The document discusses how Jesus was perceived as mad by his own family and friends due to his unconventional teachings and actions, leading them to intervene in his ministry. It reflects on the broader human tendency to label those with lofty spiritual aims, like Jesus, as insane, highlighting the struggle between societal norms and divine calling. The author connects this theme to the challenges faced by modern Christians, urging them to embrace enthusiasm for their faith despite potential ridicule from the world.

1. JESUS WAS THOUGHT TO BE CRAZY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
New InternationalVersion
When his family heard about this, they went to take
charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind."
New American Standard Bible
When His own people heard of this, they went out to
take custody of Him; for they were saying, "He has
lost His senses."
ContemporaryEnglishVersion
When Jesus' family heard what he was doing, they
thought he was crazy and went to get him under
control.
Good News Translation

2. When his family heard about it, they set out to take
charge of him, because people were saying, "He's gone
mad!"
WorldEnglishBible
When his friends heard it, they went out to seize him:
for they said, "He is insane."
BIBLEHUB RESOURCSES
Christ Hindered By His Friends
Mark 3:20, 21
A.F. Muir
I. THROUGH IGNORANCE. Owing
(1) to want of sympathy with him in his higher aims; and
(2) consequentfailure of spiritual perception.
II. BY CHARGING HIM WITH MADNESS. Theyhad so little of the spirit of
self-denial in themselves that they could not understand enthusiasm which
would not admit of his attending to his own wants, "so much as to eatbread."

3. 1. They fearedalso the consequences whichmight arise from the presence of
his enemies. The scribes were there "from Jerusalem," onthe alert to find
accusationagainsthim; and they must have been observed.
2. But by this charge they discredited the characterof his ministry. Who
should be supposedto know whether he was sane or not, if not his own
family? In attributing to maniacy the Divine works and words of Christ, they
did him and all who might through him have life and peace, a cruel,
irreparable wrong. So Paul was chargedwith being beside himself; and all
who for Christ's sake try to live above the maxims and aims of the world will
meet with similar judgment. The blow thus struck is not at an individual, but
at the spiritual prospects and hopes of a whole race.
III. BY UNAUTHORIZED AND UNTIMELY INTERFERENCE.
1. A sin of presumption. The judgment was hasty and mistaken;the action
was unjustifiable, both foolishand wicked.
2. Enmity to God. - M.

4. Biblical Illustrator
He Is beside Himself.
Mark 3:21
The sinner mad, not the saint
Thomas Fuller, D. D.
I find St. Paul in the same chapter confessesand denies madness in himself.
Whilst he was mad indeed, then none did suspector accusehim to be
distracted; but when converted, and in his right mind, then Festus taxeth him
of madness. (See Acts 26:11.)
(Thomas Fuller, D. D.)
Mad because exceptional
Thomas Fuller, D. D.
There is a country in Africa wherein all the natives have pendulous lips,
hanging down like a dog's ears, always raw and sore. Here only such as are
handsome are pointed at for monsters.
(Thomas Fuller, D. D.)
Troubled with a goodson
When the son of Dr. Innes became a missionary, the goodold man, who sorely
grudged parting with his boy, said, "Some people are troubled with a bad son,
but I am troubled with a goodone."
A. MACLAREN
He is Beside Himself'

5. Alexander Maclaren
Mark 3:21
And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they
said, He is beside himself.
'And when His friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on Him: for they
said, He is beside Himself' -- Mark iii.21.
There had been greatexcitement in the little town of Capernaum in
consequence ofChrist's teachings and miracles. It had been intensified by His
infractions of the RabbinicalSabbath law, and by His appointment of the
twelve Apostles. The sacerdotalparty in Capernaum apparently
communicated with Jerusalem, with the result of bringing a deputation from
the Sanhedrim to look into things, and see what this new rabbi was about. A
plot for His assassinationwas secretlyonfoot. And at this juncture the
incident of my text, which we owe to Mark alone of the Evangelists, occurs.
Christ's friends, apparently the members of His own family -- sad to say, as
would appear from the context, including His mother -- came with a kindly
design to rescue their misguided kinsman from danger, and laying hands
upon Him, to carry Him off to some safe restraint in Nazareth, where He
might indulge His delusions without doing any harm to Himself. They wish to
excuse His eccentricities onthe ground that He is not quite responsible --
scarcelyHimself; and so to blunt the point of the more hostile explanation of
the Phariseesthat He is in league with Beelzebub.
Conceive of that! The Incarnate Wisdom shielded by friends from the
accusationthat He is a demoniac by the apologythat He is a lunatic! What do
you think of popular judgment?

6. But this half-pitying, half-contemptuous, and wholly benevolent excuse for
Jesus, though it be the words of friends, is like the words of His enemies, in
that it contains a distorted reflection of His true character. And if we will
think about it, I fancy that we may gatherfrom it some lessons not altogether
unprofitable.
I. The first point, then, that I make, is just this -- there was something in the
characterof Jesus Christwhich could be plausibly explained to commonplace
people as madness.
A well-knownmodern author has talked a greatdeal about 'the sweet
reasonablenessofJesus Christ.' His contemporaries calledit simple insanity;
if they did not say 'He hath a devil,' as well as 'He is mad.'
Now, if we try to throw ourselves back to the life of Jesus Christ, as it was
unfolded day by day, and think nothing about either what preceded in the
revelation of the Old Covenant, or what followedin the history of
Christianity, we shall not be so much at a loss to accountfor such explanations
of it as these of my text. Remember that charges like these, in all various keys
of contempt or of pity, or of fierce hostility, have been castagainstall
innovators, againstevery man that has broken a new path; againstall
teachers that have cut themselves apart from tradition and encrusted
formulas; againstevery man that has wagedwarwith the conventionalisms of
society;againstall idealists who have dreamed dreams and seenvisions;
againstevery man that has been touched with a lofty enthusiasm of any sort;
and, most of all, againstall to whom Godand their relations to Him, the
spiritual world and their relations to it, the future life and their relations to
that, have become dominant forces and motives in their lives.

7. The short and easywaywith which the world excuses itselffrom the poignant
lessons andrebukes which come from such lives is something like that of my
text, 'He is beside himself.' And the proof that he is beside himself is that he
does not actin the same fashion as these incomparably wise people that make
up the majority in every age. There is nothing that commonplace men hate
like anything fresh and original. There is nothing that men of low aims are so
utterly bewilderedto understand, and which so completely passesallthe
calculus of which they are masters, as lofty self-abnegation. And whereveryou
get men smitten with such, or with anything like it, you will find all the low-
aimed people gathering round them like bats round a torch in a cavern,
flapping their obscene wings and uttering their harsh croaks, and only
desiring to quench the light.
One of our cynicalauthors says that it is the mark of a genius that all the
dullards are againsthim. It is the mark of the man who dwells with God that
all the people whose portion is in this life with one consentsay, 'He is beside
himself.'
And so the Leaderof them all was served in His day; and that purest,
perfectest, noblest, loftiest, most utterly self-oblivious, and God-and-man-
devoted life that ever was lived upon earth, was disposedof in this extremely
simple method, so comforting to the complacencyof the critics -- either 'He is
beside Himself,' or 'He hath a devil.'
And yet, is not the saying a witness to the presence in that wondrous and
gentle careerof an element entirely unlike what exists in the most of
mankind? Here was a new star in the heavens, and the law of its orbit was
manifestly different from that of all the rest. That is what 'eccentric'means --
that the life to which it applies does not move round the same centre as do the
other satellites, but has a path of its own. Away out yonder somewhere, in the
infinite depths, lay the hidden point which drew it to itself and determined its

8. magnificent and overwhelmingly vast orbit. These men witness to Jesus
Christ, even by their half excuse, half reproach, that His was a life unique and
inexplicable by the ordinary motives which shape the little lives of the masses
of mankind. They witness to His entire neglectof ordinary and low aims; to
His complete absorption in lofty purposes, which to His purblind would-be
critics seemto be delusions and fond imaginations that could never be
realised. They witness to what His disciples remembered had been written of
Him, 'The zealof Thy house hath eatenMe up'; to His perfect devotion to
man and to God. They witness to His consciousnessofa mission; and there is
nothing that men are so ready to resentas that. To tell a world, engrossedin
self and low aims, that one is sent from God to do His will, and to spread it
among men, is the sure way to have all the heavy artillery and the lighter
weapons ofthe world turned againstone.
These characteristics ofJesus seemthen to be plainly implied in that
allegationof insanity -- lofty aims, absolute originality, utter self-abnegation,
the continual consciousnessofcommunion with God, devotion to the service of
man, and the sense ofbeing sentby God for the salvationof the world. It was
because ofthese that His friends said, 'He is beside Himself.'
These men judged themselves by judging Jesus Christ. And all men do. There
are as many different estimates of a greatman as there are people to estimate,
and hence the diversity of opinion about all the characters that fill history and
the galleries ofthe past. The eye sees whatit brings and no more. To discern
the greatnessofa greatman, or the goodnessofa goodone, is to possess, in
lowermeasure, some portion of that which we discern. Sympathy is the
condition of insight into character. And so our Lord said once, 'He that
receivetha prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's
reward,' because he is a dumb prophet himself, and has a lowerpower of the
same gift in him, which is eloquent on the prophet's lips.

9. In like manner, to discern what is in Christ is the test of whether there is any
of it in myself. And thus it is no mere arbitrary appointment which suspends
your salvationand mine on our answerto this question, 'What think ye of
Christ?' The answerwill be -- I was going to say -- the elixir of our whole
moral and spiritual nature. It will be the outcome of our inmost selves. This
ploughshare turns up the depths of the soil. That is eternally true which the
grey-bearded Simeon, the representative of the Old, saidwhen he took the
Infant in his arms and lookeddown upon the unconscious, placid, smooth
face. 'This Child is set for the rise and fall of many in Israel, that the thoughts
of many hearts may be revealed.'Your answerto that question discloses your
whole spiritual condition and capacities. And so to judge Christ is to be
judged by Him; and what we think Him to be, that we make Him to ourselves.
The question which tests us is not merely, 'Whom do men saythat I am?' It is
easyto answerthat; but this is the all-important interrogation, 'Whom do ye
say that I am?' I pray that we may eachansweras he to whom it was first put
answeredit, 'Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God, Thou art the King of Israel!'
II. Secondly, mark the similarity of the estimate which will be passedby the
world on all Christ's true followers.
The same elements exist to-day, the same intolerance of anything higher than
the low level, the same incapacityto comprehend simple devotion and lofty
aims, the same dislike of a man who comes and rebukes by his silent presence
the vices in which he takes no part. And it is a greatdeal easierto say, 'Poor
fool! enthusiastic fanatic!' than it is to lay to heart the lessonthat lies in such a
life.
The one thing, or at leastthe principal thing, which the Christianity of this
generationwants is a little more of this madness. It would be a greatdeal
better for us who call ourselves Christians if we had earned and deserved the
world's sneer, 'He is beside himself.' But our modern Christianity, like an

10. epicure's rare wines, is preferred iced. And the lastthing that anybody would
think of suggesting in connectionwith the demeanour -- either the conduct or
the words -- of the average Christianman of this day is that his religion had
touched his brain a little.
But, dear friends, go in Christ's footsteps and you will have the same missiles
flung at you. If a church or an individual has earnedthe praise of the outside
ring of godless people because its or his religion is 'reasonable and moderate;
and kept in its proper place;and not allowedto interfere with social
enjoyments, and political and municipal corruptions,' and the like, then there
is much reasonto ask whether that church or man is Christian after Christ's
pattern. Oh, I pray that there may come down on the professing Church of
this generationa baptism of the Spirit; and I am quite sure that when that
comes, the people that admire moderation and approve of religion, but like it
to be 'kept in its own place,'will be all ready to say, when they hear the 'sons
and the daughters prophesying, and the old men seeing visions, and the young
men dreaming dreams,' and the fiery tongues uttering their praises of God,
'These men are full of new wine!' Would we were full of the new wine of the
Spirit! Do you think any one would sayof your religion that you were 'beside
yourself,' because youmade so much of it? They said it about your Master,
and if you were like Him it would be said, in one tone or another, about you.
We are all desperatelyafraid of enthusiasm to-day. It seems to me that it is
the want of the Christian Church, and that we are not enthusiastic because we
don't half believe the truths that we say are our creed.
One more word. Christian men and women have to make up their minds to go
on in the path of devotion, conformity to Christ's pattern, self-sacrificing
surrender, without minding one bit what is saidabout them. Brethren, I do
not think Christian people are in half as much danger of dropping the
standard of the Christian life by reasonof the sarcasmsofthe world, as they
are by reasonof the low tone of the Church. Don't you take your ideas of what
a reasonable Christianlife is from the men round you, howsoeverthey may

11. profess to be Christ's followers. And let us keepso near the Masterthat we
may be able to say, 'With me it is a very small matter to be judged of you, or
of man's judgment. He that judgeth me is the Lord.' Never mind, though they
say, 'Beside himself!' Never mind, though they say, 'Oh! utterly extravagant
and impracticable.'Better that than to be patted on the back by a world that
likes nothing so well as a Church with its teeth drawn, and its claws cut;
which may be made a plaything and an ornament by the world. And that is
what much of our modern Christianity has come to be.
III. Lastly, notice the sanity of the insane.
I have only space to put before you three little pictures, and ask you what you
think of them. I dare say the originals might be found among us without much
search.
Here is one. Suppose a man who, like the most of us, believes that there is a
God, believes that he has something to do with Him, believes that he is going
to die, believes that the future state is, in some way or other, and in some
degree, one of retribution; and from Monday morning to Saturday night he
ignores all these facts, and never allows them to influence one of his actions.
May I venture to speak direct to this hypothetical person, whose originals are
dotted about in my audience? It would be the very same to you if you said'No'
instead of 'Yes' to all these affirmations. The fact that there is a God does not
make a bit of difference to what you do, or what you think, or what you feel.
The fact that there is a future life makes just as little difference. You are going
on a voyage next week, and you never dream of getting your outfit. You
believe all these things, you are an intelligent man -- you are very likely, in a
greatmany ways, a very amiable and pleasantone; you do many things very
well; you cultivate congenialvirtues, and you abhor uncongenialvices;but
you never think about God; and you have made absolutely no preparation
whateverfor stepping into the scene in which you know that you are to live.

