Mark 3:20-27

B. OPPOSITION 3:20-27

(1)

From Friends 3:20-21

TEXT 3:20-21

And he cometh into a house. And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread. And when his friends heard it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS 3:20-21

132.

In whose house did this incident occur?

133.

Why such a large crowd? Is Mark complaining about the inability to eat?

134.

Who were the friends making this complaint?

135.

What particular circumstances seemed to disturb His friends? What did they want to do?

136.

Were they accusing Jesus of being insane?

(2)From enemies 3:22-27

TEXT 3:22-27

And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and, By the prince of the devils casteth he out the devils. And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand, And if a house be divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan hath risen up against himself, and is divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. But no one can enter into the house of the strong man, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS 3:22-27

137.

What authority had the scribes to pass judgment on the miracles of Jesus?

138.

Who was Beelzebub?

139.

Jesus did not evade opposition i.e. on this occasionshow indications this is true.

140.

What is meant by the expression said unto them in parables?

141.

Knowing something of the deceitfulness of Satan why wouldn-'t Satan on some occasions cast out Satan?

142.

Did Jesus infer there was an evil kingdom over which Satan rules? In what sense would this kingdom be divided?

143.

Who is the head of the house? In what sense divided? Is there a lesson in this parable for us?

144.

What is meant by the expression hath an end in Mark 3:26?

145.

Who is the house? who the strong man? What are the goods to be spoiled?who is the one stronger than the strong man?

COMMENT 3:20-27

TIMEMidsummer and Autumn, A.D. 28.
PLACEIn the house of Jesus in the city of Capernaum.

PARALLEL ACCOUNTS:Matthew 12:22-30.

OUTLINE1. Opposition from friends, Mark 3:20-21. Mark 3:2. Opposition from enemies, Mark 3:22-27.

ANALYSIS 3:20-27

I.

OPPOSITION FROM FRIENDS, Mark 3:20-21.

1.

This occurred at home in Capernaum.

2.

The occasion of opposition was the inability to eat.

3.

The form of the opposition was to bodily remove Him from His labors.

4.

The reasonthey feared for His sanity.

II.

OPPOSITION FROM ENEMIES, Mark 3:22-27.

1.

Jesus is accused of being in league with Satan.

2.

Jesus answers in parables:

(1)

A kingdom divided cannot stand.

(2)

A house divided cannot stand.

(3)

Satan casting out himself is defeating himselfthis would end in his own complete loss.

(4)

There must be someone stronger than Satan to cast out Satan.

EXPLANATORY NOTES

1.

OPPOSITION FROM FRIENDS, Mark 3:20-21.

Mark 3:20. As soon as he had returned the crowd was about him again.the vivid description is peculiar to Mark. So that they could not so much as eat bread. So at chap. Mark 6:31. The activity on our Lord's own part is left to be inferred, but it must have been an intense activity of teaching and healing, continued we know not how long.

Mark 3:21. His friends of Mark 3:21 are his mother and his brethren of Mark 3:31. Their coming and calling for him is narrated by Matthew and Luke as well as by Mark, but Mark alone tells of their setting out in search of him and of their motive. Considerably later his brethren did not believe on him (John 7:5), and probably they persuaded his mother on this occasion, playing, perhaps, upon the anxiety of maternal love. These brethren appear to be the James and Joses and Juda and Simon of Mark 6:3. The question, What was their relation to Jesus? will probably never be settled with unanimous consent. The data being insufficient to furnish a positive decision, temperament and feeling, as well as theological prepossessions, will always be elements in the formation of opinions on the subject. The theories are: (That they were children of Joseph and Mary, younger than Jesus; (2) That they were children of Joseph by a former marriage; (3) That they were cousins, probably orphaned, and in some way adopted into the family. The first is rejected by all Roman Catholic interpreters, by all who share their feeling as to the superior holiness of virginity, and by some besides who feel that reverence is best satisfied by regarding the Only-begotten of God as also the only offspring of his mother. Yet the scriptural argument for it is very strong (see it stated at length by Alford, on Matt. 13-55), and its adherents claimprobably correctlythat no other view would ever have been thought of but for unscriptural ideas of our Lord's mother. If the first theory is rejected, there is no choice between the second and the third.His friends heard of itof the great throng that was about him and of the busy life he was livingand went out from their home in Nazareth, where they were all living, mother, brothers, and sisters, a little later, when Jesus visited the place (chap. Mark 6:1-6). The news reached them there, and brought them down to Capernaum, a distance of perhaps twenty miles. They came to lay hold on himi. e, by force, as one who was not fit to take care of himself. They said, He is beside himself, insanea conclusion from the excited life that he seemed to them to be living; perhaps the more plausible from the quietness and placidity of the years that he spent with them at Nazareth. Strangers misapprehended him thus (John 10:20), but so did his nearest friends, Unbelief will misapprehend whether its opportunities be small or great. Even the mother and brethren cannot know Jesus except they be true mother and brethren.

