How
to Be Pro Life
Mark 3:1-6, 5:21-43, 10:13-16
January 15, 2010
I. CONCERN FOR PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL CHALLEGES
Mark 3:1-5 – The Healing of the Man with the Withered Hand – This incident
serves to bring out the antagonism between the spiritual and benevolent ministry of
the Lord Jesus, and the formalism, self-righteousness, and hard-heartedness of the
religious leaders of the Jews. It serves to explain, not only the enmity of the Pharisees,
but their resolve to league with whomsoever would help them in carrying out their
purposes and plot against the very life of the Son of man. It serves to
exhibit the
mingled feelings of indignation and of pity with which Jesus regarded His enemies,
whose hatred was directed, not only against His person, but against His works of
mercy and healing. But the incident shall here be treated as a symbol of man’s need
and of Christ’s authority and method as man’s Saviour.
OF THE STATE AND NEED OF MAN. He was a man “with a withered
hand.”
amongst
the Nazarenes and Ebionites, the man whose hand was
withered is
described
as a mason, and is said to have asked for help in the following
terms: —
“I was a mason, seeking my living by manual labour. I
beseech
thee,
Jesus, to restore me the use of my hand, that I may not be compelled
to beg my
bread.” This is so far consistent with St. Mark’s description
(ejxhramme>nhn
e]cwn th<n cei~ra) as to show that
the malady was the result
of disease
or accident, and not congenital. St. Luke (Luke 6:6) informs us that
it was the
right hand. The disease probably extended through the whole arm
according
to the wider meaning of the Greek word
It seems to have been a
kind of
atrophy, causing a gradual drying up of the limb; which in such a
condition
was beyond the reach of any mere human skill.
ü
The Hand is the Symbol of Man’s Practical Nature. The husbandman,
the
mechanic, the painter, the musician, every craftsman of every
grade,
makes use of the hand in executing works of art or fulfilling
the
task of toil. The right hand may be regarded as the best bodily
emblem
of our active, energetic nature.
ü The Withering of the Hand is
Symbolical of the Effect of Sin upon
our Practical Nature. As
this man was rendered incapable of pursuing
an industrial life, so the victim of sin is crippled for holy service. The
withering
of muscle, the paralysis of nerve, is no more disastrous to
bodily
effort than the blighting and enfeebling power of sin is
destructive
of all holy acceptable service unto God.
ü The Apparent Hopelessness of
this Man’s Case is an Emblem of the
Sinner’s
condemned
by his misfortune to poverty, privation, neglect, and
helplessness.
He was aware of the inability of human skill to cure
him.
The case of the sinner is a case of inability and sometimes of
despondency.
Legislation
and philosophy are powerless to deal with
an evil so radical
and so unmanageable. Unless God have mercy, the
sinner is undone!
v. 2 – “and they watched Him” - The
scribes had already the evidence that our
Lord had permitted His disciples to rub the ears of corn on
the sabbath day. But this
was the act of the disciple, not His. What He was now preparing
to do was an act of
miraculous power. And here the case was stronger, because
work, which was
prohibited under pain of death by the Law (Exodus
31:12-18)), was understood to
include every act not absolutely necessary
ASPECT
OF HIS REDEMPTIVE WORK. And this in two respects:
ü
He Saves by the Impartation of Power. Christ in the
synagogue
spoke
with authority, both when addressing the spectators who
caviled,
and when addressing the sufferer who doubtless welcomed
His
aid. Power accompanied His words — power from on high;
healing
virtue went forth from Him. How grateful
should we be that,
when the Son of God came to earth with power, it was with power
to
heal and bless! He is “mighty to save.” (Isaiah 63:1) There was power
in
His person and presence, power in His words and works, power in
His
example and demeanor, power in His love and sacrifice. When He
saves, He saves from sin and from sin’s worst results. The
spiritual
inefficiency
and helplessness, which is man’s curse, gives
place to a
heavenly
energy and activity. The redeemed sinner finds his right
hand
of service whole, restored, vigorous. Under the influence of
new
motives and new hopes, he consecrates his renewed nature of
activity
to the Lord who saved him.
ü
He Saves with the Concurrence of Human Effort. Observe that the
Lord
Jesus addressed to this sufferer two commands. He bade him
“Stand forth!” which he could do; and “Stretch forth thy hand!”
which
he could not do — or at
least might, judging from the past, have
felt
and believed himself unable to do.
Yet he believed that the Prophet
and
Healer, who spoke with such authority,
and who was known to
have
healed many, was not uttering idle
words. His faith was called
forth,
and his will was exercised. Without
his obedience and
concurrence,
there is no reason to suppose that
he would have been
healed.
So every sinner who would be saved
by Christ must recognize
the
Divine authority of the Saviour, must avail himself of the Saviour’s
compassion,
and in humble faith must obey the Saviour’s command. It
is
not, indeed, faith which saves. It is Christ who saves, but He saves
through
faith; for it is by faith that the sinner lays hold upon the
Saviour’s might, and comes to rejoice in the Saviour’s grace.
v.