12. Well, you may be a very wise man, a student with high aims, cultivated
understanding, and all the rest of it. I want to know whether, taking into
accountall that you are, and your inevitable connectionwith God, and your
certain death and certainlife in a state of retribution -- I want to know
whether we should call your conduct sanity or insanity? Which?
Take anotherpicture. Here is a man that believes -- really believes -- the
articles of the Christian creed, and in some measure has receivedthem into
his heart and life. He believes that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died for him
upon the Cross, andyet his heart has but the feeblesttick of pulsating love in
answer. He believes that prayer will help a man in all circumstances, and yet
he hardly ever prays. He believes that self-denial is the law of the Christian
life, and yet he lives for himself. He believes that he is here as a 'pilgrim' and
as a 'sojourner,' and yet his heart clings to the world, and his hand would fain
cling to it, like that of a drowning man swept overNiagara, and catching at
anything on the banks. He believes that he is sent into the world to be a 'light'
of the world, and yet from out of his self-absorbedlife there has hardly ever
come one sparkle of light into any dark heart. And that is a picture, not
exaggerated, ofthe enormous majority of professing Christians in so-called
Christian lands. And I want to know whether we shall call that sanity or
insanity?
The lastof my little miniatures is that of a man who keeps in close touchwith
Jesus Christ, and so, like Him, can say, 'Lo! I come; I delight to do Thy will, O
Lord. Thy law is within my heart.' He yields to the strong motives and
principles that flow from the Cross ofJesus Christ, and, drawn by the
'mercies of God,' gives himself a 'living sacrifice'to be used as God will. Aims
as lofty as the Throne which Christ His Brother fills; sacrifice as entire as that
on which his trembling hope relies;realisationof the unseenfuture as vivid
and clearas His who could say that He was 'in Heaven' whilst He walkedthe
earth; subjugation of selfas complete as that of the Lord's, who pleasednot

13. Himself, and came not to do His own will -- these are some of the
characteristicswhichmark the true disciple of Jesus Christ. And I want to
know whether the conduct of the man who believes in the love that God hath
to him, as manifested in the Cross, andsurrenders his whole self thereto,
despising the world and living for God, for Christ, for man, for eternity --
whether his conductis insanity or sanity? 'The fearof the Lord is the
beginning of wisdom.'
COMMENTARIES
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(21) And when his friends . . .—Literally, those from Him—i.e., from His
home. As the “mother and the brethren” are mentioned later on in the
chapter as coming to check His teaching, we must see in these some whom
they had sent with the same object. To them the new course of actionon which
our Lord had enteredseemeda sign of over-excitement, recklesslyrushing
into danger. We may, perhaps, see in the random word thus uttered that
which gave occasionto the more malignant taunt of the scribes in the next
verse. They were saying now, as they said afterwards (John 10:20), “He hath a
devil, and is mad.”
MacLaren's Expositions
Mark
‘HE IS BESIDE HIMSELF’
Mark 3:21.

14. There had been greatexcitement in the little town of Capernaum in
consequence ofChrist’s teachings and miracles. It had been intensified by His
infractions of the RabbinicalSabbath law, and by His appointment of the
twelve Apostles. The sacerdotalparty in Capernaum apparently
communicated with Jerusalem, with the result of bringing a deputation from
the Sanhedrim to look into things, and see what this new rabbi was about. A
plot for His assassinationwas secretlyonfoot. And at this juncture the
incident of my text, which we owe to Mark alone of the Evangelists, occurs.
Christ’s friends, apparently the members of His own family-sad to say, as
would appear from the context, including His mother-came with a kindly
design to rescue their misguided kinsman from danger, and laying hands
upon Him, to carry Him off to some safe restraint in Nazareth, where He
might indulge His delusions without doing any harm to Himself. They wish to
excuse His eccentricities onthe ground that He is not quite responsible-
scarcelyHimself; and so to blunt the point of the more hostile explanation of
the Phariseesthat He is in league with Beelzebub.
Conceive of that! The Incarnate Wisdom shielded by friends from the
accusationthat He is a demoniac by the apologythat He is a lunatic! What do
you think of popular judgment? But this half-pitying, half-contemptuous, and
wholly benevolentexcuse for Jesus, though it be the words of friends, is like
the words of His enemies, in that it contains a distorted reflectionof His true
character. And if we will think about it, I fancy that we may gatherfrom it
some lessons notaltogetherunprofitable.
I. The first point, then, that I make, is just this-there was something in the
characterof Jesus Christwhich could be plausibly explained to commonplace
people as madness.

15. A well-knownmodern author has talked a greatdeal about ‘the sweet
reasonablenessofJesus Christ.’ His contemporaries calledit simple insanity;
if they did not say ‘He hath a devil,’ as well as ‘He is mad.’
Now, if we try to throw ourselves back to the life of Jesus Christ, as it was
unfolded day by day, and think nothing about either what preceded in the
revelation of the Old Covenant, or what followedin the history of
Christianity, we shall not be so much at a loss to accountfor such explanations
of it as these of my text. Remember that charges like these, in all various keys
of contempt or of pity, or of fierce hostility, have been castagainstall
innovators, againstevery man that has broken a new path; againstall
teachers that have cut themselves apart from tradition and encrusted
formulas; againstevery man that has wagedwarwith the conventionalisms of
society;againstall idealists who have dreamed dreams and seenvisions;
againstevery man that has been touched with a lofty enthusiasm of any sort;
and, most of all, against all to whom Godand their relations to Him, the
spiritual world and their relations to it, the future life and their relations to
that, have become dominant forces and motives in their lives.
The short and easywaywith which the world excuses itselffrom the poignant
lessons andrebukes which come from such lives is something like that of my
text, ‘He is beside himself.’ And the proof that he is beside himself is that he
does not actin the same fashion as these incomparably wise people that make
up the majority in every age. There is nothing that commonplace men hate
like anything fresh and original. There is nothing that men of low aims are so
utterly bewilderedto understand, and which so completely passesallthe
calculus of which they are masters, as lofty self-abnegation. And whereveryou
get men smitten with such, or with anything like it, you will find all the low-
aimed people gathering round them like bats round a torch in a cavern,
flapping their obscene wings and uttering their harsh croaks, and only
desiring to quench the light.

16. One of our cynicalauthors says that it is the mark of a genius that all the
dullards are againsthim. It is the mark of the man who dwells with God that
all the people whose portion is in this life with one consentsay, ‘He is beside
himself.’
And so the Leaderof them all was served in His day; and that purest,
perfectest, noblest, loftiest, most utterly self-oblivious, and God-and-man-
devoted life that ever was lived upon earth, was disposedof in this extremely
simple method, so comforting to the complacencyof the critics-either‘He is
beside Himself,’ or ‘He hath a devil.’
And yet, is not the saying a witness to the presence in that wondrous and
gentle careerof an element entirely unlike what exists in the most of
mankind? Here was a new star in the heavens, and the law of its orbit was
manifestly different from that of all the rest. That is what ‘eccentric’means-
that the life to which it applies does not move round the same centre as do the
other satellites, but has a path of its own. Away out yonder somewhere, in the
infinite depths, lay the hidden point which drew it to itself and determined its
magnificent and overwhelmingly vast orbit. These men witness to Jesus
Christ, even by their half excuse, half reproach, that His was a life unique and
inexplicable by the ordinary motives which shape the little lives of the masses
of mankind. They witness to His entire neglectof ordinary and low aims; to
His complete absorption in lofty purposes, which to His purblind would-be
critics seemto be delusions and fond imaginations that could never be
realised. They witness to what His disciples remembered had been written of
Him, ‘The zealof Thy house hath eatenMe up’; to His perfect devotion to
man and to God. They witness to His consciousnessofa mission; and there is
nothing that men are so ready to resentas that. To tell a world, engrossedin
self and low aims, that one is sent from God to do His will, and to spread it
among men, is the sure way to have all the heavy artillery and the lighter
weapons of the world turned againstone.

17. These characteristics ofJesus seemthen to be plainly implied in that
allegationof insanity-lofty aims, absolute originality, utter self-abnegation, the
continual consciousnessofcommunion with God, devotion to the service of
man, and the sense ofbeing sentby God for the salvationof the world. It was
because ofthese that His friends said, ‘He is beside Himself.’
These men judged themselves by judging Jesus Christ. And all men do. There
are as many different estimates of a greatman as there are people to estimate,
and hence the diversity of opinion about all the characters that fill history and
the galleries ofthe past. The eye sees whatit brings and no more. To discern
the greatnessofa greatman, or the goodnessof a goodone, is to possess, in
lowermeasure, some portion of that which we discern. Sympathy is the
condition of insight into character. And so our Lord said once, ‘He that
receivetha prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s
reward,’ because he is a dumb prophet himself, and has a lower powerof the
same gift in him, which is eloquent on the prophet’s lips.
In like manner, to discern what is in Christ is the test of whether there is any
of it in myself. And thus it is no mere arbitrary appointment which suspends
your salvationand mine on our answerto this question, ‘What think ye of
Christ?’ The answerwill be-I was going to say-the elixir of our whole moral
and spiritual nature. It will be the outcome of our inmost selves. This
ploughshare turns up the depths of the soil. That is eternally true which the
grey-bearded Simeon, the representative of the Old, saidwhen he took the
Infant in his arms and lookeddown upon the unconscious, placid, smooth
face. ‘This Child is set for the rise and fall of many in Israel, that the thoughts
of many hearts may be revealed.’Your answerto that question discloses your
whole spiritual condition and capacities. And so to judge Christ is to be
judged by Him; and what we think Him to be, that we make Him to ourselves.
The question which tests us is not merely, ‘Whom do men saythat I am?’ It is
easyto answerthat; but this is the all-important interrogation, ‘Whom do ye

18. say that I am?’ I pray that we may eachansweras he to whom it was first put
answeredit, ‘Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God, Thou art the King of Israel!’
II. Secondly, mark the similarity of the estimate which will be passedby the
world on all Christ’s true followers.
The same elements exist to-day, the same intolerance of anything higher than
the low level, the same incapacityto comprehend simple devotion and lofty
aims, the same dislike of a man who comes and rebukes by his silent presence
the vices in which he takes no part. And it is a greatdeal easierto say, ‘Poor
fool! enthusiastic fanatic!’ than it is to lay to heart the lessonthat lies in such a
life.
The one thing, or at leastthe principal thing, which the Christianity of this
generationwants is a little more of this madness. It would be a greatdeal
better for us who call ourselves Christians if we had earned and deserved the
world’s sneer, ‘He is beside himself.’ But our modern Christianity, like an
epicure’s rare wines, is preferred iced. And the lastthing that anybody would
think of suggesting in connectionwith the demeanour-either the conduct or
the words-ofthe average Christian man of this day is that his religion had
touched his brain a little.
But, dear friends, go in Christ’s footsteps and you will have the same missiles
flung at you. If a church or an individual has earnedthe praise of the outside
ring of godless people because its or his religion is ‘reasonable and moderate;
and kept in its proper place;and not allowedto interfere with social
enjoyments, and political and municipal corruptions,’ and the like, then there
is much reasonto ask whether that church or man is Christian after Christ’s
pattern. Oh, I pray that there may come down on the professing Church of
this generationa baptism of the Spirit; and I am quite sure that when that

19. comes, the people that admire moderation and approve of religion, but like it
to be ‘kept in its own place,’will be all ready to say, when they hear the ‘sons
and the daughters prophesying, and the old men seeing visions, and the young
men dreaming dreams,’ and the fiery tongues uttering their praises of God,
‘These men are full of new wine!’ Would we were full of the new wine of the
Spirit! Do you think any one would sayof your religion that you were ‘beside
yourself,’ because you made so much of it? They said it about your Master,
and if you were like Him it would be said, in one tone or another, about you.
We are all desperatelyafraid of enthusiasm to-day. It seems to me that it is
the want of the Christian Church, and that we are not enthusiastic because we
don’t half believe the truths that we say are our creed.
One more word. Christian men and women have to make up their minds to go
on in the path of devotion, conformity to Christ’s pattern, self-sacrificing
surrender, without minding one bit what is saidabout them. Brethren, I do
not think Christian people are in half as much danger of dropping the
standard of the Christian life by reasonof the sarcasmsofthe world, as they
are by reasonof the low tone of the Church. Don’t you take your ideas of what
a reasonable Christianlife is from the men round you, howsoeverthey may
profess to be Christ’s followers. And let us keepso near the Masterthat we
may be able to say, ‘With me it is a very small matter to be judged of you, or
of man’s judgment. He that judgeth me is the Lord.’ Never mind, though they
say, ‘Beside himself!’ Never mind, though they say, ‘Oh! utterly extravagant
and impracticable.’Better that than to be patted on the back by a world that
likes nothing so well as a Church with its teeth drawn, and its claws cut;
which may be made a plaything and an ornament by the world. And that is
what much of our modern Christianity has come to be.
III. Lastly, notice the sanity of the insane.