II.

OPPOSITION FROM ENEMIES, 22-27.

Mark 3:22. Mark omits the occasion of this conversation, which is carefully given by Matthew and Lukenamely; the healing of the blind and dumb demoniac (Matthew 12:22), which caused many to inquire, Is not this the Son of David?i.e. the Messiah. The scene is still at home, and most probably in the house of Peter. Pharisees are present (Matthew), and so (Mark) are the scribes which came down from Jerusalem. This language distinctly indicates an embassy, men who had come on purpose to watch and harm him. It is not to be assumed that they were the same as the men mentioned at Luke 5:17, for some time had elapsed and meanwhile Jesus had been absent from Capernaum. But, whether the same or not, these were spies.Indignant at the suggestion that this was the Christ, they were ready with their explanation of his mighty works, the reality of which they thus explicitly admitted. He hath Beelzebub, or, as the best manuscripts agree, Beelzebul. The name has been variously interpreted. The name from which it came was Baalzebub, lord of flies, the god of the Philistines worshipped at Ekron (2 Kings 1:2) and consulted as an oracle. The god was named, doubtless, from his supposed control over the swarms of flies and similar insects that torment the East. After a time the Jews, thinking all heathen deities to be evil spirits, adopted this name as a title of the chief of evil spirits, but changed it by one letter, making Beelzebub into Beelzebul. Some think that in this change they intentionally degraded and insulted it, even as a word, by turning it into a name which meant lord of dung or of the dunghill. But others, apparently with better reason, make it mean lord of the mansion or of the dwellingi.e. lord of the place in which evil spirits dwell, or, substantially, head of the family of evil spirits, he who rules them as a man rules his household. This sense best corresponds to the form of the word (Meyer) and best suits the allusions in the New Testament. So here: He hath Beelzebul means he is possessed by the spirit who is lord of all the rest, and who orders them in and out at his pleasure, as a man commands his servants.Thus the second clause of their charge is the application of the first. By the prince of the devils casteth he out devils, or demons. In the Greek the use of the recitative hoti (that) before each of these clauses seems to indicate that two separate remarks are quoted. One says, that he hath Beelzebul. Another, that by the prince of the demons casteth he out demons. Luke adds that others, tempting him, asked of him a sign from heaven.