4 – “Is it lawful on the sabbath day to do good, or
to do harm? to save a life,
or to kill?” Our Lord’s meaning appears to be this: “If any one, having it in his
power, omits to do an act of mercy on the sabbath day-for one grievously afflicted,
as this man is, if he is able to cure him, as I Christ am able, he does him a wrong; for
he
denies him that help which he owes him by the law of charity.” Our Lord thus
plainly signifies that not to do an act of kindness
to a sick man on the sabbath day
when you are able to do it, is really to do him a
wrong. But it is never lawful to do a
wrong; and therefore it is always lawful to
do good, not excepting even the sabbath
day, for that is dedicated to God and to good works. Whence it is a greater sin to do
a wrong on the sabbath than on other days; for thus the sanctity of the sabbath is
violated, just as it is all the more honored and sanctified by doing good. In our
Lord’s judgment, then, to neglect to save, when you have it in your power to do so,
is to
destroy. “They held their peace.”
They could not answer Him. They are
obstinate indeed in their infidelity, who, when they can say
nothing against the truth,
refuse to say anything for it.
v. 5 – “When He had looked round about on them with anger,
being grieved
sullupou>menov) — the word has a touch of “condolence” in it — at
the hardening
of their heart. All this is very characteristic of St. Mark,
who is careful to notice the
visible expression of our Lord’s feelings in His
looks. The account is evidently from
an eye-witness, or from one who had it from an
eye-witness. Christ was indignant at
their blindness of heart, and their unbelief, which led
them to attack the miracles of
mercy wrought by Him on the sabbath
day as though they were a violation of the law
of the sabbath. We see here how
plainly there were in Christ the passions and
affections common to the human nature, only restrained and
subordinated to reason.
Here is the difference between the anger of fallen man and
the anger of the sinless
One. With fallen man, anger is the desire of retaliating, of
punishing those by whom
you consider yourself unjustly treated. Hence, in other men, anger springs from
self-love; in Christ it sprang from the love of God. He loved God above all things;
hence He was distressed and irritated on account of the wrongs
done to God by sins
and sinners. So that His anger was a righteous zeal for
the honor of God; and hence
it was mingled with grief, because, in their blindness and obstinacy, they
would not
acknowledge Him to be the Messiah, but misrepresented His
kindnesses wrought on
the sick on the sabbath day, and
found fault with them as evil. Thus our
Lord, by
showing grief and sorrow, makes it plain that His anger did
not spring from the desire
of revenge. He was indeed angry at the sin, while He grieved
over and with the sinners,
as those whom He loved, and for whose sake He came into the
world that He might
redeem and save them.
“For
the Son of man is come to save that which is lost”
(Matthew 18:11) “Stretch
forth thy hand. And he stretched it forth: and his
hand was restored”
- The words “whole as the other” (uJgih<v wJv hJ a]llh) are
not found in the best uncials. They were probably inserted
from St. Matthew. In this
instance our Lord performed no outward act. “He spake, and it was done.” The
Divine power wrought the miracle concurrently with the act
of faith on
the part of
the man in obeying the command.
II. CONCERN FOR PEOPLE WITH CHRONIC PROBLEMS
Mark 5:25-34 – The Incident with the Woman with the
Issue of Blood
vs. 25-26 – “A woman, which had an issue of blood twelve
years” -
All the synoptic Gospels mention the length of time during
which she had
been suffering. Eusebius records a tradition that she was a
Gentile, a native
of Caesarea Philippi. This disease was a chronic hemorrhage,
for which
she had found no relief from the physicians. Lightfoot, in
his ‘Horae
Hebraicae,’ gives a list of the remedies applied in such cases,
which seem
quite sufficient to account for Mark’s statement that “she
was nothing
bettered, but rather grew worse”. Luke, himself
a physician, says that
she “had spent all
her living upon physicians, and could not be healed of
any.” (Luke
8:43)
vs. 27-28 – “This woman, having heard of Jesus” — literally (ta<
peri> tou~ jIhsou~), the things concerning Jesus — “came
in the crowd
behind, and touched His garment” - Both Matthew and
Luke say “the
border (tou~
kraspe>dou) of His garment.”
Matthew 9:21 tells us that “
she said within
herself, If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole.”
From this it appears that, though she had faith, it was an
imperfect faith. She
seems to have imagined that a certain magical influence was
within Christ
and around Him. And the touching of the border of His
garment (the blue
fringe which the Jews were required to wear, to remind them
that they
were God’s people) was supposed by her to convey a special
virtue. Yet
her faith, though imperfect, was true in its essence, and
therefore was not
disappointed.
v. 29 – “And straightway — Mark’s favorite word — the fountain of her blood
was dried up; and she felt (e]gnw) — literally, she
knew — in her body that
she
was healed of her plague” -
(o[ti i]atai
ajpo< th~v ma>stigov); literally, that
she
hath been healed of her scourge, The cure
was instantaneous.
v. 30 - The words in
the Greek are ejpignou<v
ejn eJautw~| th<n ejx auJtou~
du>namin
ejxelqou~san: “Jesus,
perceiving in Himself that the power emanating from Him
had gone forth, turned Him about in the crowd, and said, Who touched my
garments?” Christ sees the invisible grace in its hidden operations; man only sees
its effects, and not always these.
v. 31 - St. Luke (Luke
8:45) adds here, “When all denied, Peter
said, and they
that were with
him, Master, the multitudes press thee and crush thee. But Jesus
said, Some one
did touch me; for I perceived that power had gone forth from me.”
This incident shows the mysterious connection between the spiritual and the physical. The
miraculous virtue or
power which went forth from the Savior was spiritual in its source
and in the
conditions on which it was imparted, but it was physical in its
operation; and that which brought the two together was
faith.
