. The crowd gathered there. The scene recounted in Mark 2:2 is repeated a second time, though in a much more painful way for Jesus and his disciples. This time, in fact, the competition lasted so long that the Savior and the Apostles, attentive to the needs of the multitude that kept coming to them, didn't even have time to think of their own. What power in these words! so he couldn't eat their meal. There are few details as expressive in the entire Gospel narrative, and it is to St. Mark that we owe this line, which is worth a thousand. — According to our Evangelist's account, it seems that this event took place immediately after the selection of the twelve Apostles; but, if we consult a concordance of the Gospels, we see that there is a considerable gap in this passage of the second Gospel. Indeed, between the two events, the Sermon on the Mount must be placed, which St. Mark passes over entirely in silence. Cf. Matthew 5–7; Luke 6:20 ff. But we saw in the Preface, § 7, that he is much more concerned with actions than with words: hence this important omission. «Moreover, for the most part,» as Mr. Bougaud very aptly puts it, «the Sermon on the Mount is Jewish.” He discusses the inferiority of the Law, the perversity of the commentaries added to it by the Pharisees, and the culmination of this Law in Jesus Christ: all things that the Romans were not prepared to understand” [Émile Bougaud, Jesus Christ, 2nd ed., p. 79 ff.]. The points of universal and eternal morality also contained in this discourse, such as “the priesthood which is the salt of the earth, the light which must not be hidden under a bushel, the right hand which must be cut off if it becomes a scandal, the unity and indissolubility of marriage, purity of heart, prayer, forgiveness "Insults" are reported in various places by St. Mark, Jesus having returned several times to these serious teachings.
Mc3.21 When his parents learned of this, they came to seize him, for they said, "He has lost his mind."« — Here again, we have a note specific to St. Mark, a very strange and rather obscure note, interpreted differently by commentators. His parents having learned. What does "his own" mean? The Greek text is rather ambiguous and could, if necessary, refer to the disciples, as various exegetes suggest. Nevertheless, most ancient versions and scholars rightly assume that it refers to the Savior's parents. In Aramaic, the word "cousin" does not exist. To refer to cousins, one says "his brothers." They came. Where did they come from? According to some, from Capernaum, where they settled at the same time as Jesus; more likely, according to others, from Nazareth, where we will soon find the "brothers" of Our Lord. Mark 6:3. Cf. Mark 1:9. To seize him. This expression can only have one meaning: to seize him willingly or unwillingly, to force him to accompany them, and to prevent him from appearing in public. Because they…It is here, above all, that the aforementioned disagreements arise. — Let us first indicate their principal cause, by borrowing some very sensible words from Maldonat: «This passage poses some difficulty for piety, for everyone abhors not only the idea of believing and thinking that Christ’s parents said or thought that he was mad. Pious zeal has led some to reject the literal meaning of these words; others sought interpretations that seemed less repellent to piety. I would not be surprised if, in seeking pious ones, they found false ones.» This «I would not be surprised…» is a pure euphemism. The false hypotheses, which have multiplied since Maldonat’s time, already concern the subject of «said.» Despite grammar and logic, it has been applied in turn to men in general (Rosenmüller), to some envious Jews (Euthymius), to the disciples of Jesus (Schœtten, Wolf), to the messengers who supposedly went to warn the Savior's parents (Bengel), etc. — However, even more errors have been made regarding the meaning of the Greek word ἐξέστη, which our Vulgate has translated as He lost his mind. Ancient authors, mentioned by Euthymius, gave it the meaning of "he has gone away." According to Kuinœl, it is equivalent to "he is extremely tired"; according to Grotius, it represents a momentary faint; according to Griesbach and Valer, it designates an appearance of insanity, produced by excessive fatigue. Schœttgen and Wolff retain its true meaning of "he has lost his mind"; but according to them, it was the disciples who applied this judgment to the people. etc. etc. We are pleased to see that these erroneous interpretations are mostly the work of Protestant authors, while our Catholic exegetes, ancient and modern, have almost always translated and commented on the verb correctly [See the commentaries of Bede the Venerable, Theophylact, Cornelius de la Pierre, Francis Luke, Nola Alexander, Jansenius, Messrs. Schegg, Reischl, Bisping, etc.]. ‑ Cf. Acts 26:24; 2 Corinthians 5:13. The Savior's close associates thus openly asserted that he had lost his mind, that he had become insane as a result of his religious zeal. However surprising their conduct may at first seem, it becomes more understandable if one recalls a serious statement by the evangelist St. John. "For even his brothers did not believe in him," he writes of the Savior, speaking of a somewhat later period, John 7:5. At this point, their unbelief begins. They do not realize the nature and role of Jesus: the commotion surrounding his name worries them; all the more so they are troubled by the thought of the many enemies he has made, whose hatred could fall upon his entire family. It was then that they formulated the odious judgment preserved for us by St. Mark. Nothing, moreover, prevents us from admitting, following some exegetes, that they had good intentions at heart, and that, by outwardly appearing so severe toward their relative, they intended to extricate him more easily from the dangers that surrounded him, they knew. Let us hasten to add that not all of Our Lord Jesus Christ's close associates shared this assessment, and that it would be blasphemous to include his most holy Mother among those who held such an opinion of him.