20. I have only space to put before you three little pictures, and ask you what you
think of them. I dare say the originals might be found among us without much
search.
Here is one. Suppose a man who, like the most of us, believes that there is a
God, believes that he has something to do with Him, believes that he is going
to die, believes that the future state is, in some way or other, and in some
degree, one of retribution; and from Monday morning to Saturday night he
ignores all these facts, and never allows them to influence one of his actions.
May I venture to speak direct to this hypothetical person, whose originals are
dotted about in my audience? It would be the very same to you if you said
‘No’ instead of ‘Yes’ to all these affirmations. The fact that there is a God
does not make a bit of difference to what you do, or what you think, or what
you feel. The fact that there is a future life makes just as little difference. You
are going on a voyage next week, andyou never dream of getting your outfit.
You believe all these things, you are an intelligent man-you are very likely, in
a greatmany ways, a very amiable and pleasantone; you do many things very
well; you cultivate congenialvirtues, and you abhor uncongenialvices;but
you never think about God; and you have made absolutely no preparation
whateverfor stepping into the scene in which you know that you are to live.
Well, you may be a very wise man, a student with high aims, cultivated
understanding, and all the rest of it. I want to know whether, taking into
accountall that you are, and your inevitable connectionwith God, and your
certain death and certainlife in a state of retribution-I want to know whether
we should call your conduct sanity or insanity? Which? Take anotherpicture.
Here is a man that believes-reallybelieves-the articles of the Christian creed,
and in some measure has receivedthem into his heart and life. He believes
that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died for him upon the Cross, and yet his
heart has but the feeblesttick of pulsating love in answer. He believes that
prayer will help a man in all circumstances, andyet he hardly ever prays. He
believes that self-denialis the law of the Christian life, and yet he lives for

21. himself. He believes that he is here as a ‘pilgrim’ and as a ‘sojourner,’and yet
his heart clings to the world, and his hand would fain cling to it, like that of a
drowning man swept over Niagara, andcatching at anything on the banks. He
believes that he is sent into the world to be a ‘light’ of the world, and yet from
out of his self-absorbedlife there has hardly ever come one sparkle of light
into any dark heart. And that is a picture, not exaggerated, ofthe enormous
majority of professing Christians in so-calledChristian lands. And I want to
know whether we shall callthat sanity or insanity? The last of my little
miniatures is that of a man who keeps in close touch with Jesus Christ, and so,
like Him, can say, ‘Lo! I come;I delight to do Thy will, O Lord. Thy law is
within my heart.’ He yields to the strong motives and principles that flow
from the Cross ofJesus Christ, and, drawn by the ‘mercies of God,’ gives
himself a ‘living sacrifice’to be used as God will. Aims as lofty as the Throne
which Christ His Brother fills; sacrifice as entire as that on which his
trembling hope relies;realisationof the unseen future as vivid and clearas
His who could saythat He was ‘in Heaven’ whilst He walkedthe earth;
subjugation of self as complete as that of the Lord’s, who pleasednot Himself,
and came not to do His own will-these are some of the characteristics which
mark the true disciple of Jesus Christ. And I want to know whether the
conduct of the man who believes in the love that God hath to him, as
manifested in the Cross, andsurrenders his whole self thereto, despising the
world and living for God, for Christ, for man, for eternity-whether his
conduct is insanity or sanity? ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of
wisdom.’
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
3:13-21 Christ calls whom he will; for his grace is his own. He had calledthe
apostles to separate themselves from the crowd, and they came unto him. He
now gave them powerto heal sicknesses, and to castout devils. May the Lord
send forth more and more of those who have been with him, and have learned
of him to preach his gospel, to be instruments in his blessedwork. Those
whose hearts are enlarged in the work of God, can easilybear with what is
inconvenient to themselves, and will rather lose a meal than an opportunity of
doing good. Those who go on with zeal in the work of God, must expect

22. hinderances, both from the hatred of enemies, and mistakenaffections of
friends, and need to guard againstboth.
Barnes'Notes on the Bible
When his friends - Greek, "theywho were of him." Not the apostles, but his
relatives, his friends, who were in the place of his nativity.
Heard of it - Heard of his conduct: his preaching; his appointing the apostles;
his drawing such a multitude to his preaching. This shows that by "his
friends" were not meant the apostles, but his neighbors and others who
"heard" of his conduct.
They went out to lay hold on him - To take him awayfrom the multitude, and
to remove him to his home, that he might be treated as a maniac, so that, by
absence from the "causes"ofexcitement, he might be restored to his right
mind.
They said - That is, common report said; or his friends and relatives said, for
they did not believe on him, John 7:5. Probably the enemies of Jesus raised
the report, and his relatives were persuaded to believe it to be true.
He is beside himself - He is delirious or deranged. The reasonwhy this report
gained any belief was, probably, that he had lived among them as a carpenter;
that he was poor and unknown; and that now, at 30 years of age, he broke off
from his occupations, abandonedhis common employment, spent much time
in the deserts, denied himself the common comforts of life, and setup his
claims to be the Messiahwho was expectedby all the people to come with
greatpomp and splendor. The charge of "derangement" onaccountof
attention to religion has not been confined to the Saviour. Let a man be made
deeply sensible of his sins, and spend much of his time in prayer, and have no
relish for the ordinary amusements or business of life; or let a Christian be
much impressed with his obligation to devote himself to God, and "act" as if
he believed there was an "eternity," and warn his neighbors of their danger;
or let a minister show uncommon zeal and spend his strength in the service of
his Master, and the world is not slow to call it derangement. And none will be
more ready to originate or believe the charge than an ungodly and infidel

23. parent or brother, a self-righteous Pharisee orprofessorin the church. At the
same time, men may endangerthemselves on the bosomof the deep or in the
bowels of the earth for wealth; or may plunge into the vortex of fashion, folly,
and vice, and break in upon the hours of repose, and neglecttheir duties to
their family and the demands of business, and in the view of the world it is
wisdom and proof of a sane mind! Such is the consistencyofboastedreason;
such the wisdomand prudence of worldly men!
Jamieson-Fausset-BrownBible Commentary
Mr 3:20-30. Jesus Is Chargedwith Madness and DemoniacalPossession—His
Reply. ( = Mt 12:22-37;Lu 11:14-26).
See on [1413]Mt12:22-37;[1414]Lu11:21-26.
Matthew Poole's Commentary
See Poole on"Mark 3:21"
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
When his friends heard of it,.... Nothis spiritual friends, his disciples and
followers, that believed in him; but his kinsmen, as the Syriac and Ethiopic
versions render the words, who were so according to the flesh; when they
heard where he was, and what a crowd was about him, so that he could not so
much as take the necessariesoflife for his refreshment and support,
they went out to lay hold on him: either out of their houses at Capernaum, or
they went forth from Nazareth, where they dwelt, to Capernaum, to take him
from this house, where he was thronged and pressed, along with them; where
he might have some refreshment without being incommoded, and take some
rest, which seemedvery necessary:so that this was done in kindness to him,
and does not design any violent action upon him, in order to take him home
with them, and to confine him as a madman; though the following words seem
to incline to such a sense;
for they said, he is beside himself: some render it, "he is gone out": that is, out
of doors, to preach againto the people, which they might fear would be
greatly detrimental to his health, since, he had had no sleepthe night before;

24. had been much fatigued all that morning, and for the throng of the people
could take no food; so that for this reasonthey came to take him with them, to
their own habitations, to prevent the ill consequencesofsuch constantexercise
without refreshment. Moreover, though this may not be the sense ofthe word,
yet it is not to be understood of downright madness and distraction, but of
some perturbation of mind, which they imagined, or heard, he was under; and
answers to a phrase frequently used by the Jews, that such an one, , "his
knowledge is snatchedaway", or his mind is disturbed; which was sometimes
occasionedby disorder of body: so it is said (z),
"a deaf woman, or one that is foolish, or blind, or "whose mind is disturbed";
and if there are any wise women, they prepare themselves, and eatof the
oblation.''
On that phrase, "whose mind is disturbed", the note of Maimonides is,
"it means a sick person, whose understanding is disturbed through the force
of the disease:''
and was sometimes the case ofa personwhen near death (a): and it was usual
to give a person that was condemnedto die, and going to be executed, a grain
of frankincense in a cup of wine, "that so his knowledge may be snatched
away", or his mind disturbed (b), and: be intoxicated; that so he might not be
sensible of his pain, or feelhis misery; in all which cases, there was nothing of
proper madness:and so the kinsmen and friends of Christ, having heard of
the situation that he was in, saidone to another, he is in a transport and excess
of mind; his zeal carries him beyond due bounds; he has certainly forgotten
himself; his understanding is disturbed; he is unmindful of himself; takes no
care of his health; he will certainly greatlyimpair it, if he goes onat this rate,
praying all night, and preaching all day, without taking any rest or food:
wherefore they came out, in order to dissuade him from such excessive
labours, and engage him to go with them, where he might have rest and
refreshment, and be composed, and retire.
(z) Misn. Nidda, c. 9. sect. 1.((a)T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 63. 1.((b) Ib. fol. 43. 1.
Bemidbar Rabba, sect. 10, fol. 198. 4.

25. Geneva Study Bible
{4} And when his {n} friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for
they said, He is beside himself.
(4) None are worse enemies of the gospelthan they that should be enemies of it
the least.
(n) Literally, they that were of him, that is, his relatives:for they that were
mad were brought to their relatives.
EXEGETICAL(ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)
Expositor's Greek Testament
Mark 3:21. And the multitude cometh togetheragain, etc.
συνέρχεται:the crowd, partially dispersed, reassembles (implying lapse of an
appreciable interval). Jesus had hoped they would go awayto their homes in
various parts of the country during His absence onthe hill, but He was
disappointed. They lingered on.—ὥστε, etc.:the crowding about the house
and the demand for sight and succourof the Benefactorwere so greatthat
they (Jesus and His companions)could not find leisure, not even (μηδὲ) to
take food, not to speak of rest, or giving instruction to disciples. Erasmus
(Adnot.) thinks the reference is to the multitude, and the meaning that it was
so large that there was not bread for all, not to speak ofkitchen (obsonia).
Cambridge Bible for Schools andColleges
21. when his friends] not the Apostles, but His relatives, including “His
brethren and His mother,” who are noticed here as going forth, and a few
verses lateron as having arrived at the house where our Lord was (Mark
3:31), or the place where the crowds were thronging Him.
He is beside himself] They deemed the zealand daily devotion to His labour of
love a sort of ecstasyorreligious enthusiasm, which made Him no longer

26. master of Himself. St Paul uses the word in this sense in 2 Corinthians 5:13,
“Forwhether we be beside ourselves, it is to God.” Comp. the words of Festus
to St Paul(Acts 26:24).
Bengel's Gnomen
Mark 3:21. Οἱ παρʼ αὐτοῦ, those belonging to Him) See App. Crit. Ed. ii., p.
150. The Gothic Version fram answers to περὶ and παρὰ.[25]Who these were,
who belongedto Him, is clearfrom Mark 3:31, where the particle οὖν,[26]
therefore, refers to this 21stverse, after the intervening parenthesis 22–30 has
been as it were clearedout of they.—ἐξῆλθον, they went out) Their coming in
Mark 3:31 followedtheir going out here. A table seems to have been laid at
the house;see end of Mark 3:20.—Κρατῆσαι, to lay hold) to put a restraint on
him.—ἔλεγον, they were saying) the messengers [notthe relatives]from whom
his relatives heard of His earnestness.—ὅτι ἐξέστη, He is beside Himself) By
this word they were attributing to Him excess ofardour, overwhelming His
intellect, but it was falsely that they attributed this to Him, as Festus did to
Paul; Acts 26:24, Thou art mad. Comp. by all means 2 Corinthians 5:13;
comp. ιἑρεὺς καὶ προφήτης ἐξέστησαν διὰ τὸ σίκερα, Heb. ‫.וגש‬ Isaiah 28:7; so
ὁ προφήτης παρεξεστηκὼς, Heb. ‫;עגשמ‬ Hosea 9:7. The singular number does
not admit of this being understood of the people; for although ὄχλος, a
multitude, Mark 3:20 is singular, yet after an interval [betweenΟΧΛΟς and
the verb, if the latter were to be understood of the former], there always
follow the pronoun and the verb in the plural.
[25] AB Vulg. Rec. Text readκαὶ ἀκούσαντες οἱ παρʼ ἀυτοῦ;but Dabc read
καὶ ὅτε ἤκουσανπερὶ αὐτοῦ οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ λοίποί (c has Pharisæi.)—
ED.
[26] But the oldestauthorities BCDG vulg. abc omit οὐν. A, however, supports
it.—ED.
Vincent's Word Studies

27. His friends (οἱ παῤ αὐτοῦ)
Lit., they who were from beside him: i.e., by origin or birth. His mother and
brethren. Compare Mark 3:31, Mark 3:32. Wyc., kinsmen. Tynd., they that
belongedunto him. Nothis disciples, since they were in the house with him.
They said (ἔλεγον)
Imperfect tense. Very graphic, they kept saying.
PRECEPT AUSTIN RESOURCES
BRUCE HURT MD
Mark 3:21 When His own people heard of this, they went out to take custody
of Him; for they were saying, “He has lostHis senses.”
NET Mark 3:21 When his family heard this they went out to restrain him, for
they said, "He is out of his mind."
GNT Mark 3:21 καὶ ἀκούσαντες οἱ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐξῆλθον κρατῆσαι αὐτόν·
ἔλεγον γὰρ ὅτι ἐξέστη.
NLT Mark 3:21 When his family heard what was happening, they tried to
take him away. "He's out of his mind," they said.
KJV Mark 3:21 And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on
him: for they said, He is beside himself.
ESV Mark 3:21 And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for
they were saying, "He is out of his mind."
NIV Mark 3:21 When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of
him, for they said, "He is out of his mind."

28. ASV Mark 3:21 And when his friends heard it, they went out to lay hold on
him: for they said, He is beside himself.
CSB Mark 3:21 When His family heard this, they set out to restrain Him,
because they said, "He's out of His mind."
NKJ Mark 3:21 But when His ownpeople heard about this, they went out to
lay hold of Him, for they said, "He is out of His mind."
NRS Mark 3:21 When his family heard it, they went out to restrain him, for
people were saying, "He has gone out of his mind."
YLT Mark 3:21 and his friends having heard, went forth to lay hold on him,
for they said that he was beside himself,
NAB Mark 3:21 When his relatives heard of this they set out to seize him, for
they said, "He is out of his mind."
NJB Mark 3:21 When his relations heard of this, they setout to take charge
of him; they said, 'He is out of his mind.'
GWN Mark 3:21 When his family heard about it, they went to get him. They
said, "He's out of his mind!"
BBE Mark 3:21 And when his friends had news of it, they went out to get
him, saying, He is off his head.
His own people, Mk 3:31 Joh 7:3-10
He is: 2Ki 9:11 Jer 29:26 Ho 9:7 Joh 10:20 Ac 26:24 2Co 5:13
WELL-MEANING, BUT MISGUIDED
INTERFERENCEBY JESUS'FAMILY
You have probably heard the classic trilemma apologetic thatJesus is either
"LIAR, LUNATIC, OR LORD," made famous by C S Lewis (see below)
Mark 3:20-29 illustrates these three possible choices.
When His own people heard of this - Who are His own people? Literally
“those from the side of Him.” This almost certainly refers to His family which

29. is how most versions render it, for "the idiom most likely means the
kinspeople or family of Jesus as is common in the LXX." (Robertson) This
interpretation is supported by the context for Mark 3:31 "His mother and His
brothers arrived, and standing outside they sent word to Him and called
Him." Heard what? What had Jesus'family heard? Some commentators
think this refers only to the immediate contextbecause His own people heard
He was not able to eatand/or was not giving considerationto His own needs,
which one commentator says prompted His family to be concernedthat He
was failing to care for Himself (Liefeld, EBC). While that is possible, it is also
likely what they had heard was that He was teaching that He was God(Mark
2:5+), that He could forgive sin (Mark 2:10+), not to mention that He had
been casting out demons and the demons were identifying Him as “the Holy
One of God” (Mk 1:24+) or “the Son of God” (Mk 3:11+). Those Jews who
had witnessedthese exorcisms heardthese demonic declarations and seenthe
effectof casting out demons with their owneyes. And keepin mind that John
tells us "not even His brothers were believing in Him." (Jn 7:5) So you can
just imagine their reactionwhen they heard He was teaching that He was
God!
They went out to take custody of Him - NLT - "they tried to take him away,"
which bring to mind having someone "committed" to a mental institute!
Wuest says "Theywere intending to take Him by force and againstHis will."
They went out indicates that they were not at the home. Possiblyas some say
they made the trek from nearby Nazareth, but this is conjecture.
Take custody(seize)(2902)(krateo fromkratos = strength) has basic meaning
be strong or possesspowerand thus means to take hold of, grasp, hold fast,
especiallyto “take hold of forcibly” in this case referring to His own people,
probably His own family. Mark uses it of the arrestof John the Baptist (Mk
6:17) Krateo is used of arresting someone seventimes in Mark (Mk 6:17; Mk
12:12;Mk 14:1, 44, 46, 49, 51 - all the other uses in Mark - Mk. 1:31; Mk.
3:21; Mk. 5:41; Mk. 7:3; Mk. 7:4; Mk. 7:8; Mk. 9:10; Mk. 9:27) to give you a
sense oftheir resolve to remove Him from His current conditions. Eight of 15
uses in Mark refer to Jesus being seized (including His arrest).