Multitudes
thronged the Saviour, but only one of the crowd touched Him.
v. 32 – “He looked
round about (perieble>peto) — another favorite
word of
Mark – to see her
that had done this thing”.
v. 33 – “The woman fearing and trembling” - Every word in this
verse is expressive. It was her own act. She seemed to
herself as though
without permission she had stolen a blessing from Christ;
and so she could
hardly venture to hope that the faith which had prompted
her would be
accepted. Hence her fear and terror, and her free and full
confession. We
thus see the gentleness
of Christ in His dealings with us. Perhaps the
woman had intended to escape, satisfied with a temporal
benefit, which
would hardly have been a blessing at all, if she had been
suffered to carry it
away without acknowledgment. But this, her loving Savior
would not
permit her to do. It was the crisis of her spiritual life.
It was necessary that
all around should know of the gift which she had endeavored
to snatch in
secret. Our Lord might have demanded from her this public
confession of
her faith beforehand. But, in His mercy, He made the way easy
to her. The
lesson, however, must not be forgotten, that it is not
enough to believe
with the heart. The lips
must do their part, and “with the mouth
confession
must be made
unto salvation.” (Romans 10:10).
v. 34 - Our Lord here
reassures this trembling woman, who feared, it
may be, lest, because she had abstracted the blessing
secretly, He might
punish her with a return of her malady. On the contrary, He
confirms the
benefit, and bids her be whole of her plague. The Greek
expression here is
stronger than that which is given as the rendering of what
she had used
when we read that she said within herself, “I shall be
saved
(swqh>somai).” Here our Lord
says, “Go in peace, and be whole” - (i]sqi
uJgih<v). It is as though He said, “It
is not the mere fringe of my garment,
which you have touched with great faith, and with some
hope of obtaining
a cure — it is not this that has cured you. You owe your
healing to my
omnipotence and your faith. Your faith (itself my gift)
has delivered you
from your issue of blood; and this deliverance I now
confirm and ratify.
‘Go in peace.’” The original Greek here
(u[page eijv eijrh>nhn) implies
more than this. It means “Go for peace.” Pass into the
realm, the element
of peace, in which henceforth thy life shall move. It is
here obvious to
remark that this malady represents to us the ever-flowing
bitter fountain of
sin, for which no styptic treatment can be found in human
philosophy. The
remedy is only
to be found in Christ. To touch Christ’s
garment is to
believe in his incarnation, whereby He has touched us, and
so has enabled
us by faith to touch Him, and to receive His blessing of
peace.
ADDITIONAL NOTES on vs. 25-34
vs. 25-34 - Faith Conquering
Timidity. Far from
withdrawing from scenes of
distress and woe, our Lord Jesus was found wherever
human sin or misery invited
His compassion and invoked His aid. On this
occasion He was passing towards the
house of mourning, the chamber of death, and on His way paused to pity and to heal
a helpless, timid, trembling sufferer.
the
thronging multitude were persons of various circumstances, character,
and wants.
In all companies there are those who have spiritual ills which
only Christ can
heal, spiritual desires which only Christ can satisfy. Sin
and doubt,
weakness, sorrow, and fear, helplessness and despondency, -
these are
to be found on every side. The case of this poor woman deserves
special
attention:
ü Her need was conscious and pitiable.
ü
It was of long continuance: for twelve years had
she suffered and had
obtained
no relief.
ü
Her case was beyond human skill and power. She had gone
to many
physicians,
had endured much in undergoing treatment, had expended
all
her means, and yet, instead of being better, was worse than before.
And
now apparently hope was taking flight, and the end seemed near.
An
emblem this of many a sinner’s case - conscious of sin and of a
tyranny long endured,
yet helpless and despairing of deliverance.
TREMBLING FAITH, The graphic narrative of the evangelist is very
suggestive
as well as very impressive:
ü
There was faith, in the woman’s coming to Christ at all. She might
have
questioned the possibility of His curing her. She might have
fancied
that, lost in the crowd, she should not gain His notice and help.
ü
The faith, however,
seems to have been imperfect. Something of
superstition
probably impelled her to seize the hem or sacred fringe of
His
garment, as though there were magic virtue in the bodily presence
of
the Savior.
ü
Yet the venture of faith overcame the
natural shrinking and timidity
she
experienced. Doubt and diffidence would have kept her away;
faith
drew her near, and she stole to Him. It was the last resort; as
it
were, the dying grasp.
“I
have tried, and tried in vain,
Many
ways to ease my pain;
Now
all other hope is past,
Only
this is left at last:
Here
before thy cross I lie;
Here
I live or here I die.”
ü
Faith led to personal contact, to the laying hold of the
Redeemer.
Jesus
often healed with a touch, by the laying on of His hand; and
here
He acknowledged the grasp of trembling confidence. They that
come
to Jesus must come confessing their faults and needs, applying
for
His mercy, and laying hold upon Him with cordial faith.
APPLICANT. The conduct of Christ has been recorded in detail, for the
instruction and encouragement of all to whom the gospel comes.
ü
Notice His recognition
of the individual. This woman was one of a
multitude,
yet she was not unobserved by the all-seeing and
affectionate
Savior. He never overlooks the one among the many;
His heart can
enter into every case, and succor every needy soul.
ü
Notice the immediate
and efficacious exercise of His healing power.
What
others could not accomplish in long years, the Divine Healer
effected in a moment. Thus Jesus ever acts. His grace brings pardon
to
the penitent, justification to the
guilty, cleansing
to the impure.
Immediate grace is
the earnest of grace unfailing.
ü
We see our Lord
accepting grateful acknowledgments. Pleasing to
Him
was the courage that, spite of timidity, “told
him all the truth.”