Mc3.22 But the scribes who had come from Jerusalem said, "He is possessed by Beelzebul, and it is by the prince of demons that he casts out demons."« — The scribes who had come from Jerusalem…Were these Scribes the same ones mentioned in the miraculous healing of the paralytic, Mark 2:6, cf. Luke 5:17? Or did they form a new delegation? Both hypotheses are plausible. In any case, they are avowed enemies of Jesus. A vile malice animates them against him: they need only open their mouths to demonstrate it. They said: He is possessed by Beelzebul…According to Matthew 11:22ff., cf. Luke 10:14, the Savior had healed a deaf and mute man in their presence. Far from seeing, like the crowd, the hand of God in this miracle, they dared to seize this opportunity to level the blackest calumny against the Wonderworker: He is possessed by Beelzebul, and it is in the name of the prince of demons that he casts out demons. Thus, unable to deny the reality of his miracles, they at least made every effort to lead the people to believe that they were impure and even satanic in their origin. Mr. Schegg aptly quotes the two proverbs here: «Slander boldly drives its nails in firmly. The sword cuts, slander separates friends.» — On the name Beelzebul, applied to the prince of demons, see the Gospel according to St. Matthew, 10:25. Mr. Reuss proposes a new etymology, namely the Syriac words "Beel debobo," master of enmity, that is to say, the enemy par excellence [Édouard Reuss, Histoire évangélique, p. 282]. We adhere to the one we have previously adopted. — The expression "He is possessed by Beelzebul" is specific to St. Mark: it has a very strong force and designates an intimate alliance of Jesus with the evil spirit.
Mc3.23 Jesus called them together and told them in a parable: «How can Satan drive out Satan? — They called. Jesus, attacked in his holiness, immediately took up the challenge: he could not allow such accusations to go unanswered. He therefore began a skillful and vigorous plea, which we have studied thoroughly in the first Gospel. St. Mark, as was his custom, gives us only a brief summary, although he has very accurately reproduced the main arguments. They told them parables. The word parable should be taken here in its broadest sense, as a synonym for figure of speech or simile. Images abound in the Apology of the Savior. Cf. vv. 24, 25, 27. «He calls parables Morals drawn from comparisons: that of a divided kingdom or a divided house, of a strong man who tears down a house» [Thomas Cajetan, Evangelia cum Commentariis, Marci, c. 3]. The same author then gives an excellent division of Jesus« discourse as we read it in St. Mark. »The first reason that proves he does not cast out demons by Beelzebul is derived from the demon’s interest in doing so. Concluding that this is implausible, he says that the demons would work to destroy their own kingdom if this untenable hypothesis were accepted. How then will this kingdom be maintained? No tyrant strives to destroy his kingdom; rather, he endeavors to preserve his own possessions. The second reason he derives from himself, namely, that he casts out demons by the hand of God.” This is implied evidence of the effect, or the result, introduced, however, by warlike vocabulary. How can Satan…This is the first proof; it extends to the end of verse 26 and demonstrates the absurdity of the accusation against Jesus: What you are saying is simply impossible. You claim that I cast out demons because I am in league with Beelzebul, their leader; but that amounts to saying that Satan is at open war with himself, which cannot be true, for a demon will never fight against another demon. The phrase «how… can he…» is found only in our Gospel.
Mc3.24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand., 25 And if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. — In support of this assertion, Our Lord provides two evident facts, one drawn from politics (v. 24), the other from family life (v. 25). If a kingdom is divided against itself. A kingdom divided by internal wars is a ruined kingdom. Satan knows this well, and he would be very careful not to divide his empire in this way by granting someone, against his own subjects, power that would soon become disastrous for hell. And if a house is divided against itself… ; apart House instead of kingdom, The words are exactly the same as in verse 24. It is therefore an identical story: divided house, ruined house, as many historical examples demonstrate.
Mc3.26 If Satan rises up against himself, he is divided, he cannot subsist, and his power comes to an end. — So, Satan.... The obvious conclusion that emerges from the two experiential facts mentioned above: a divided kingdom is a ruined kingdom; a divided family is a ruined family; by comparison, Satan divided is Satan ruined: his power and his influence are gone. What simplicity, and yet what a force of argument.
Mc3.27 No one may enter the fort's house and remove its furniture unless they first chain him up, and then they will plunder his house. — We now turn to the second proof, which consists of another familiar example. A warrior, armed from head to toe, stands guard at the entrance to his house. To enter and plunder it, what will be necessary? First, the vigilant and robust owner must be defeated and bound. But, having done so, he will be its absolute master. Now, of the two warriors in this parable, one represents Satan, the other is Jesus himself; the house, with the objects it contains, represents the possessed whom Jesus delivers from the shameful yoke of demons. The conclusion is clear, although it is not explicitly stated: Therefore, Jesus is stronger than Satan; consequently, he has nothing to learn from him.