30. For (gar) is a term of explanation, in context explaining why His own had
come to seize Him and forcibly take Him away.
They were saying, “He has lost His senses - Saying is imperfect tense
indicating they were saying this repeatedly! Sadly his own family thought
Jesus was suffering a mental break down! Has lostHis senses is one word in
Greek (existemi below)which is more literally "He was beside Himself" or out
of His head. His own family felt He was not acting rationally and/or that He
was unbalanced. A similar charge was made by Festus againstPaul (Acts
26:24+ - "out of your mind" = mainomai) In 2 Cor 5:13+ Paul wrote "Forif
we are beside ourselves (NET = "out of our minds," = existemi), it is for God;
if we are of sound mind, it is for you."
Much madness is divinest sense
To a discerning eye;
Much sense the starkestmadness.
’Tis the majority
In this, as all, prevails.
Assent, and you are sane;
Demur—you’re straightwaydangerous,
And handled with a chain.
-- Emily Dickinson
William Lane notes that "Mark frequently inserts an event or narrative
betweentwo phases of some actionof Jesus. This literary device is effective for
indicating a lapse of time, for dramatically heightening the tension, or for
drawing attention to a significantparallel or contrast. The first instance of
intercalationoccurs in this section:the narrative dealing with Jesus’family
(Mk 3:20f., 31–35)is divided by the accountof the Beelzebulcontroversy(Mk
3:22–30). The insertion of the incident involving the scribes from Jerusalem
betweenthe earlierand later phases of the family narrative is deliberate. It
suggeststhat those in Jesus’family who declare that he is mad (Mk 3:21) are

31. not unlike the scribes who attribute his extraordinary powers to an alliance
with Beelzebul, the prince of the demons (Mk 3:22). The parallel is sharply
emphasized by Mark’s formulation of the charges againstJesusin verses 21
and 30:verse 21 “for they [his family] said, He is beside Himself.” verse 30
“for they [the scribes]said, He has an unclean spirit.” (NICNT-Mark)Brooks
adds that "Mark 3:20–35 is the first clearinstance in the Gospelof
intercalationor bracketing or sandwiching, a literary and theologicaldevice
used to indicate a lapse of time, heighten tension, draw attention to, contrast,
and most importantly to use two accounts to interpret eachother." (NAC-
Mark)
Lost His senses(1839)(existemifrom ek = out + hístemi = to stand) literally
means to stand outside oneselfand thus to be beside oneself. The ideas include
to throw out of position, to displace, to amaze, astonish, throw into
wonderment, and existemi is "usedin the classicsofthe actof driving one out
of his senses,throwing one out of his mind." (Wuest) Used 4x by Mark most
often the idea of amazement or astonishment in the other 13 NT uses -
Everyone was "amazed" when the paralyzed man arose (Mk 2:12), they were
"astounded" when the 12 yo girl was resurrectedfrom the dead (Mk 5:42);
His disciples in the boat in the storm were "astonished" whenthe wind
stopped as He gotinto the boat with them. (Mk 6:51). Lane adds that the use
in Mark "describes one who is ecstatic in the sense ofpsychic derangement."
(Ibid)
Hiebert quotes Hurtado who writes “In recentyears we have heard stories of
other families who have attempted to dissuade family members (usually young
adults) from fervent religious or political associations, sometimes forciblyin
what is popularly calleddeprogramming, usually in the belief that their loved
ones have been ‘brain-washed’ and are not in control of their minds. Seenin
this light, the passagebefore us has a familiar human ring in it.” (Ibid)
C S Lewis in his classic Mere Christianity made the famous quote about Jesus
"Liar, Lunatic or Lord?" -

32. I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people
often say about Him: I'm ready to acceptJesus as a great moral teacher, but I
don't accepthis claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man
who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus saidwould not be a
greatmoral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man
who says he is a poachedegg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You
must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a
madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you canspit at
him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and
God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a
greathuman teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ...
Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and
consequently, howeverstrange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to
acceptthe view that He was and is God.
JoshMcDowell-LORD, LIAR OR LUNATIC?
The distinct claims of Jesus to be God eliminate the popular ploy of skeptics
who regardJesus as just a goodmoral man or a prophet who said a lot of
profound things. So often that conclusionis passedoff as the only one
acceptable to scholars oras the obvious result of the intellectual process. The
trouble is, many people nod their heads in agreementand never see the fallacy
of such reasoning.
To Jesus, who men and women believed him to be was of fundamental
importance. To say what Jesus saidand to claim what he claimedabout
himself, one couldn't conclude he was just a goodmoral man or prophet. That
alternative isn't open to an individual, and Jesus never intended it to be.
C. S. Lewis, who was a professorat Cambridge University and once an
agnostic, understoodthis issue clearly. He writes: "I am trying here to prevent
anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm
ready to acceptJesus as a greatmoral teacher, but I don't acceptHis claim to
be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man
and said the sort of things Jesus saidwould not be a greatmoral teacher. He

33. would either be a lunatic—on a level with the man who says he is a poached
egg—orelse he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either
this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse."
Then Lewis adds: "You can shut Him up for a fool, you canspit at Him and
kill Him as a demon; or you canfall at His feet and call Him Lord and God.
But let us not come up with any patronising nonsense about His being a great
human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."'
F. J. A. Hort, who spent twenty-eight years in a criticalstudy of the New
Testamenttext, writes: "His words were so completely parts and utterances of
Himself, that they had no meaning as abstractstatements of truth uttered by
Him as a Divine oracle orprophet. Take awayHimself as the primary (though
not the ultimate) subject of every statementand they all fall to pieces."2
In the words of Kenneth ScottLatourette, historian of Christianity at Yale
University: "It is nothis teachings which make Jesus so remarkable, although
these would be enough to give him distinction. It is a combination of the
teachings with the man himself. The two cannotbe separated." "Itmust be
obvious," Latourette concludes, "to any thoughtful readerof the Gospel
records that Jesus regardedhimself and his message as inseparable. He was a
greatteacher, but he was more. His teachings about the kingdom of God,
about human conduct, and about God were important, but they could not be
divorced from him without, from his standpoint, being vitiated."3
Jesus claimedto be God. He didn't leave any other option open. His claim
must be either true or false, so it is something that should be given serious
consideration. Jesus'questionto his disciples, "Butwho do you say that I
am?" (Matthew 16:15 ) has severalalternatives.
First, considerthat his claim to be God was false. If it was false, then we have
two and only two alternatives. He either knew it was false or he didn't know it
was false. We will considereachone separatelyand examine the evidence.
WAS HE A LIAR?
If, when Jesus made his claims, he knew that he was not God, then he was
lying and deliberately deceiving his followers. Butif he was a liar, then he was

34. also a hypocrite because he told others to be honest, whateverthe cost, while
he himself taught and lived a colossallie. More than that, he was a demon,
because he told others to trust him for their eternal destiny. If he couldn't
back up his claims and knew it, then he was unspeakablyevil. Last, he would
also be a fool because it was his claims to being God that led to his crucifixion.
Many will say that Jesus was a goodmoral teacher. Let's be realistic. How
could he be a greatmoral teacherand knowingly mislead people at the most
important point of his teaching—his ownidentity?
You would have to conclude logicallythat he was a deliberate liar. This view
of Jesus, however, doesn'tcoincide with what we know either of him or the
results of his life and teachings. WhereverJesus has beenproclaimed, lives
have been changedfor the good, nations have changedfor the better, thieves
are made honest, alcoholics are cured, hateful individuals become channels of
love, unjust persons become just.
William Lecky, one of GreatBritain's most noted historians and a dedicated
opponent of organizedChristianity, writes: "It was reservedfor Christianity
to present to the world an ideal characterwhichthrough all the changes of
eighteencenturies has inspired the hearts of men with an impassionedlove;
has shownitself capable of acting on all ages,nations, temperaments and
conditions; has been not only the highestpattern of virtue, but the strongest
incentive to itspractice.... The simple record of these three short years of
active life has done more to regenerate andsoften mankind than all the
disquisitions of philosophers and all the exhortations of moralists."4
Historian Philip Schaffsays:"This testimony, if not true, must be downright
blasphemy or madness. The former hypothesis cannot stand a moment before
the moral purity and dignity of Jesus, revealedin his every word and work,
and acknowledgedby universal consent. Self-deceptionin a matter so
momentous, and with an intellect in all respects so clearand so sound, is
equally out of the question. How could he be an enthusiast or a madman who
never lost the evenbalance of his mind, who sailedserenelyover all the
troubles and persecutions, as the sun above the clouds, who always returned
the wisestanswerto tempting questions, who calmly and deliberately

35. predicted his death on the cross, his resurrection on the third day, the
outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the founding of his Church, the destructionof
Jerusalem—predictions whichhave been literally fulfilled? A characterso
original, so complete, so uniformly consistent, so perfect, so human and yet so
high above all human greatness, canbe neither a fraud nor a fiction. The poet,
as has been well said, would in this case be greaterthan the hero. It would
take more than a Jesus to invent a Jesus."5
Elsewhere Schaffgives convincing argument againstChrist being a liar:
"How, in the name of logic, common sense, and experience, couldan
impostor—that is a deceitful, selfish, depraved man—have invented, and
consistentlymaintained from the beginning to end, the purest and noblest
characterknownin history with the most perfectair of truth and reality?
How could he have conceivedand successfullycarried out a plan of
unparalleled beneficence, moralmagnitude, and sublimity, and sacrificedhis
own life for it, in the face of the strongestprejudices of his people and age?"6
If Jesus wantedto get people to follow him and believe in him as God, why did
he go to the Jewishnation? Why go as a Nazarene carpenterto a country so
small in size and population and so thoroughly adhering to the undivided
unity of God? Why didn't he go to Egypt or, even more, to Greece, where they
believed in various gods and various manifestations of them?
Someone who lived as Jesus lived, taught as Jesus taught, and died as Jesus
died could not have been a liar. What other alternatives are there?
WAS HE A LUNATIC?
If it is inconceivable for Jesus to be a liar, then couldn't he actually have
thought himself to be God, but been mistaken? After all, it's possible to be
both sincere and wrong. But we must remember that for someone to think
himself God, especiallyin a fiercely monotheistic culture, and then to tell
others that their eternal destiny depended on believing in him, is no slight
flight of fantasy but the thoughts of a lunatic in the fullest sense. Was Jesus
Christ such a person?

36. Someone who believes he is Godsounds like someone todaybelieving himself
Napoleon. He would be deluded and self-deceived, and probably he would be
lockedup so he wouldn't hurt himself or anyone else. Yet in Jesus we don't
observe the abnormalities and imbalance that usually go along with being
deranged. His poise and composure would certainly be amazing if he were
insane.
Noyes and Kolb, in a medical text,' describe the schizophrenic as a person who
is more autistic than realistic. The schizophrenic desires to escape from the
world of reality. Let's face it; claiming to be God would certainly be a retreat
from reality.
In light of the other things we know about Jesus, it's hard to imagine that he
was mentally disturbed. Here is a man who spoke some of the most profound
sayings ever recorded. His instructions have liberated many individuals in
mental bond-age. Clark H. Pinnock asks:"Was he deluded about his
greatness,a paranoid, an unintentional deceiver, a schizophrenic? Again, the
skill and depth of his teachings support the case onlyfor his total mental
soundness. If only we were as sane as he!"8 A student at a California
university told me that his psychologyprofessorhad said in class that "all he
has to do is pick up the Bible and read portions of Christ's teaching to many
of his patients. That's all the counseling they need."
PsychiatristJ. T. Fisherstates:"If you were to take the sum total of all
authoritative articles ever written by the most qualified of psychologists and
psychiatrists on the subject of mental hygiene—if you were to combine them
and refine them and cleave out the excessverbiage—ifyou were to take the
whole of the meat and none of the parsley, and if you were to have these
unadulterated bits of pure scientific knowledge conciselyexpressedby the
most capable of living poets, you would have an awkwardand incomplete
summation of the Sermon on the Mount. And it would suffer immeasurably
through comparison. Fornearly two thousand years the Christian world has
been holding in its hands the complete answerto its restless and fruitless

37. yearnings. Here . . . rests the blueprint for successfulhuman life with
optimism, mental health, and contentment."9
C. S. Lewis writes: "The historicaldifficulty of giving for the life, sayings and
influence of Jesus anyexplanation that is not harder than the Christian
explanation is very great. The discrepancybetweenthe depth and sanity . . . of
His moral teaching and the rampant megalomania which must lie behind His
theologicalteaching unless He is indeed Godhas never been satisfactorily
explained. Hence the non-Christian hypotheses succeedone anotherwith the
restless fertility of bewilderment."10
Philip Schaff reasons:"Is such an intellect—clearas the sky, bracing as the
mountain air, sharp and penetrating as a sword, thoroughly healthy and
vigorous, always ready and always self-possessed—liableto a radical and most
serious delusion concerning his own characterand mission? Preposterous
imagination!"6
WAS HE LORD?
I cannot personallyconclude that Jesus was a liar or a lunatic. The only other
alternative is that he was the Christ, the Son of God, as he claimed. When I
discuss this with most Jewishpeople, it's interesting how they respond. They
usually tell me that Jesus was a moral, upright, religious leader, a goodman,
or some kind of prophet. I then share with them the claims Jesus made about
himself and then the material in this chapter on the trilemma (liar, lunatic, or
Lord). When I ask if they believe Jesus was a liar, there is a sharp "No!" Then
I ask, "Do you believe he was a lunatic?" The reply is "Of course not." "Do
you believe he is God?" Before I can geta breath in edgewise,there is a
resounding "Absolutely not." Yet one has only so many choices.
The issue with these three alternatives is not which is possible, for it is obvious
that all three are possible. But rather, the question is "Which is more
probable?" Who you decide Jesus Christ is must not be an idle intellectual
exercise. Youcannot put him on the shelf as a greatmoral teacher. That is not
a valid option. He is either a liar, a lunatic, or Lord and God. You must make
a choice. "But," as the Apostle John wrote, "these have been written that you

38. may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and"—more important—
"that believing you might have life in His name" (John 20:31 ).
The evidence is clearly in favor of Jesus as Lord. Some people, however, reject
this clearevidence because ofmoral implications involved. They don't want to
face up to the responsibility or implications of calling him Lord. (from More
than a Carpenter)
NOTES ON CHAPTER 2
1. C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: The MacMillanCompany,
1960), pp. 40-41.
2. F. J. A. Hort, Way, Truth, and the Life (New York: MacMillanand Co.,
1894), p. 207.
3. Kenneth ScottLatourette, A History of Christianity (New York: Harper
and Row, 1953), pp. 44, 48.
4. William E. Lecky, History of EuropeanMorals from Augustus to
Charlemagne (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1903), Vol. 2, pp. 8, 9.
5. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962). (Re-print from original 1910), p. 109
6. Philip Schaff, The Personof Christ (New York: American Tract Society,
1913), pp. 94-95;p. 97.
7. Arthur P. Noyes, and Lawrence C. Kolb, Modern Clinical
Psychiatry (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1958). (5thed.)
8. Clark H. Pinnock, SetForth Your Case (New Jersey:The
Craig Press, 1967),p. 62.
9. J. T. Fisher, and L. S. Hawley, A Few Buttons Missing (Philadelphia:
Lippincott, 1951), p. 273.