He ever delights in the thankful tribute of His people’s
praise and
devotion.
ü
We hear our Lord’s
gracious benediction. The language is very rich
and
full. There is an authoritative assurance of blessing; there is the
adoption
of the healed one into the spiritual family, conveyed in the
one
word, “Daughter;” there is the
recognition of her saving faith;
there
is the dismissal in peace; and there is the assurance that the
healing is
COMPLETE and PERMANENT.
Let every hearer of the gospel bring his case to Jesus. Let every applicant
to Christ be encouraged by the
assurance of the Lord’s individual
regard
and interest. Let faith lay firm
hold of Christ, and that AT ONCE
WITHOUT DELAY!
III. CONCERN FOR PEOPLE FACING DEADLY ILLNESS
Mark 5:35-43 –
The Healing of Jarius’ Daughter - Our Lord had lingered on
the way to the house of Jairus,
perhaps, as has already been suggested, that the
crisis might first come, and that so there might be full
evidence of His resurrection power.
The ruler must have been agonized with the thought that,
while our Lord
lingered, the life
of his dying child was fast ebbing away. And
now comes the fatal
message to him. “Thy
daughter is dead” - (ajpe>qane); the aorist
expresses that her
death was now a past event. “Why troublest
thou the Master any further?”
(ti>
e]ti sku>lleiv to<n dida>skalon). The Greek word
here is very
strong. It is to
vex or weary; literally, to flay. The
messengers from the ruler’s house
had
evidently abandoned all hope, and so probably
would Jairus, but for the cheering
words of our Lord, “Fear
not, only believe.”
v. 36 - The words of
the narrative, as they stand in the Authorized Version, are:
“As soon as Jesus heard the word that was spoken, He
saith unto the ruler of
the synagogue, Be not afraid, only believe” – But there is good authority for the
reading parakou>sav instead of eujqe>wv ajkou>sav which requires the
rendering,
but Jesus, not heeding,
or overhearing. This word (parakou>w) occurs in one other
place in the Gospels, namely, in Matthew 18:17, “And if he refuse to hear them”
(eja<n
de< parakou>sh| aujtw~n).
Here the word can only have the
meaning
of “not heeding,”
or “ refusing to hear.” This seems
to be a strong reason
for giving the word a somewhat similar meaning in this
passage. And
therefore, on the whole, “not heeding” seems to be the best rendering.
Indeed, it seems to cover both meanings. Our Lord would
overhear, and
yet not heed, the word spoken.
v. 37 - Here we have
the first occasion of the selection of three of the apostles to be
witnesses of things not permitted to be seen by the rest.
The other two occasions are
those of the transfiguration,
and of the agony in the garden.
We now follow our
Lord and these three favored disciples, Peter and James and
John, to the house of
death. They are about to witness the first earnest of the
resurrection.
v. 38 - Matthew here says (Matthew 9:23) that when
Jesus came into the ruler’s
house, He “saw the minstrels (tou<v
aujlhta<v),” i.e. the flute-players, “and the
people making a
noise.” This was the custom both with Jews
and with Gentiles, to
quicken the sorrow of the mourners by funeral dirges. The
record of these attendant
circumstances is important as evidence of the fact of death
having actually taken
place.
v. 39 - Some have regarded the words of our Lord, “the
child is not dead, but
sleepeth” as really meaning that she was only in a swoon. But although
she was
actually dead in the ordinary sense of that word, namely,
that her spirit had left the
body, yet Christ was
pleased to speak of death as a sleep; because all live to Him,
and because all will rise at the last day. Hence in
the Holy Scriptures the dead are
constantly described as sleeping, in order that the
terror of death might be mitigated,
and immoderate grief for the dead be assuaged under the name of sleep, which
manifestly includes the hope of the resurrection. Hence the expression
with regard
to a departed Christian, that “he sleeps in Jesus.” Then, further, this child was
not absolutely and irrecoverably dead, as the crowd
supposed, as though she could
not be recalled to life; since in fact our Lord, who is the
Lord of life, was going at
once to call her back by His almighty power from the realms of death into which
she had entered. So that she did not appear to Him to be
dead so much as to sleep
for a little while. He says elsewhere, “Our
friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go that
I may awake him
out of sleep.” (John 11:11) Christ,
by the use of such language
as this, meant to show that it is as easy with Him to raise the dead from
death as
sleepers from
their slumbers.
v. 40 – “They laughed Him to scorn” - He suffered
this, in order that
the actual death might be the more manifest, and that so
they might the
more wonder at her resurrection, and thus pass from wonder and
amazement to a true faith in Him who thus showed Himself to be the
Resurrection and
the Life.
(John 11:25-26) He now put them
all forth; and then,
with His three apostles, Peter, James, and John, and the
father and the mother of the
child, He went in where the child was. The common crowd were not worthy to see
that in which they would not believe. They were unworthy to witness the great reality
of the resurrection; for they had been deriding Him who
wields this power. In the
same manner Elisha (II Kings 4:33) cleared the room before he
raised the son of the
Shunammite.
v. 41 - The house was
now set free from the perfunctory and noisy crowd; and
He goes up to the dead child, and takes her by the hand and
says, “Talitha cumi”
–
literally Little maid, arise. The evangelist gives the words in the very language used
by our Lord — the ipsissima verba,
remembered no doubt and recorded by
Peter; just as he gives “Ephphatha”
in another miracle – (ch. 7:34)
vs. 42-43 - Here, as
in other miracles, the restoration was immediate and complete:
“straightway the damsel rose up, and walked” - Well might the father and the
mother of the maiden and the three chosen apostles be “amazed
with a great
amazement” (ejxe>sthsan ejksta>sei mega>lh|). And then, for the
purpose of
strengthening that life which He rescued from the jaws of
the grave, our Lord
“commanded that something should be given her to
eat.” It has often been
observed that in the examples of His resurrection power
given by Christ there is
a gradation:
ü
The daughter of Jairus just dead..