Mc3.28 Truly I tell you, all sins will be forgiven the children of men, even the blasphemies they have uttered. 29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.» — Having thus refuted their accusation, as senseless as it was insulting, the divine Master gives the Pharisees a most serious warning: Beware the sin you are committing in daring to slander me thus: it is one of those sins that mercy God, however infinite it may be, could never forgive. Truly, I tell you : a formula by which Jesus liked to draw attention to some important point in his teachings. See the Gospel according to St. Matthew, 5:18. All sins will be forgiven… The fishermen Contrited and humbled, whatever their misdeeds, need only present themselves before the divine tribunal: it is not a severe Judge, but a loving Father, who will receive these prodigals. «Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; remove your evil deeds from my sight; cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause… Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be like wool.» Isaiah 1:16-18. Fishing represents the genre; blasphemy a particular species, in view of the unforgivable crime which will be named. He who has blasphemed against the Holy Spirit. On the nature of this sin, see Matthew 12:31 and our commentary. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is less an act than a sinful state, in which one perseveres knowingly and willfully: this is why it cannot be forgiven, the sinner not possessing the required dispositions. Will be guilty of an eternal sin…These words, which conclude verse 29, have been preserved only by St. Mark. They form a forceful confirmation of the preceding thought: No, the impious blasphemers of the Holy Spirit will never obtain forgiveness, but they will eternally atone for their sin. This use of an affirmative clause following a negative one, to repeat the same idea while reinforcing it, is something entirely Eastern. An eternal sin. An eternal sin is one that will never be forgiven, for which, consequently, one will suffer eternal punishment.
Mc3.30 Jesus said this because they were saying, "He has an unclean spirit."« — St. Mark here offers his own reflection, and he does so in elliptical terms. For the thought to be complete, it should read: «He spoke thus because they were saying…» The Evangelist therefore intends to briefly indicate the motive that inspired Jesus to use such harsh language. He is possessed by an unclean spirit.. By uttering these dreadful words, the Pharisees were precisely committing, or at least running the risk of committing, the unforgivable sin: this is why the Savior, ever charitable, warned them of the great danger into which they had fallen from the point of view of their salvation.
Mc3.31 When his mother and brothers arrived, they stood outside and sent word to him. 32 Now the people were sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside, looking for you."« — However, which links the current incident to v. 21. Married She accompanied Jesus's close associates; but it is needless to repeat that she was in no way part of their plan. They stood outside. St. Luke (8:19) explains why they remained outside the house where Our Lord was (cf. v. 20): «They could not approach him because of the crowd.» They sent for him. This is yet another of those precise details that exist only in the second Gospel. The same is true of the following one, which is so picturesque: the people were sitting around him.
Mc3.33 He replied, "Who is my mother and who are my brothers?"« 34 Then, looking around at those who were sitting around him, he said, «Here are my mother and my brothers. — Who is my mother?…? With this question, Jesus aims to draw the crowd's attention to the words he is about to speak. Having done so, he casts a look full of affection and gentleness upon all those around him., letting his eyes wander ; then he exclaims: This is my mother.…Only Jesus in the world spoke in such a way. — The mention of the gaze is specific to St. Mark: St. Matthew 12:49 had noted another gesture of the Savior: «And stretching out his hand toward his disciples.» This is how the Evangelists complement each other, while maintaining perfect independence. — Instead of the lesson his eyes wandering over those who were sitting around him, which was followed by the Vulgate and which is found in several manuscripts (B, C, L, Sinaiticus, etc.), ordinary Greek simply reads letting his eyes wander.
Mc3.35 For whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.» — Jesus explains his extraordinary assertion in the preceding verse. What the identity of blood produces between relatives, the perfect fulfillment of the divine will works between all people without distinction. It is a bond that unites them much more closely to one another, and to the Lord Jesus, than that of motherhood, of brotherhood Properly speaking. "He does not say this by denying his mother, but by showing that she is not worthy of honor solely for having given birth to him, but because of the other virtues with which she was endowed." Euthymius. Thus, Married She was therefore twice the mother of Jesus. — These words and this conduct of the Savior admirably teach the priest what he should be in his family relationships. But there is also a great cause for consolation for him, very well expressed in the following reflections of Bede the Venerable: «There is much to astonish in this. How can he who does the will of God be called the mother of Christ?... But we must know that if one becomes the brother and sister of Jesus by believing, one becomes his mother by preaching. For it is as if he who brings the Lord into the heart of the listener were giving birth to him. He therefore becomes his mother if, by his voice, he brings forth love of the Lord in the spirit of one's neighbor" [Bede the Venerable, In Marci Evangelium expositio, lib. 1, c. 3.].