39. 10. C. S. Lewis, Miracles:A Preliminary Study (New York: The MacMillan
Company, 1947), p. 113.
RelatedResources:
Lewis' Trilemma - Lewis's trilemma is an apologetic argumenttraditionally
used to argue for the divinity of Jesus by arguing that the only alternatives
were that he was evil or deluded.[1] One version was popularised by
University of Oxford literary scholarand writer C. S. Lewis in a BBC radio
talk and in his writings. It is sometimes describedas the "Lunatic, Liar, or
Lord", or "Mad, Bad, or God" argument. It takes the form of a trilemma — a
choice among three options, eachof which is in some way difficult to accept.
(Readmore...)
C S Lewis 1950 essay, WhatAre We to Make of Jesus?
Mere Christianity (Wikipedia article) excerpt - Mere Christianity is a
theologicalbook by C. S. Lewis, adapted from a series ofBBC radio talks
made between1941 and 1944,[2]while Lewis was at Oxford during the
SecondWorld War.[3] Considereda classic ofChristian apologetics, the
transcripts of the broadcasts originallyappearedin print as three separate
pamphlets: The Case forChristianity (Broadcast Talks in the UK) (1942),
Christian Behaviour (1943), and Beyond Personality(1944).[4]
JoshMcDowell'sclassic "Morethan a Carpenter"
DANIEL AKIN
First mention of Jesus’family in Mark. It is not good.
• Hearing He is so swampedin His ministry and mission and apparently
unwilling to do

40. anything about it, even care for His own physical needs, they decide to 1) seize
Him, 2)
convinced (actually “saying”)He is out of His mind.”
• The word “seize” means to lay hold and is used elsewhere ofan “arrest.”
• The charge “He is out of his mind” is shocking and disturbing. It reveals
negatively that
they don’t understand Him or His mission. It reveals positively that they care
and are
concernedfor Him.
• However, as Wesselwellnotes, “In a culture in which honor and shame were
critically
important, there may also have been an attempt to prevent shame on the
family causedby
Jesus’…behavior”(EBC, 745).
• He was a religious fanatic who was hurting the family name and also was a
danger to
Himself. He had to be stopped. He needs a strait-jacketand padded cell.
Give that man
11
some drugs that will calm Him down. Oh, if they only knew what a disasterit
would
have been if they had been able to stop Him.

41. BARCLAY
THE VERDICT OF HIS OWN (Mark 3:20-21)
3:20-21 Jesus wentinto a house;and once againso dense a crowdcollected
that they could not even eatbread. When his own people heard What was
going on, they went out to restrain him, for they said, "He has takenleave of
his senses."
Sometimes a man drops a remark which cannot be interpreted otherwise than
as the product of bitter experience. Once when Jesus was enumerating the
things which a man might have to face for following him, he said, "A man's
foes will be those of his own household." (Matthew 10:36.)His ownfamily had
come to the conclusionthat he had takenleave of his senses andthat it was
time he was takenhome. Let us see if we can understand what made them feel
like that.
(i) Jesus had left home and the carpenter's business at Nazareth. No doubt it
was a flourishing business from which he could at leasthave made a living;
and quite suddenly he had flung the whole thing up and gone out to be a
wandering preacher. No sensible man, they must have been thinking, would
throw up a business where the money came in every week to become a
vagrant who had not any place to lay his head.
(ii) Jesus was obviously on the way to a head-on collisionwith the orthodox
leaders of his day. There are certainpeople who can do a man a greatdeal of
harm, people on whose right side it is better to keep, people whose opposition
can be very dangerous. No sensible man, they must have been thinking, would
ever getup againstthe powers that be, because he would know that in any
collisionwith them he would be bound to come off secondbest. No one could
take on the Scribes and the Pharisees andthe orthodox leaders and hope to
get awaywith it.
(iii) Jesus had newly started a little societyof his own--and a very queer
societyit was. There were some fishermen; there was a reformed tax-
collector;there was a fanaticalnationalist. They were not the kind of people

42. whom any ambitious man would particularly want to know. They certainly
were not the kind of people who would be any goodto a man who was seton a
career. No sensible man, they must have been thinking, would pick a crowd of
friends like that. They were definitely not the kind of people a prudent man
would want to getmixed up with.
By his actions Jesus had made it clearthat the three laws by which men tend
to organize their lives meant nothing to him.
(i) He had thrown away security. The one thing that most people in this world
want more than anything else is just that. They want above all things a job
and a position which are secure, and where there are as few material and
financial risks as possible.
(ii) He had thrown awaysafety. Mostpeople tend at all times to play safe.
They are more concernedwith the safetyof any course of actionthan with its
moral quality, its rightness or its wrongness. A course ofaction which involves
risk is something from which they instinctively shrink.
(iii) He had shownhimself utterly indifferent to the verdict of society. He had
shown that he did not much care what men said about him. In point of fact, as
H. G. Wells said, for most people "the voice of their neighbours is louder than
the voice of God." "What will people say?" is one of the first questions that
most of us are in the habit of asking.
What appalled Jesus'friends was the risks that he was taking, risks which, as
they thought, no sensible man would take.
When John Bunyan was in prison he was quite frankly afraid. "My
imprisonment," he thought, "might end on the gallows forought that I could
tell." He did not like the thought of being hanged. Then came the day when he
was ashamedof being afraid. "MethoughtI was ashamedto die with a pale
face and tottering knees for such a cause as this." So finally he came to a
conclusionas he thought of himself climbing up the ladder to the scaffold:
"Wherefore, thought I, I am for going on and venturing my eternalstate with
Christ whether I have comfort here or no; if God doth not come in, thought I,
I will leap off the ladder even blindfold into eternity, sink or swim, come

43. heaven, come hell; Lord Jesus, if thou wilt catchme, do: if not, I will venture
for thy name." That is preciselywhat Jesus was willing to do. I will venture
for thy name. That was the essence ofthe life of Jesus, andthat--not safety
and security--should be the motto of the Christian man and the mainspring of
the Christian life.
BRIAN BELL
THE VERDICT OF HIS OWN (Mark 3:20-21)
3:20-21 Jesus wentinto a house;and once againso dense a crowdcollected
that they could not even eatbread. When his own people heard What was
going on, they went out to restrain him, for they said, "He has takenleave of
his senses."
Sometimes a man drops a remark which cannot be interpreted otherwise than
as the product of bitter experience. Once when Jesus was enumerating the
things which a man might have to face for following him, he said, "A man's
foes will be those of his own household." (Matthew 10:36.)His ownfamily had
come to the conclusionthat he had takenleave of his senses andthat it was
time he was takenhome. Let us see if we can understand what made them feel
like that.
(i) Jesus had left home and the carpenter's business at Nazareth. No doubt it
was a flourishing business from which he could at leasthave made a living;
and quite suddenly he had flung the whole thing up and gone out to be a
wandering preacher. No sensible man, they must have been thinking, would
throw up a business where the money came in every week to become a
vagrant who had not any place to lay his head.
(ii) Jesus was obviously on the way to a head-on collisionwith the orthodox
leaders of his day. There are certainpeople who can do a man a greatdeal of
harm, people on whose right side it is better to keep, people whose opposition

44. can be very dangerous. No sensible man, they must have been thinking, would
ever getup againstthe powers that be, because he would know that in any
collisionwith them he would be bound to come off secondbest. No one could
take on the Scribes and the Pharisees andthe orthodox leaders and hope to
get awaywith it.
(iii) Jesus had newly started a little societyof his own--and a very queer
societyit was. There were some fishermen; there was a reformed tax-
collector;there was a fanaticalnationalist. They were not the kind of people
whom any ambitious man would particularly want to know. They certainly
were not the kind of people who would be any goodto a man who was seton a
career. No sensible man, they must have been thinking, would pick a crowd of
friends like that. They were definitely not the kind of people a prudent man
would want to getmixed up with.
By his actions Jesus had made it clearthat the three laws by which men tend
to organize their lives meant nothing to him.
(i) He had thrown away security. The one thing that most people in this world
want more than anything else is just that. They want above all things a job
and a position which are secure, and where there are as few material and
financial risks as possible.
(ii) He had thrown awaysafety. Mostpeople tend at all times to play safe.
They are more concernedwith the safetyof any course of actionthan with its
moral quality, its rightness or its wrongness. A course ofaction which involves
risk is something from which they instinctively shrink.
(iii) He had shownhimself utterly indifferent to the verdict of society. He had
shown that he did not much care what men said about him. In point of fact, as
H. G. Wells said, for most people "the voice of their neighbours is louder than
the voice of God." "What will people say?" is one of the first questions that
most of us are in the habit of asking.
What appalled Jesus'friends was the risks that he was taking, risks which, as
they thought, no sensible man would take.

45. When John Bunyan was in prison he was quite frankly afraid. "My
imprisonment," he thought, "might end on the gallows forought that I could
tell." He did not like the thought of being hanged. Then came the day when he
was ashamedof being afraid. "MethoughtI was ashamedto die with a pale
face and tottering knees for such a cause as this." So finally he came to a
conclusionas he thought of himself climbing up the ladder to the scaffold:
"Wherefore, thought I, I am for going on and venturing my eternalstate with
Christ whether I have comfort here or no; if God doth not come in, thought I,
I will leap off the ladder even blindfold into eternity, sink or swim, come
heaven, come hell; Lord Jesus, if thou wilt catchme, do: if not, I will venture
for thy name." That is preciselywhat Jesus was willing to do. I will venture
for thy name. That was the essence ofthe life of Jesus, andthat--not safety
and security--should be the motto of the Christian man and the mainspring of
the Christian life.
CHRIS BENFIELD
The Perplexity after the Call (20-21)– No doubt this was a time of great
excitement and anticipation for the twelve, but their moment of peaceful
serenity is short lived. Notice:
A. The Annoyance (20) – And the multitude cometh togetheragain, so that
they could not so much as eatbread. I fear to sound negative regarding the
Lord’s work, but the disciples soonfound it hard to even have a meal. Jesus’
popularity had grownsuch that they were continually bombarded by those
who soughtHim, desiring to receive something from Him. No doubt the
disciples had to learn to dealwith such demands, and find a way to avoid
becoming angry or disgruntled by the crowds that continually gathered.

46.  Serving the Lord isn’t always easy, and it canbe quite demanding at times.
We too must learn to deal with the expectations of others and the constant
distractions. We must stay close to the Lord for strength and compassion. I
never want to developa negative attitude about serving the Lord and His
church. A disgruntled pastoronce said, “Ministry would be easyif it wasn’t
for the people.” He failed to realize that “people” were his focus and reason
for ministry!
B. The Assumption (21) – And when his friends heard of it, they went out to
lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself. We have already
discoveredthe troubles Jesus endured with the
May 10, 2017
P a s t o r C h r i s B e n f i e l d – F e l l o w s h i p M i s s i o n a r y B a p t i s t
C h u r c h
Page 5
Pharisees,but they weren’tthe only ones who were skepticalofJesus and His
ministry. Even His friends and family questionedHis motives and actions.
Those who knew Him well thought He had lost His mind. These came in an
attempt “to reasonwith Jesus and convince Him to abandon the journey He
was pursuing.” They wanted to convince Jesus to give up His efforts and come
home.

47.  Don’t be surprised when others, even those closestto you, fail to understand
or appreciate your efforts for the Lord. Like the distractions from the crowds,
we must also learn to deal with, and overcome the negative comments and
assumptions regarding our service. Those who are not following the Lord, or
serving in a similar way, will never understand what you are trying to
accomplish. We cannot allow the actions or opinions of others hinder our
efforts.
Conclusion:I hope you have been challengedand encouragedby our study
today. The Lord has a work for every believer. If you are savedby His grace,
there is a place of service for you. There will be obstaclesto overcome, and
opposition to face, but nothing compares to being used of the Lord according
to His plan.
If you sense the Lord is leading you into an area of service, I encourage youto
respond to His call in obedient submission. If you are yet unsaved, come to
Him by faith and receive salvation.
BRIAN BILL
1. Friends and family thought he was deranged.
Look at Mark 3:20-21:“Thenhe went home, and the crowdgathered again,
so that they could not even eat. And when his family heard it, they went out to
seize him, for they were saying, ‘He is out of his mind.’” We’ll come back to
the family of Jesus in our text for next week. Don’tmiss the obvious
application that if you stand up for Jesus your own friends and family may
turn on you.