ü
The widow’s son from
his bier.
ü
Lazarus from his grave
after four days.
The more stupendous miracle is yet to come, of which our
Lord’s own resurrection
is at once the example and the pledge, when “All that are in
their graves shall hear
His voice, and
shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection
of life; and they
that have done evilo, unto the resurrection of
damnation”
(John 5:28-29)
Mark
10
Christ’s Teaching on Marriage and
Divorce
vs. 1-2 – “And He arose from thence, and
cometh into the coasts of
the farther side of
wont, He taught them again. And the Pharisees came to Him, and asked Him,
Is
it lawful for a man to put away his wife?
tempting Him. And He answered and
said unto them, What did Moses command
you? And they said, Moses suffered
to write a bill of divorcement, and to put
her away. And Jesus answered and said
unto them, For the hardness of your heart
he wrote you this precept. But from
the beginning of the creation God made them
male and female. For this cause
shall a man leave his father and mother,
and cleave to his wife; And they twain
shall be one flesh: so then they are no
more twain, but one flesh. What
therefore
God hath joined together, let not man put
asunder. And in the house His
disciples asked Him again of the same
matter. And He saith
unto them,
Whosoever shall put away his wife, and
marry another, committeth adultery
against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband,
and be married to
another, she committeth
adultery.”
v. 1 - Our
Lord was now on His last progress towards
Luke 9:51 tells us that “He steadfastly (firmly) set His
face to go to
In the earlier part of His journey He touched the frontier
of
accounts together, we conclude that, being refused by the
Samaritans, He passed
eastwards along their frontier, having Galilee on His left,
and
and then crossed the
entered Peraea. As Judaea and
Galilee both lay west of the
described would be literally coming “to the borders of
Matthew 21:1 says that “He
healed them.” His miracles of healing and His
teaching went hand in hand.
v. 2 – “And there came unto Him Pharisees (the article should be omitted)
and asked Him” - they
came forward before the people, and publicly questioned
Him — “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?” What,
then, was the danger
that lay in such a question? According to His reply they hoped to discredit Him with
the respectable classes, and to found a charge against Him
of overturning the social
and religious institutions of the land. Too, they hoped they could charge Him with
lax morality, or perhaps He would disrespect the law of
Moses or possibly, even
to embroil Him with the tetrarch Herod Antipas, in whose
dominions He now was.
(Remember what happened to John the Baptist ch. 6:14-29) It is the
reproach and
shame of nearly all “heresies”
(remember that the Greek word for heresy
means
“choice CY – 2010) in religion that they
sooner or later attempt to abolish the
safeguards of
society, and the time-honored customs of the social order. Marriage
is a touchstone that betrays the
inherent unrighteousness and impracticability of a
large proportion of them. (In our society it is obsession
with abortion, gender,
homosexuality, separation of church and state, dispersal
of condoms, freedom of
expression, censorship, etc. – Beware – CY – 2010) Also,
Christ’s enemies hoped
on this point to array Him against Moses and to discredit
Him with the common
people. Matthew 21:3
adds to the question the words, “for
every cause.” There
were causes for which it was lawful. They put this question
to our Lord, “tempting
Him” – of course with
an evil intent. This question about
divorce was one which was
much agitated in the time of our Lord. In the century
before Christ, a learned rabbi,
named Hillel, a native of
explain the liberal attitude of Hillel – God had told the
Israelites not to mix with the
Canaanites for they would detract them from God – the
Israelites disobeyed and
eventually went into idolatry and for this, they were
carried into
for seventy years – many returned under Ezra but many stayed behind, being content
in
descendant of this groupand no
doubt this affected his attitude in such things as marriage .
If you remember, his ancestors under the leadership of Aaron had built a
golden calf to
worship and when Moses came off
the golden calf and spread the dust in the brook that
came out of the mount –
I say all this to make the point that The Jews
were wont to say that never any
trouble came upon them without an ounce of
the gold dust of the golden calf
being in it – I
submit that Hillel’s views and modern attitudes towards marriage,
abortion, gay rights and other perverted views reek with
“gold dust from the
calf”. Jesus called it “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” –
[ch.7:7]
– CY – 2010).
Hillel studied the Law with great success, and became the
head of the chief school in that city.
One of his disciples, named Shammai,
separated from his master, and set up another school; so that in the time of our
Lord
the scribes and doctors of the Law were arranged in two parties, namely, the
followers of Hillel, the most influential; and the followers of Shammai.
These two schools
differed widely
on the subject of divorce. The followers of Shammai
only permitted
divorce in the case of moral defilement, while the
followers of Hillel
placed the matter entirely in the power of the husband.