Mark 3:23-26. The whole twenty-third verse is peculiar to Mark. He called themthe scribes from Jerusalembespeaking their attention and bringing them face to face with himself and their own words. The wonderful calmness and self-control of this reply cannot be too distinctly noticed in connection with the fearful charge that had just been brought against him. No more terrible accusation than this was possible; it was the direct charge of a positive and practical league with infernal powers. But he, when he was reviled, reviled not again: when he suffered, he threatened not (1 Peter 2:23).He said unto them in parables. In illustrative comparisons. The word does not require a narrative, such as we often associate with it. The point lies in the fact of a comparison. But here the fact to be confirmed is given in the first question (Mark 3:23); it is then confirmed and illustrated by two comparisons, of the kingdom and the household, in Mark 3:24-25 and it is restated directly in Mark 3:26.How can Satan cast out Satan? The principle is that no intelligent power works against itself and defeats its own purposes. Observe what is here assumed: it is assumed that the dominion of Satan is an intelligent dominion, with character and purposes; that the kingdom of evil is one intelligent kingdom, managed by one mind who knows what he is doing. The individual spirits that torment men are not identified personally with Satan, but they are identified morally with him; so that their presence is his presence, and when they are cast out he is cast out. Now, it is said that in a kingdom there must be unity of counsel, illustrated first by the case of a kingdom among men. It is notorious that divided counsels, going into action, are the ruin of a state; divided counsels or, more exactly, contradictory counselsnot between rulers and subjects, but in the government itself. How, then, if the kingdom of the prince of the demons be thus divided against itself and act against its own purposes? Illustrated next by the case of a household, regarded, not as made up of individuals, who may disagree, but as under the rule of a householder, goodman of the house, lord of the mansion. If it acts against the character and counsels that govern it, it will be a failure. How, then, if the lord of the mansion be thus divided against himself, acting for the defeat of his own work? And now is made the application. If Satan were casting out demons, he would be rising up against himself. His sole purpose is to injure men. If he brings in health, calmness, purity, reason, godly gratitude, piety, to the souls of men, and if he sets them free from the bondage by which they are held away from these blessings, he will be acting directly against his own nature. Such a work as that of Jesus cannot possibly be attributed to him, any more than demoniacal possession can be attributed to God. Judge a work by its moral affinities. If it is good, it is not of the devil, for he never delivers men from evil, If such a rising up of Satan against himself as the work of Christ would be were proved real, there would be more than danger to his kingdom, He cannot stand, but hath an end, would be the true word. A kingdom so broken would be no kingdom at all.

Mark 3:27. More than this does Christ's work mean. The verse should begin with butBut no man can enter, etc. Not only does Christ's merciful and holy work prove him to be no ally of Satan, but if Satan's kingdom is being taken away from him, the fact proves the presence of Satan's conqueror. No one can plunder the property of a strong lord of the mansion until he has bound the lord of the mansion himself; so, if Jesus is doing a great triumphant work of mercy in setting men free from the inferior agents of Satan's kingdom, he must already be master over Satan himself. The defeat of the Lord precedes the defeat of the servants; if the master were at liberty and had the power, he would not suffer his goods to be spoiled.Perhaps there is a special touch of triumph in the closing words. And then he will spoil his house; as if Jesus were regarding the end as absolutely sure and the work as actually begun. Compare John 12:31: Now is the judgment of this world; now shall the prince of this world be cast out. Here speaks, in Jesus, the consciousness that he is absolutely the conqueror and destroyer of Satan's kingdom. Here, as a transition to the solemn words that Mark adds immediately, Matthew and Luke insert, He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. There are only two sides in this conflict, and they are the side of the strong man armed and the side of the stronger than he. Not to be with the conqueror of Satan is to be with Satan. (W. N. Clarke)

FACT QUESTIONS 3:20-27

164.

In whose house was Jesus living at this time?

165.

What were Jesus and His disciples doing instead of eating?

166.

Just who was involved in the effort to restrain Him?

167.

Why would those who knew Him best think Him fanatical in His work?

168.

How could it be said the scribes came down from Jerusalem when they traveled north?

169.

Why did Jesus call the scribes to Him to deliver His answer to their criticism?

170.

Does the use of the term parable here fit your previous use of the form? Explain its use here. How many parables are used?

171.

Discuss the king, dominion, subjects, and expansion of Satan's kingdom.

172.

In what sense does Satan have a house?

173.

Jesus said Satan was dividedexplain.

174.

I thought Satan was an immortal beingin what sense has he an end?

175.

What glorious victory is indicated in Mark 3:27?