48. 2. Religious police thought He was demonized.
While His family thought He was mad, the scribes thought He was bad. His
brothers and sisters thought he was derangedwhile the religious crowd
claimed he was demonized. Remember that Mark 3:6 says the Pharisees and
the Herodians were plotting to destroy Jesus. And now the Scribes try to take
him out.
News about Jesus had reachedall the way to the capital city of Jerusalem,
locatedabout 90 miles away. Making the severalday journey, the scribes, who
served as the religious police, confront Christ by making a very evil
accusationin verse 22: “And the scribes who came down from Jerusalemwere
saying, ‘He is possessedby Beelzebul,’and ‘by the prince of demons he casts
out the demons.’”
Notice they don’t deny that Jesus heals the diseasedor that He casts out
demons. Instead, they try to discount His power and to destroy His prestige.
The New Living Translationrenders it this way: “He’s possessedby Satan, the
prince of demons. That’s where he gets the powerto castout demons.” Their
insulting and vile attack is two-pronged and is designedto turn public opinion
againstJesus.
1. They sayJesus is possessedby Beelzebul.
The religious leaders often made this accusationas seenin John 8:48: “The
Jews answeredhim, ‘Are we not right in saying you are a Samaritan and have
a demon?’” But here they are not saying he has an ordinary demon but that
Satanhimself has takenpossessionofhim. They use a very nasty name that
comes from the ancient Canaanites, meaning the “lord of the dung flies” or
the “lord of filth.”

49. Some of you are thinking of the words to the classic song by Queencalled,
“BohemianRhapsody.” I went back and listened to this rock opera from my
high schoolyears and was creepedout when I realized that I used to sing it
loudly with the help of the 8-track in my dad’s truck. Here are the words:
“Beelzebubhas a devil put aside for me, for me.” The scribes were saying that
Beelzebub was inside Jesus.
2. They sayJesus casts outdemons by the prince of demons.
The word “prince” refers to the chief demon and is another way of saying he
bows to Beelzebub and serves Satan.
A. B. BRUCE
Verse 21
Mark 3:21 introduces a new scene into the lively drama. The statementis
obscure partly owing to its brevity (Fritzsche), and it is made obscurerby a
piety which is not willing to acceptthe surface meaning (so Maldonatus—
“hunc locum difficiliorem pietas facit”), which is that the friends of Jesus,
having heard of what was going on—wonderful cures, greatcrowds, incessant
activity—setout from where they were ( ἐξῆλθον) with the purpose of taking
Him under their care ( κρατῆσαι αὐτόν), their impression, not concealed(
ἔλεγον γὰρ, they had begun to say), being that He was in an unhealthy state of
excitement bordering on insanity ( ἐξέστη). Recentcommentators, German
and English, are in the main agreedthat this is the true sense.—οἱ παρʼ αὐτοῦ
means either specificallyHis relatives (“sui” Vulg(21), οἱ οἰκεῖοι α.—
Theophy.), so Raphel, Wetstein, Kypke, Loesner, with citations from Greek
authors, Meyerand Weiss, identifying the parties here spokenof with those
referred to in Mark 3:31; or, more generally, persons well disposedtowards
Jesus, anouter circle of disciples (Schanz and Keil).— ἀκούσαντες:not to be

50. restrictedto what is mentioned in Mark 3:20; refers to the whole Galilean
ministry with its cures and crowds, and constantstrain. Therefore the friends
might have come from a distance, Nazareth, e.g., starting before Jesus
descendedfrom the hill. That their arrival happened just then was a
coincidence.— ἔλεγονγὰρ: for they were saying, might refer to others than
those who came to lay hold of Jesus—to messengers who brought them news
of what was going on (Bengel), or it might refer quite impersonally to a report
that had gone abroad(“rumor exierat,” Grotius), or it might even refer to the
Pharisees.But the reference is almostcertainly to the friends. Observe the
parallelism betweenοἱ παρʼ αὐτοῦ, ἔλεγον γὰρ, ὅτι ἐξέστη and οἱ γραμματεῖς,
οἱ … ἔλεγον, ὅτι βεελ. ἔχει in Mark 3:22 (Fritzsche points this out in a long
and thorough discussionof the whole passage).— ἐξέστη:various ways of
evading the idea suggestedby this word have been resortedto. It has been
referred to the crowd= the crowd is mad, and won’t let Him alone. Viewedas
referring to Jesus it has been taken = He is exhausted, or He has left the place
= they came to detain Him, for they heard that He was going or had gone.
Both these are suggestedby Euthy. Zig. Doubtless the reference is to Jesus,
and the meaning that in the opinion of His friends He was in a state of
excitement bordering on insanity (cf. Mark 2:12, Mark 5:42, Mark 6:51).
δαίμονα ἔχει (Theophy.) is too strong, though the Jews apparently identified
insanity with possession. Festus saidof St. Paul: “Much learning doth make
thee mad”. The friends of Jesus thought that much benevolence had put Him
into a state of enthusiasm dangerous to the health both of body and mind.
Note:Christ’s healing ministry createda need for theories about it. Herod
had his theory (Matthew 14), the friends of Jesus had theirs, and the Pharisees
theirs: John redivivus, disorderedmind, Satanic possession. Thatwhich called
forth so many theories must have been a greatfact.
ALAN CARR
Mark 3:20-30

51. THE SERVANT UNDER ATTACK
Intro: Have you ever been misunderstood? Have you ever been
misrepresented? Has anyone ever takenyour words and motives and twisted
them around and used them againstyou? If you live long enough in this world
you are going to face that kind of a personal attack.
I can remember an instance in another church when a certain group in
that church took my preaching tapes and listenedto them to find words and
phrases they disagreedwith. These disagreeable sayings were broughtup in a
business meeting and used to attack me personally. It hurt at the time, but it
was a goodlessonto me. It servedto remind me that God’s servants will be
attacked. It also reminded me to think about my words before I say them
because I might be calledon to give an account of them.
The earthly ministry of the Lord Jesus was surrounded by constant
controversy. Nearlyeveryone He met misunderstood Him and what He came
to this world to do. Nearlyeveryone was guilty of misrepresenting His words
and His works. The things He did and said in love were used to attack Him in
hate!
We have already seenthat the religious leaders had no use for Jesus.
They hated Him and they hated everything He saidand did. They despised
Him so much that they actually plotted to have Him killed, Mark 3:6.
This passage showsJesusbeing attack by two groups of people. Both of
these attacks have something to teachus about our own walk with the Lord.
If you are a followerof the Lord Jesus, youwill come under attack!That
is His promise to His followers, John15:18;1 John 3:13. No one likes to think
about being hated for their faith, but you shouldn’t be surprised when the
devil and His crowd attacks youand treats you like they treated Jesus.
Let’s look in on these verses today and see the kind of trials our Lord
endured. Watching Him will help us when we face our time of persecution.
Notice the attacks Jesusfacedas I preach on the subject The ServantUnder
Attack.

52. I. v. 20-21 HIS FRIENDS
ATTACKED HIS SANITY
(Ill. The first attack in this passage comesfrom a very unlikely source:His
friends and family. We know it is His family because they cannotget in to see
Him because ofthe greatcrowds that have gathered around Him. So, they
send word to Him to let Him know they want to see Him, v. 31-35. We will
look at those verses in detail in our next study.)
A. Their Reasons – Jesus has just returned from an all-night prayer meeting
in the mountains, Luke 6:12, and from choosing the twelve men who would
serve as His disciples, v. 13-18. He and His men have returned to town and
have entered into a house, v. 19. They are hoping to get some much needed
rest.
Their plans are shattered by a multitude of people who come to Jesus and
His men for help. They are so busy ministering to the crowds that they do not
even have time to eat a meal.
When His friends hear about what He is doing, their first thought is that
Jesus has gone crazy. The phrase, “He is beside Himself” means exactly that!
Why would they think Jesus was crazy? Look at the evidence:
· He claims to be God – Mark 2:5
· He calls men to follow Him around the country to preachthe Word –
Mark 3:13-18
· He refuses to restand take care of Himself – Mark 3:20
· He refuses to work as a carpenter, choosing rather to wander around
the country and preach.
· He doesn’t work for a living, but trusts God to supply His needs.

53. · He draws such vast crowds that there is a danger of His being trampled
and crushed by the crowds – Mark 3:9. The dangerwas so realthat Jesus had
a boat standing by in case He needed to escape the press of the crowds.
· All the intellectual and learned men in Israelbelieve that He is crazy too
– Mark 3:22.
His relatives misunderstood Jesus and His ministry. Because they
couldn’t understand Him, they thought He was off His rocker.
(Ill. It amazes me that there are people in our world who think just like the
Lord’s family. Forinstance, a family has a son or daughter and that young
person is starting to spread their wings a little. They are going out and doing
things they were taught not to do. Often, the parents will say, “Oh, they’re
just sowing their wild oats. They’ll settle down in a little while.”
You take that same young personand you let them get saved. They start
living for the Lord and doing crazy things like going to church three times a
week, praying, reading their Bible, paying their tithes, living clean, dressing
right and acting like a Christian.
Those same parents who excusedthe sin in their child’s life cannot cope
with them being sold out for the Lord. They will saythings like, “ThatJesus
stuff has gone to their heads!The have become a fanatic! That religion has
made them crazy! Those people over at that church have brainwashed my
child. I just don’t understand why he has to live like he does. I worry about
him so much.” You would almostthink they would rather their child live for
the devil! Of course, as long as their child is living worse than they do, they
don’t feel condemned for their own hellish lifestyle. But, you let their child
start living a clean, holy life and that ungodly parent becomes ashamedofthe
way they are living. They can’t stand being shown up by someone younger
then themselves.
You might as well come to terms with it today, not everyone is happy that
you gotsaved! There will be some people in your family and among your
friends that will criticize you for living for Jesus. Theywill call you fanatic,

54. Jesus freak, religious nut, holier than thou, Holy Roller, preacher, deacon, etc.
Of course, Jesus saidit would be this way, Matt. 10:34-38.
Don’t let that crowdget to you! They called D.L. Moody “Crazy Moody”,
because ofhis zealfor the Lord. They said Paul was “mad”, Acts 26:24. They
said Jesus “hatha devil”, Mark 3:22. They said the same thing about Martin
Luther, John Bunyan and John Wesley. If serving Jesus is madness, then we
need more “SanctifiedInsanity” in the church today!)
B. Their Remedy – These people came to get Jesus. Theycame to stage an
intervention. The phrase “lay hold on Him” literally means “to take by force,
to arrest”. These people came to grab Jesus, take Him back to Nazarethso
lock Him awayuntil His thinking was straightenedout. If they had had a
mental institution in those days, Jesus would have been lockedup by these
people.
(Ill. Don’t be shockedatwhat your family and friends will do to getyou off
this “Jesus kick”. Theywill try to talk you out of your commitment. They will
try to make you feelguilty for putting Jesus and the church ahead of them.
They might even try to tempt you to sin. They will try anything they can to
draw you awayfrom the Lord. Doing so makes them look better in their own
eyes!
When their attacks come, staystrong in your commitment to Him, 1 Cor.
15:58;Gal. 6:9. He savedyour soul; He changed your life; He is your Lord;
not them. He will help you to stand for Him and live for Him in spite of what
anyone else may throw across yourpath.)
II. v. 22-30 HIS FOES
ATTACKED HIS SPIRITUALITY

55. (Ill. While His loved ones are on the outside trying to stage an intervention to
save Jesus from Himself, the scribes are on the inside listening to Jesus and
watching Him work. These men do not attack His sanity, they attack His
spirituality. They do not think Jesus is insane, they think He is demon
possessed. Let’s examine this attack.)
A. v. 22 The Attack – These men considerthe words and works ofthe Lord
and they say“He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of devils castethHe out
devils.” They attribute the miracles of the Lord Jesus to the power of the
devil. Beyond that, they accuse Jesus ofworking under the influence of
“Beelzebub”. The name literally means “The Lord of Flies or The Lord of
Filth.” Beelzebub was a loathsome, wickeddemon associatedwith all things
dirty and filthy. It was a cruel, heartless attack. Why would they say
something so foolish and so cruel?
· If they acknowledgethat Jesus is working His miracles in the power of
God, then they will be obligatedto follow Him too.
· If they acknowledgethat Jesus is working His miracles in the power of
God, they will have to admit that their old system of believe is dead and is
being replaced.
· If they acknowledgeJesusand what He is doing, they are out of business
and they know it! They will have to change and that is not about to happen.
So, they attack Jesus and accuse Him of being in league with the devil. If
this charge sticks, theycan undermine His ministry with the people and draw
awayHis crowds.
(Ill. It is easyto attack people you don’t agree with. You don’t need facts;just
make a few wild accusations and people who are not spiritual will take the
bait. When that takes place a life, a reputation, a family, or a ministry can be
destroyed.

56. Beware that you are not in the business of attacking others. When you do,
you are truly doing the work of the devil! He is a destroyer 1 Pet. 5:8, and he
loves to enlist others in the destruction business!)
B. v. 23-27 The Answer – Jesus calls His attackersto Him and He totally
destroys their arguments. His uses three illustrations from life that prove
Satancannot be in the business of casting out Satan.
1. v. 24 A SecularIllustration – A kingdom in division is a kingdom that
cannot stand. When there is civil war and strife within a kingdom, the
stability of that kingdom is compromised and that kingdom is more likely to
fall. For a kingdom to be strong it must be united.
Satan is out to win the battle betweenhimself and the Lord. He is not
going to do anything to weakenhimself in that fight. Forhim to castout his
own demons would be counterproductive.
2. v. 25 A SocialIllustration – A house that exists in division is a house that
cannot stand. Children who grow up in a home where mom and dad fight like
cats and dogs do not stand a chance. A marriage that faces a constantbarrage
of fighting is a marriage that cannot stand. A home is not a home unless it is
filled with love, unity and peace.
Again, Satan is out to win! He is not in the business of fighting with
himself. It doesn’tmake sense!
(Ill. That which is true in a kingdom and in a home is also true in the church.
Unity gives us greatpowerwith God and againstour enemies. Division on the
other hand destroys us from within! It is imperative that the church maintain
a unity of love and purpose in the midst of differing opinions, 1 Cor. 1:10;
Phil. 1:27; 1 Pet. 3:8-9.)

57. 3. A Spiritual Illustration – Jesus says that you cannot rob a welldefended
home unless you first tie up the defender of that home. The illustration is
clear, Satandefends his kingdom, but Jesus had the powerto invade Satan’s
kingdom and deliver whomsoeverhe desires from the devil’s grip. Jesus has
powerover the devil!
(Ill. It may be that you are in the grip of sin and the devil. Do not despair!
Jesus is able to set you free. He is more powerful than Satanand He can
invade the fortress of your heart and break the shackles thathave you bound.
He is able to setthe sinner free! (Ill. Rev. 5:9; Gal. 4:5; 1 Pet. 1:18-19)
It may be that you have someone whomyou love that is in the grip of
sin and the devil. Again, do not despair! Our Lord is able to touch their heart
and setthem free. He is able to break the bondage of their sinful addictions
and give them new life in Himself. Neverstop believing and never stop
praying. The Lord knows where they are He knows how to reachthem.)
C. v. 28-30 The Alarm – These religious men do not see the terrible spiritual
danger they are in. They have lookedat God’s Messiahand called Him the
servant of the devil. They have lookedthat the answerto all the prayers of the
saints; the fulfillment of the Law and the prophets and they have accusedHim
of being demon possessed.
In response to their accusations, Jesusissues a very serious warning to
these men. He warns them that they are in danger of crossing the line with
God. They are in dangerof committing an unpardonable sin.
This matter of the unpardonable sin has causedmany people much worry
over the years. Many people have talked to me concernedthat they or others
may have committed this sin. More people than I can remember have come to
me worriedbecause they think they are guilty of this sin.