(just opposite of
modern heresies which promote the supremacy of women to
make that
call – CY – 2010)
The object, therefore, of this artful question was to entrap
our Lord, and to bring Him into collision with one or other
of these two
opposing parties. For if He had said that it was not lawful
for a man to put away
his wife, He would have exposed Himself to the hostility of
many of the wealthy
classes, who put away their wives for any cause. But if he
had allowed the lawfulness
of divorce at all, they would have found fault with His
doctrine as imperfect and
carnal, although He professed to be a spiritual Teacher of
a perfect system, sent
down from heaven.
vs. 3-4 – “What did Moses command you?” - It is to be observed that Jesus goes
back behind the old Mosaic Law, which was universally accepted among the Jews
as
the authoritative standard of conduct. Jesus allows no authority to mere
traditions and usages.
“And
they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of
divorcement”. From
the beginning God joined man and woman in one
indissoluble
bond; but man’s
nature having become corrupt through sin,
and sin changed and
corrupted the institution, and so was the occasion of
bills of divorcement
and polygamy.
divorcement
was called “a writing of cutting off” (sepher kerithuth). This
bill or
writing of divorcement implied, not only a mere separation from bed
and board,
as some restrict it, but a complete severance of the marriage tie.
It was a
certificate of repudiation, and either stated or omitted the cause of
such
repudiation. If the cause was adultery or a suspicion of adultery, the
husband
might prove himself (di>kaiov) just like Joseph in Matthew 1:19),
that is, a
strict observer of the Law in dismissing the guilty wife with a bill
of
divorcement; and yet, not wishing to expose her, he might send her away
privately.
If, however, the guilty person or the suspected person were
brought
openly to justice, and the crime proved,
certain death was the
penalty,
as is distinctly stated in Leviticus 20:10, “The man that
committeth
adultery with another man’s wife, even he that
committeth
adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the
adulteress shall surely be put to
death.” Most commonly, therefore, when
a bill of divorcement was resorted to in accordance with the Mosaic
permission,
it was for some less cause or minor offense than conjugal
infidelity;
and in such cases it served the wife as a certificate of character.
v. 5 – “And Jesus answered and said unto
them, For the hardness of your heart
he wrote you this precept.”
vs. 6-9 – “But from the beginning of the
creation God made them male and
female.
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to
his wife; And they twain shall be one
flesh: so then they are no more twain, but
one flesh.
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
nature of the marriage law from the original unity of male and female, from
the extreme closeness of the marriage bond taking precedence of every
other union even parental and
filial; above all, from its Divine origin.
Marriage
was thus an ordinance of God; it was instituted in
those bright and sunny bowers before sin had marred the freshness and the
loveliness of the new-created world. Even then God saw that it was not
good for man to be alone, and accordingly He gave him a help meet for him
— one that was bone of his bone and
flesh of his flesh. “Therefore shall a
man
leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto [literally, be
glued unto] his wife: (my testimony is that I appreciate my wife of 41 years
whose attitude in times of marital unharmony has always been “I’m stuck”
according to the Biblical plan – CY – 2010) and they shall be one flesh.” It
was an ordinance of God Himself, an ordinance nearly coeval with the creation,
an ordinance made for man even in his unfallen state of innocence. Jesus says
that an institution created by God
at first, coeval with our race, and confirmed
by so many sanctions, can neither be nullified nor modified by any human
enactment,
nor set aside by any authority other than His who created it.
“What
therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
ü There is reference to what we should call natural adaptation. If there
is design in any arrangement or provision of nature, there is certainly
design [reader, I recommend typing in Fantastic Trip in your
search
engine if you are interested in design – this is spectacular –
there
are 68 photographs – it has music which I hope you can
bring
up but if not, a silent reverence will do – CY – 2010]
in the division of mankind (as, indeed, of other races of living beings)
into two corresponding and complementary sexes. Man was made for
woman, and woman for man; and the equality in numbers of male and
female is evidently a natural reason both for marriage and for
monogamy.
ü
There is reference to
the creative, historical
basis of marriage. The
record
of Genesis is adduced, and Jesus reminds the Pharisees that
marriage
dated, as a matter of fact, from the beginning of the
creation
— that our first parents lived together in this relationship
from
their first
introduction to each other until the close of life.
ü
Jesus asserts marriage
to be a Divine
ordinance. “God hath joined
together” husband and wife. The Law of Moses came in with its
additional
provisions and sanctions; but it presumed the existence of
the
marriage state. God, who orders all
things well, had seen that it
would
not be good for the man to be alone; accordingly He instituted
wedded
life, and hallowed it.
ü
A condemnation of the custom of facile (easy) divorce. It was a
common
practice for the Jews, when dissatisfied with their wives, to
put
them away for very trivial reasons — even because they were not
pleased
with them, without any offense having been committed. They
were
wont to appeal to a permissive provision in their law as a warrant
for
acting thus. In our own times, in many countries even professedly
Christian,
it is too common for regulations of great laxity to be made
regarding
divorce. In some countries even incompatibility of temper is
a
sufficient ground for permanent separation. (and
who knows what
other excuse has been developed in the last 200 years since
this has
been written - CY - 2010) Such practices are
condemned by Jesus as
contrary to the
Divine intention regarding marriage, and
as
subversive
of all sound morality. As the family is the unit and the basis
of all
communities, and of all moral unity and welfare, it is of the
highest
importance that the sacredness of this Divine institution
should be upheld, and that all practices and sentiments which
undermine it should be discountenanced and opposed. Lax views
upon divorce are to be repressed, hostile to all social
welfare as well
as to domestic concord.
ü
A declaration that
such divorce is conducive to adultery. Our Lord
does
not say that the remarriage of divorced persons is in all cases
adulterous;
but, speaking of these who are separated for trivial
offenses,
and for any offense short of the most serious, (infidelity)
He
declares that for such persons to marry again is nothing less than
adultery.
They are not really and in God’s sight released from one
another,
and a second union is therefore unlawful. “What
therefore
God hath joined
together, let not man put asunder.” May we as
Christians discountenance lax opinions and practices upon a
question
so vital to social and national well-being as the ordinance
of
marriage.
THE DISCIPLES QUESTION JESUS FURTHER IN
PRIVATE
vs. 10-12
- “And in the house His disciples asked Him again of the same
matter.
And He saith unto
them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another,
committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband,
and be married to another, she committeth adultery.” Here, Christ defines with
authority and precision what constitutes “adultery.” These words remained to
condemn the disobedient, and will remain to “judge him in the last day.” (John
12:48)
“An it shall come to pass, that
whosoever will not hearken unto my
words which He shall speak in my name, I will require it of him”. (Deuteronomy
18:19) The indissoluble bond of the marriage relation Jesus here affirms, and in the old
words,
spoken at “the beginning,” “the twain
shall become one flesh.” To
the propriety, the
goodness, the blessedness of this law many Christian
centuries bear
their unequivocal testimony. The purest institution and the
best, so hallowed,
so beneficent, promoting in the highest degree individual
happiness, the
peace and sanctity of family life, the purity of public morals;
preserving
national health, stability, and greatness; guarding against wild
lust, and a long
train of envy, jealousy, revenge, and other passionate
crimes; preserving the
honor and dignity of women, the love and careful
training of
children; imposing responsibilities, but cherishing virtue and
peace and joy.
The family life is the symbol of the heavenly
community; the
marriage bond the type of the Redeemer’s relation to His
people, who are
“the bride, the
wife of the Lamb.” It is God’s
ordination, and is very
sacred; nor may it be set aside, but “for the kingdom of heaven’s sake;” nor
may its bond be broken, but for the one cause of fornication, from which it
is the most efficient guard. Its rites were honored by Jesus, and its “holy
estate adorned and beautified with his presence and first miracle.” (John 2:1-11)
The wisest legislation (How
flies the legislation in the United States Congress,
the rulings from the Supreme Court, the behavior in the
White House, and the
morality of the people of the land, “who love to have it so” [Jeremiah
5:31]
in the face of this teaching of Jesus Christ! – we too
shall be judged in the last day
– John 12:48 – CY – 2010)- tends to the conservation of the
family, whose
multiplied relations, whose sweet fellowship, whose united interest,
and whose
common possessions give rise to the lofty idea of the home. Conjugal,
parental, filial, fraternal affection are cherished. Obedience on the one
hand, care and providence on the other; discipline and wise authority; the
sense of dependence arising from want; responsibility arising from the
power
to meet that want; common interests and common aims, go to make
each home a miniature kingdom. Teaching to those in authority the
beneficence of rule, and to those under authority the lessons of submission,
the home lays the foundation for stable national life; while mutual interests
and obligations teach all to respect the rights and just claims of the entire
community; whilst each learns his responsibility to the whole, and his deep
interest
in the general welfare. The nation that honors the home and the
sanctities of
family life is honored of God. “Blessed is the nation whose
God is the Lord”
– (Psalm 33:12) – “The wicked shall be turned into
hell and all nations that forget God” – (Psalm 9:17). The Christian teaching,
reverting to the condition of things as it was “from the beginning of the creation,”
shows how truly it is in harmony with natural law, which is the expression
of the Divine will.
IV. CONCERN FOR PEOPLE AND THEIR CHILDREN
Mark 10:13-16 – “And they brought young
children to Him, that He should
touch them: and His disciples rebuked those
that brought them. But when
Jesus saw it, He was much displeased, and
said unto them, Suffer the little
children to come unto me, and forbid them
not: for of such is the
God.
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the
as a little child, he shall not enter
therein. And He took them up in His
arms,
put His hands upon them, and blessed them.”
Christ and the Children. That
three of the evangelists should have recorded this
incident is proof of the impression it made upon the early Christians, and of
the
importance they attached to it. The
Son of man interested Himself in all classes and
conditions of humanity; and
it is not strange that He should have come into
direct and tender relations with the very young.
for they are called “little children,” and they were so
small as to be taken
up in the arms. Jesus had
himself been a child, and had passed through the
stages of infancy and boyhood,
so that from His own experience He could
sympathize with this age and
condition of human life. These children may
have been children of the house
where Jesus had been staying, and of the
neighbors. It should be
remembered that, not long before, Jesus had taken
a little child and used him as
an example of simplicity and humility. We may
certainly learn from this incident that no child, however
young or feeble,
is disregarded by our Lord Jesus. In every one He sees an immortal, God
given nature,
capable of fellowship with the Creator’s mind, and of obedience
to his commands.
ü
They revered and honored
Jesus themselves, or they would not
have acted thus. They would
not have treated another rabbi thus.
There must have been
something in our Lord which attracted them
and induced them to believe that
He would not repel them should
they ask a favor on behalf of
their little ones.
ü
They brought their
children to Jesus. The babes had neither
knowledge nor strength to
come of themselves; but their parents acted
for them. Parents
should regard it as their duty and privilege to bring
their offspring to the Savior.
This they may do by instructing them as to
who and what Jesus is,
by leading them into the society of Christ’s
people.
ü
They had a definite
purpose in bringing the children to Jesus, that
He should touch them and should
pray for them. To tell our children of
Christ is, or should be, with a
view to their personal spiritual contact
with Him, and with a view to
their enjoying both the regard of His
friendship and the benefit of
His intercession.