58. Let’s take a look at these verses and talk about this matter of the
unpardonable sin for a few minutes. Perhaps we canshed some light on what
it is and how a personcan avoid committing it.
1. v. 28 The Sin That CanBe Forgiven – Jesus makes a glorious statementin
this verse. “All” manner of sins and blasphemes can be forgiven! Praise the
Lord. Take any sin you may have committed; any blaspheme you may have
spokenor thought; and it can be forgiven. No matter how vile the sin or the
sinner, forgiveness is available if a person will just come to Jesus and ask, 1
John 1:9; Col. 2:13; 1 John 1:7; Isa. 1:18. When sin is brought to Him, He
does awaywith it forever, Psa. 103:12;John 1:29; Heb. 9:26.
Pleasedo not allow some sin or some wickeddeed stand betweenyou
and Heaven. Regardlessofwhat you are what you have done, He will forgive
you and He will not turn you away!(Ill. If the Lord will take Saul of Tarsus,
He will take anybody – 1 Tim. 1:12-15.)
2. v. 29 The Sin That CanNever Be Forgiven – Having told us that all sin can
be forgiven, Jesus now tells us that “blaspheme againstthe Holy Ghosthath
never forgiveness.”The word “blaspheme” means “to speak evil of”. The
scribes were guilty of speaking evil of the Holy Ghost.
How? Jesus was healing the sick, casting out devils and preaching
the Word of God all in the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus did not work in this
world as God in the flesh, though He was. Jesus workedin this world as a
Spirit filled man. When the scribes attributed the work of the Spirit to the
devil, they were guilty of blaspheme againstthe Spirit. Jesus saidthey were in
danger of committing a sin that could not be forgiven!
The question that arises here is this: is it possible to commit this
same unpardonable sin today? The answeris no! This sin could only have
been committed by people living in those days when Jesus walkedthe earth.
This sin could only be committed by people who lookedinto His eyes, saw His
miracles, heard His words, experiencedHis love and grace in action, and said
that He was of the devil.

59. The only way this sin could be committed today is for Jesus to be
here in the flesh, doing the same works He was doing then. The unpardonable
sin, as it is describedin these verses, cannotbe committed today! Don’t let the
devil, some preacheror some Christian scare you with this accusation. It is
impossible to commit this sin today. Even if you could commit it, you would
care. If you are concernedabout the condition of your soul, you have not
committed the unpardonable sin, because the Lord is still speaking to your
heart!
(Ill. However, there is a sense in which a personcan commit a similar sin
that is also unpardonable. You see, eventhough Jesus is not in this world
physically, the Holy Spirit is still testifying of Him, John 15:26. The Spirit of
God beings conviction on the heart of the lost person, John 16:7-11;John
6:44.
When the Spirit of God does this, He is calling the sinner to come to
Jesus. If the sinner comes, repenting of his sins and believing on Jesus, that
sinner will be forgiven and saved. However, if that sinner turns a deaf earto
the callof the Spirit and harden his heart againstthe will of God, that sinner
will continue on his way to Hell. There is no “Plan B”. God only speaks
through Is Spirit!
If you rejectHis call, the Spirit of God may callagain and He may
not. If He does, it is pure grace. If He does not, it was just grace that caused
Him to call the first time anyway.
The only unforgivable sin in this day is saying “no” to the callof the
Holy Spirit for the last time. When He comes calling and you say no for the
last time, He will abandon you to your choice and He will allow you to go to
Hell!
Pleasedon’t walk away from the Lord today. If He is calling you to
come to Him, now is the time to come, 2 Cor. 6:2; Isa. 55:6.)

60. Conc:Are you under attack for your faith? Are you being misunderstood and
misrepresented? If you are being attackedfor your faith in Jesus, you are in
goodcompany. You ought to come today and thank Him that you are being
counted worthy to suffer with Him, Matt. 5:11-12. You should also pray that
He will help you to be steadfastfor His glory.
If you are lost and He has been calling you to come to Him for salvation, I
would suggestto you that you say“Yes” to His calltoday. Come while He is
calling. Come while you canbe saved.
If there are needs, this altar is open today. The Lord stands ready to
receive you and to help you.
RON DANIEL
When you're following after God, your priorities become out of whack with
the the world's priorities. The world tells you, "Take care ofyourself, look out
for number one." But in ministry, you're serving people. The bigger the
ministry, the more people you're serving, and the less time and energyyou
have to devote to yourself. Jesus and the disciples didn't even have time to eat.
His family said, "He's gone nutty. He's not even eating!"
When you follow God's path, people will thing that you've lost your senses.
When you sell everything to go be a missionary. When you spend your
vacationpreaching the gospelinsteadof going to Ft. Lauderdale. When you
give the little that you have to someone who's gotnothing, the world thinks
you're truly out of your mind.

61. beside himself
Mark 3:21
3:21 beside himself. Despite His wonderful works of healing, and His strong
Bible-centeredpreaching, His enemies accusedHim of being in league with
Beelzebub (i.e., Satan, Mark 3:22) and His friends thought He had lostHis
mind. Paul also was lateraccusedby the Roman governorFestus of being
mad (Acts 26:24). If the greatestpreacherand even Christ Himself were
accusedofsuch things by the world, we must expect the same if we are
faithful to His teachings (John15:20).
https://www.icr.org/books/defenders/5871/
DAVE GUZIK
20-21)An accusationfrom His own family.
Then the multitude came togetheragain, so that they could not so much as eat
bread. But when His own people heard about this, they went out to lay hold of
Him, for they said, “He is out of His mind.”
a. So that they could not so much as eatbread: The idea is that the huge
crowds so pressedupon Jesus and the disciples that they did not have the time
or the space to eat.
b. His own people: This refers to Jesus’family and close friends. Since Jesus
grew up in Galilee and practiced His ministry there, many knew Him before
this time of wide popularity.
c. He is out of His mind: There was at leastsome reasonwhy some from His
own people thought that Jesus was out of His mind.
· He left a prosperous business to become an itinerant preacher.

62. · The religious and political leaders plotted to murder Him, but He did not
back down (Mark 3:6). They were afraid for Jesus’sake.
· Huge crowds beganto follow Jesus, and they knew how such fame and
attention and celebrity could go to someone’s head(Mark 3:7-8).
· He showedspiritual power and ministry He had never really shown earlier
in His life (Mark 3:9-11). Was something very wrong?
· He picked such an unlikely group of disciples that His judgment could fairly
be questioned (Mark 3:13-19).
· But there was one last straw:the pressures of this incredible ministry made
Him miss regular mealtimes (they could not so much as eat bread).
i. Jesus constantlyfacedthe rejectionof the religious and political leaders of
the day, and in a way their hatred of Jesus made sense – He actually
threatened their status quo. Undoubtedly, it was far more painful and
challenging for Jesus to deal with the way His own people rejectedHim. It
isn’t easyto be profoundly misunderstood as you try to walk with God.
“When the Lord said ‘a man’s enemies will be those in his own home’ (see
Matthew 10:36), He may well have been speaking from bitter experience.”
(Cole)
ii. The brothers of Jesus didn’t believe in Him until after His resurrection, and
during His earthly ministry they prodded Him to prove Himself (John 7:3-5).
MATTHEW HENRY
The care of his relations concerning him (Mark 3:21) When his friends in
Capernaum heard how he was followed, and what pains he took, they went
out, to lay hold on him, and fetch him home, for they said, He is beside
himself. 1. Some understand it of an absurd preposterous care, whichhad
more in it of reproachto him than of respectand so we must take it as we

63. read it, He is beside himself either they suspectedit themselves, or it was
suggestedto them, and they gave credit to the suggestion, thathe was gone
distracted, and therefore his friends ought to bind him, and put him in a dark
room, to bring him to his right mind again. His kindred, many of them, had
mean thoughts of him (John 7:5), and were willing to hearkento this ill
constructionwhich some put upon his greatzeal, and to conclude him crazed
in his intellects, and under that pretence to take him off from his work. The
prophets were called mad fellows, 2 Kings 9:11. 2. Others understand it of a
well-meaning care and then they read exeste--"He fainteth, he has no time to
eat bread, and therefore his strength will fail him he will be stifled with the
crowdof people, and will have his spirits quite exhaustedwith constant
speaking, and the virtue that goes out of him in his miracles and therefore let
us use a friendly violence with him, and get him a little breathing-time." In his
preaching-work, as wellas his suffering-work, he was attackedwith, Master,
spare thyself. Note, They who go on with vigour and zeal in the work of God,
must expect to meet with hindrances, both from the groundless disaffectionof
their enemies, and the mistakenaffections of their friends, and they have need
to stand upon their guard againstboth.
LANGE
Mark 3:21. When His (friends).—This very important feature in the
evangelicalnarrative is peculiar to Mark. According to Baur, Mark here
represents the mother of Jesus, with His brethren, as confederate with the
Pharisees.Meyer, on the contrary, shows that their opinion, ὅτι ἐξέστι, was
honest error (not wickedness), andthat their design was to provide for
Christ’s safety. But if they really had thought Him beside Himself, their care
for his safetywould have takenthe form of an attempt forcibly to seize and
detain Him. We regardthe step as having been the result of timid policy. At
the crisis, when Christ’s breachwith the powerful party of the Pharisees was
decided, they sought by a fiction to remove Him from publicity and a

64. supposedextreme danger. We may regard the adoptive brethren of Jesus as
the representatives ofthis idea; but it is evident that Mary also was drawn
into this error of worldly policy (see the notes on Matthew). It is quite in
keeping with the characterof such a policy, that these brethren soon
afterwards soughtto thrust Him forward, John 7:1 seq.—The householdof
Jesus did not come from Nazarethto Capernaum, as Meyer supposes, but
from the house of their abode in Capernaum to the place where the crowds
were thronging Him. That the Pharisees wouldhere come againsthim with a
public accusationwould very wellbe knownin Capernaum.—Forthey said.—
Themselves, ofcourse, the householdof Jesus;and not, as Olshausenthinks,
“it was said” by the malicious Pharisees, orby others generally(Ewald), or by
messengers(Bengel).—Heis beside Himself.—Not, as Luther says, “He will be
beside Himself;” but not, with Meyer, “He is mad.” It is designedly
ambiguous, inasmuch as the ἐξέστη may mean, in a goodsense, the being for a
seasonraptinto ecstasyby religious enthusiasm (2 Cor. 5:13), as well as, in a
bad sense, the being permanently insanc. In His ecstasy, He is no longer
master of Himself. The involuntary, religious μαίνεσθαι is, indeed, not an Old-
Testamentidea, but a Greek one:it was, however, current in the Jewish
popular notion; and the more ambiguous it was, the better it would suit the
aim of their policy. It must not be confounded, as Theophylact confounds it,
with the allegationofChrist’s opponents. 11 On the contrary, if His opponents
should saythat He was raging in demoniacalpossession, the politic answer
was at hand, “He is, indeed, beside Himself, but it is in a gooddemoniacal
ecstasy.”According to Meyer, this circumstance cannot be reconciledwith the
previous history of Mary in Matthew and Luke. The supposition of Olshausen
(and Lange), that this was a moment of weakness in her life, he thinks very
precarious. And Pius IX. would agree with him, though for a different reason.
For the various interpretations of the passage, see Meyer. Euthym. Zigab.:
“Some envious ones said so.” Schöttgenand Wolf: “The disciples said that the
people were mad.” Grotius: “Reportsaidthat he had fainted.” Kuinoel: “It
was the message to come home to eat, for maxime defatigatus est,” etc.

65. JOHN MACARTHUR
Jesus:Liar, Lunatic, or Lord?
Sermons Mark 3:20–35 41-15 Oct25, 2009
Play Audio
Add to Playlist
A + A - Reset
I was saying to someone the other day that I’m not sure that it is nearly as
important for you that I preachas it is for me that I preach. This is the
passionof my life, the joy of my life. And for the privilege of preparation
itself, if I never preached, I would give everything in this world because
there’s no joy like the joy of digging deep into the discoveryof the truth
revealedin Scripture, and especiallywhen it has to do with the most
compelling personof all, the incarnate God, the Lord Jesus Christ.
And thus, we find ourselves againin a Gospel, and it is now the Gospelof
Mark. And I invite you to take your Bible and, if you will, open your Bible to
Mark chapter 3. Mark chapter 3. We’re going to be looking at the lastsection
of Mark chapter3, verses 20 through verse 35. It’s a prolongedsection, and
it’s a story with a story. So, we’re going to have to split it into two weeks.I
would – I would have to let you know that this week will be, in some ways, the
simpler of the two, and next week perhaps the more challenging, and the more
compelling, and the more stunning teaching. But these are two very important
portions of Scripture that are blended togetherby Mark in a unique way as a
story within a story.

66. Many of you will be familiar with the name C. S. Lewis. C. S. Lewis, the great
writer, the greatthinker, the greatChristian apologisthas written many,
many things that all of us are very, very familiar with. And in his effort at
apologetics, he came up with a paradigm that has probably become somewhat
well known, maybe it’s more widely known even than its author – namely C.
S. Lewis.
Lewis was concernedthat there were too many people who were saying about
Jesus that He was a goodteacher;that He was a noble, moral leader;that He
was a religious revolutionary; that He was a man of immense compassionand
greatwisdom. And there were many people in His time, as there always have
been, and there certainly are today, who want to throw all kinds of laurels at
Jesus and all kinds of accolades,and paint Him as this nice, and noble, and
compassionate, andkind, insightful, exceptionalteacher. C. S. Lewis was
convinced that that is one option that is not possible. That is not possible.
“Thatis not a possible considerationof Jesus” he said. He could not be a good
man; He could not be a moral man; He could not be a religious teacher;He
could not be a trustworthy leader; He could not be wise;He could not be a
spiritual mentor only, because of one very important matter, and it is this: He
claimed to be God. And as soonas He claimed to be God, he eliminated
Himself from that category, because goodpeople, wise people, sensible people
don’t think they’re God, and they don’t want you to think they’re God.
Jesus has even been deemed, by many people, as very humble, meek and mild.
Well, humility is not compatible with declaring that you’re the God of the
universe, that you’re the Creator, that you have been alive eternally, that you
made everything that is in existence, and that you are the final Judge of
everyone, and you will reign over everything forever and ever.
“As soonas Jesus declaredthat He was Godthe Son, that He had the same
nature as God, as soonas He said, ‘If you’ve seenMe, you’ve seenGod,’it was
no longer possible,” saidC. S. Lewis, “to simply designate Him as a good
teacher. That is not open as an option. Good, sensible, wise men don’t make
such outrageous claims.”