It is instructive to observe
that the very persons whose office it was to
make Jesus known to men, and to
introduce all the needy to His notice, and
to commend them to His aid,
should have on this occasion interfered with
the approach of those whom Jesus
would have welcomed. The twelve
rebuked the parents, and forbade
the children to be brought to Jesus,
probably from a mistaken idea
that the Lord would not care to be troubled
with those so young and so
helpless. How important that Christians should
not interpose to prevent children
from seeking Christ and the fellowship of
His people!
narrative gives us a delightful
view of the Savior’s character, as the
children’s Friend.
ü
What He felt. A very strong
expression is used to denote our Lord’s
disapproval of His
disciples’ conduct. He was “moved with
indignation” by their
demeanor. They were both misrepresenting Him and
inflicting a wrong upon the
applicants for blessing.
ü
What He said. His language includes
a special reference to the
occasion, and a general
statement of a Divine principle. “Suffer
the
children to come!” “Forbid them not!” How gracious a revelation
of the Savior’s mind and disposition, and how instructive a
lesson for
His people! The general
principle He enunciates is even more valuable:
“Of such is the kingdom of heaven.” The reference is doubtless to
the dependence and teachableness of little children. God’s kingdom is
composed of childlike natures. The proud, self-sufficient, and
self-confident are out of
harmony with a spiritual society which
recognizes a Divine Head and is
governed by Divine laws.
ü What he did. Doubtless, in these actions, Jesus was obeying the impulse
of His affectionate nature. Yet He intended to teach the world how
gracious is His heart, how compassionate are His purposes, how vast
and widely extended are the arms of his love. He took them in His
arms, verifying the prediction
concerning Him as the Good Shepherd.
He laid his hands upon them,
signifying his tender interest. He blessed
them, praying for them, and
pronouncing over them words of Divine
benediction.
giver of blessings.
the Lord’s people should deal with the young – with
gentle consideration
towards the lambs of the flock.
.
v. 13 - It is worthy of
notice that this touching incident follows here, as well as in the parallel
passage in Matthew 21:13, immediately after the discourse
about the marriage bond. “And
they brought unto
Him (prose>feron) — literally, were bringing - little
children (paidi>a) — Luke18:15 calls them “babes” (bre>fh) — that He should
touch them” (i[na a[yhtai
aujtw~n). Luke has
the same word (i[na a[pthtai); but
Matthew 21:13 says “that
He should lay His hands on them and pray.” The
imposition of hands
implies a formal benediction; the invoking of Divine grace upon
them, that they might grow up into wise and holy men and
women. Why did the
disciples rebuke them? Perhaps because they thought it
unworthy of so great a
Prophet, whose business was rather that of instructing
those of full age, to be spending
His time upon little children.
v.
14 – “But when Jesus saw it” (ijdw<n
de< oJ jIhsou~v). The Greek shows that there
was no interval between the acts of the parents and the
disciples, and our Lord’s seeing
it. The parents were bringing the children, the disciples
were rebuking them, Jesus was
perceiving. “He was much displeased” (hjgana>kthse); literally, He was moved
with indignation. His words imply eagerness and earnestness: “Suffer the
little
children to come unto
me; forbid them not.” The copulative kai<
is not to be
found in the best authorities. The omission adds force and
vividness to the words.
The simplicity, candor, and innocence of little children
are very attractive. This narrative
shows with what care children should be educated. “For
of such is the
God; that is, of such
little children as these. The kingdom of heaven belongs in a peculiar
manner to little children. We know for certain that little
children if they die before they
are old enough for moral accountableness, are undoubtedly
saved.
v. 15 – “Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive
the
as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein”. Observe the
“verily” with
which our Lord introduces these words. He here adds
something which extends what
He has just said to those who are, not literally,
but figuratively, little children. We
must first receive the kingdom into our affections
before we can really enter into it.
It is as though Christ said, “It is not unworthy of
my dignity to take little children into
my arms and bless them, because by my benediction
they become fit for the kingdom
of heaven. And if you
full-grown men would become fit for my kingdom, you must give
up your ambitious aims and earthly contests, and imitate
the simple unworldly ways of
little children. The
simplicity of the little child is the model and the rule for every one who
desires, by the grace of Christ, to obtain the kingdom of
heaven. Our Lord’s whole
action here is a great encouragement to the receiving of little children.
v.
16 – “And He took them in His arms, and blessed them,
laying His hands
upon them” - This is
considered the true order of the words, according to the best
authorities. The word rendered “taking in the arms” (ejnagkalisa>menov) has
already occurred in this Gospel at Mark 9:36 (“And
He took a little child (paidi>on),
and set him in the midst of them” - Mark adds, what is not recorded by the other
synoptists, that He took him in His arms. “And taking him in His
arms
(ejnagkalisa>menov); literally, folding
him in His arms; embracing him. It is
probable that the house where he was was
the house of Simon Peter; and it is
possible that this little child might have been Simon’s. A
tradition not earlier than
the ninth century says that this child was Ignatius). The
description here is very graphic.
Our Savior would first embrace the little child,. He
folding it in His arms; then He
would lay His right hand upon the child’s head, and bless
it.
"Excerpted text Copyright AGES
Library, LLC. All
rights reserved.
Materials are reproduced by
permission."
This material can be found at:
http://www.adultbibleclass.com
If this exposition is helpful, please share
with others.