67. C. S. Lewis then said, “One of three things is true” - and you will remember
this. He said, “He is either a lunatic, on the level of somebody who thinks he’s
a poachedegg;or He is a liar, at such a calculatedand cleverand extreme
level as to probably be unequaled as a purveyor of deception;or He is Lord.
But,” said Lewis, “forgetthe patronizing nonsense that He’s a goodteacher;
that’s not an option.”
Now, I can’t be sure about it, but I have a sneaking suspicionthat C. S. Lewis
may have discoveredthat paradigm in Mark 3, because, ofall things in this
passage, in verse 21, Jesus’family calls Him a lunatic. In verse 22, the scribes,
the religious leaders, say, “He’s possessedby Beelzebul,” and thus they call
Him a liar who claims to be from God but, in fact, is from Satan.
Well, on the other hand, finally the testimony of the Holy Spirit down in verse
29, of course, is implied, and the testimony of the Holy Spirit is that He is
Lord of all. So, those are the options.
So, if you came to church today, and you think you have an acceptable view of
Jesus, and you’re here to give Him some honor as a goodteacheror as a great
religious leader, as a righteous man, you don’t have that option. You’ve got to
join one of these three categories.
Now, the New Testamentis written, clearly, to make it obvious to any reader
that Jesus is not a lunatic. Lunatics don’t healsick people, raise dead people,
and dominate demons. Lunatics don’t speak the way Jesus spoke,think the
way He thought. Lunatics don’t act the way He acted. Lunatics don’t attract
women and children. Lunatics aren’t marked by kindness and mercy and
compassion.
Nor is Jesus a liar. Nor is He the cleverest, perhaps, of all deceivers, because
liars don’t raise dead people either. Frauds don’t heal sick people, don’t
banish disease froma nation for a duration of three years. Frauds don’t
dominate the world of demons either. And neither do frauds die and, having
been buried, come out of the grave.
So, really we’re left with one alternative with regardto Jesus. Unless you want
to join those who think He’s a lunatic, or those who think He’s the greatest

68. liar of all time, you’re left with one option, and that is the option that He is
who He claimed to be; that He is God.
And the evidence is in: virgin born, sinless life, power overthe physical world,
powerover the spiritual world, power overlife, powerover death, powerover
death, powerover creation. Clearly, He is Lord.
In order to make this testimony unmistakably clear, the Holy Spirit ordained
that there would be four testaments given for the purpose of declaring the
deity of Christ: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. All four writers have the
same purpose; they write so that you may believe that Jesus is God, that He is
God the Son, and believing might have life in His name. But the reasonyou
want to get the right view of Christ is because it’s the only path to salvation.
Otherwise, you die and go to hell foreverand suffer forever.
So, Mark basically has the same purpose that John states in John 20:31. He
writes “that you may believe that Jesus is the Sonof God.” And he tips that as
his purpose in the first statement of Mark 1:1, “The beginning of the Gospel
of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” I’m going to tell you about the one who was
and is the Son of God.
Now, we’re into chapter 3, at the end of chapter 3. We’re well into the
ministry of Jesus. And He beganHis ministry about 30 years of age. So, He’s
been around for all those years – decades. He launches His ministry in Judea
with the cleansing ofthe temple, has months of ministry in the south in Judea,
and then goes to Galilee. And He has a long ministry in Galilee, probably
extending over a year.
We’re well into that now, into that Galileanministry. Jesus has begun to
basicallyobliterate illness from the land of Palestine, the land of Israel. He has
complete power and dominance over demons againsttheir will. It should be
clearto the people who are watching that He is, in fact, one who demonstrates
the powerof God, and the people are starting to think that, although they are
shy of actually confessing it.
If you go back to chapter2 and verse 12, after Jesus had healed the man who
was paralyzed, who came down through the roof, it says they were all amazed

69. and were glorifying God. Clearly, from the standpoint of the people, there was
no other explanation for this than that God was acting through Christ. Not to
say that He is God, in fact, but to say that certainly He comes with the power
of God. That was the most reasonable explanation.
We would have to conclude, then, that the crowds had at leasta step on His
family, who thought He was a lunatic. And they had a whole lot on the
leaders, who thought He was Satanic.
However, as far as we are into the life and ministry of Jesus, whenwe come to
the third chapter of Mark, we don’t yet have any human testimony to faith.
We don’t have anything yet in which a person says, “I believe that You are the
Son of God, which is the reasonMark is writing. The evidence is in; there’s
plenty of it, enough of it. We don’t have that testimony from any human
being.
We do have it from two others. We have the testimony of God the Father, in
chapter 1, verse 11, at the baptism, God speaks outof heaven, “This is My
beloved Son, in whom I am wellpleased.”
And we have the testimony of a demon, in chapter 1, verse 24, who says, “We
know who You are, the Holy One of God.”
The supernatural world is crystalclearon who He is, but we don’t have any
human confessionof Jesus as the Sonof God. In fact, you’re not going to have
one until the fifteenth chapter and the thirty-ninth verse, almostat the very
end of Mark’s Gospel, atthe cross. And that testimony is not going to be given
by a Jew;that’s going to be given by a Roman centurion who, after seeing
Jesus crucified, said, “Truly this was the Son of God.”
While it is true, in chapter 8, the disciples, Peterbeing the spokesman, did say,
“You are the Christ; You are the Messiah,”Mark leaves it at that messianic
recognition. I guess the sad reality - and yet the reality is that in the ministry
of Jesus, as powerful as it was, as He banished illness and banished demons,
showedHis power over the createdworld, the physical world, and His power
over the createdsupernatural world, people did not come from the experience

70. of seeing that evidence firsthand to faith. Their hearts were so dark and so
hard.
In John chapter 12, there is a statementin verse 37, “Though He had
performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him.
And that was the case. And one could certainly understand, if you know the
New Testament, why this is true - because the heart is so dark, and so blind,
and so dead that it cannot respond. It cannot respond.
“Many of the rulers” - says John 12:42 – “believed in Him” - in other words,
they knew He was from God; they saw it – “but because ofthe Pharisees,they
were not confessing Him for fear they would be put out of the synagogue, for
they loved the approval of men rather than the approval of God.”
So, internally their hearts were dark, and externally there was a lot of
religious pressure. And we would think that by the time you get to Mark
chapter 3, and this explosionof miracles has happened, that there would be a
mass of people who were following Jesus.
The truth of the matter is, after His resurrection, when He came back to
Galilee, and He appearedto the believers in Galilee, how many were there?
Five hundred. Five hundred. And when the Holy Spirit came in the upper
room in Jerusalem, how many were gathered? A hundred and twenty. It’s an
amazing story.
The evidence is piling up and piling up and piling up, and people are slow to
make the obvious conclusionand to make the consequentconfessionthat He is
God and He is Lord.
Let’s look at the first option, which is that He’s a lunatic. It’s a possibility. It is
a possibility. I’m always amazed that lunatics like to say they’re God, and
they like to saythey’re Jesus. I don’t think I’ve ever seenone sayHe’s
Buddha. Have you? I don’t think I’ve ever heard a lunatic claim to be
Mohammad or Baalor some other god. But they all want to be Jesus. It
shouldn’t be too hard to figure out why, because that’s the one name that
Satanwants to corrupt.

71. Maybe Jesus was just, I don’t know, like Charles Manson, a complete lunatic.
That’s a possibility. The reasonHe thinks He’s God is because He can’t think.
Like the guy in the mental institution, lying in bed, saying, “I’m Napoleon;
I’m Napoleon;I’m Napoleon.”
And the guy in the next bed says, “Who told you that?”
He said, “Goddid.”
The guy said, “Oh, no I didn’t.”
Now, we understand that kind of non-thinking. Was Jesus somebodyon the
level of a man who thinks he’s a poachedegg, who’s irrational? Not hardly.
His mind was the most pure. Perfect. His articulations were the most
profound. No one ever spoke like He spoke;no one ever heard anything from
anybody ever the waythey heard things from Him. Profound, pure, divine
reason.
And of all things, His family think He’s a lunatic. Look at verse 20, “He came
home” – literally came – He came to a house - came to a house. This is not to
suggestthat He came back to Nazareth. He has made His headquarters in
Capernaum. And He had a little occasionin Nazareth – you might remember
it; in the fourth chapterof Luke, it is recorded. He went to His home town
Nazareth, and they had heard so much about Him and about His miracle
powers and the miracles He’d done over in Capernaum, the askedHim to be
the teacherto speak onthe Sabbath. And He picked up the Scripture, and He
read about the acceptable yearof the Lord, and He read about how the
Gospelis going to come, and it’s going to be preached to the poor, prisoners,
blind, and oppressed, etcetera, etcetera.A messianic passage. And then He
said, “Todaythis is fulfilled in your ears. I’m here. I am the fulfillment of
messianic prophecy.”
And then He indicted them for their unbelief and hypocrisy and sin. And this
is in His own town in Nazareth, in His synagogue where He grew up and
attended through His entire life until He left at the age of30. And after that
one sermon, they tried to throw Him off a cliff and kill Him.

72. So, Nazarethwas not a happy place for Him to stay. Capernaum was where
He set up his Galileanheadquarters. A house. What house I don’t know;
there’s been one house mentioned in chapter1, verse 29, as Peter’s house.
Perhaps Peter’s house is the focalpoint, and perhaps Peter’s house was the
one that they dismantled the roof and let down the paralytic in chapter 2. And
maybe this is Peter’s house again. We don’t know that for sure, but, “He
comes to a house, and the crowdgathered again.”
They are relentless now. They are relentless because they can’t getenough
miracles. They can’t get enoughof the entertainment that comes from these
miracles. They can’t get enoughof the benefit that comes to them from the
miracles. They come if they’re sick. Theycome if they’re possessed. They
come with the people they know, with the family members and the friends
who have those issues, and they want healings, and they want deliverances,
and they know that Jesus has the power to do it.
And there’s nothing like it. I mean rabbis had followings. It was basicallythe
way it worked. You know? You were a rabbi; you had a little coterie of people
that kind of floated your little flock around with you as you taught them and
mentored them. Well, Jesus’crowds were massive. There’dnever been a
rabbi ever who had these kinds of crowds, but there’d never been a rabbi who
could do what He did.
So, the crowdgets large;the crowdgets demanding; the crowdgets
aggressive;the crowd becomes anobstacle;the crowd becomes a hindrance.
And that’s what we see in verse 20. The crowdis so big and so unruly that
they can’t even eat a meal. Jesus can’t getawayfrom the crowd. He can’t even
have enough downtime to nourish His own body, and neither can the disciples
who are with Him.
And you know by now He’s collectedthe Twelve, identified them in the prior
passage, andthe others who are His followers. They are a threat to Him.
They’re a threat to His safety; they’re a threat to His well-being; they’re a
threat to His life. This is a serious issue. Tens ofthousands of people drawn by
His miracle power.

73. Now, on this particular occasion, there’s a parallel passageto this passage;it’s
in Matthew chapter 12. And in that passage,there’s a healing, and it’s a
healing of a man who was possessedby a demon, who was consequently, or at
the same time, deaf and dumb and blind. This is a demon-possessedHelen
Keller person, the most terrible of tragic humans. And Jesus delivers the man
from the demon, fully heals the man. That in itself, that kind of massive
miracle would have swelledthe crowd.
That would be the kind of miracle Jesus did; they were creative miracles.
Creative miracles being that He gave functioning ears to people who had
nonfunctioning ears;He gave eyes that could see to people who had eyes that
could not see. Theywere all creative miracles, all instantaneous miracles. He
enabled people who had been paralyzed to walk instantaneously;like the man
in chapter 2, to pick up his bed and walk even though he hadn’t walked. These
are creative miracles. You get legs that function – fully function. Eachof those
creative miracles was something like the creationof Adam, fully functioning
instantaneously.
Well, the crowd is, of course, pickledby scribes and Phariseeswho are doing
all they can to discredit Jesus. In Matthew 12, the parallel passageto this that
tells the same accountmentions the Pharisees. This passage,verse 22,
mentions the scribes. But most of the scribes were Pharisees, andthey were
both there. The mob, then, is really overpowering. It’s so overpowering that
Jesus can’tfunction. And this is knowledge thatcomes back to His family -
comes back to His family. They’re in Nazareth;they’re just not a long walk
away, and they are beginning to be concernedabout Him. Probably Mary is
concernedabout Him. His half-brothers and half-sisters, who were the
children of Josephand Mary, they’re concernedabout Him.
And so, it tells us, in verse 21, “When His ownpeople heard” – when His own
people, literally a preposition phrase “whenthose of His,” generally referring
to family. “When His family heard, they went out to take custody of Him.”
The verb for custody is a verb that means to seize. It’s used 15 times in the
Gospelof Mark, 8 of those times of seizing Jesus, including arresting Him. It’s
also used of the seizure of job when He was takenand imprisoned to be
beheaded.

74. They really wanted to go and rescue Him and seize Him. If you will, kind of
arrestHim and get Him awayfrom the threatening crowd. They were
convinced that He had brought it upon Himself, for they were saying, “He has
lost His senses.”Whatdid the family think of Jesus? Theythink He’s a
lunatic. That’s not very goodthinking. Did Mary think that? Of course not.
Mary knew exactly who He was. The angeltold her before He was born.
Right? He’d be the Sonof the MostHigh, the holy child. She knew she was a
virgin. She knew He was her Savior; that’s her Magnificat. She knew. But
Mary pondered all these things, kept them in her heart. And whatevershe
might have said to the rest of the kids who were born to Josephand Mary,
they didn’t believe it. Surely somewhere along the line, Mary had said to
them, “By the way, your brother, whom you think so odd, is in factGod.” The
holy child. And Joseph, your father, was not His father. He was conceivedby
the Holy Spirit. They didn’t believe it; they didn’t buy it.
John chapter 7, verse 5, says they didn’t believe in Him. They were not
believing in Him. You can just imagine what family life was like with a perfect
child in the mix. A perfect child would be alienated, ostracized, labeledodd,
strange. Because He was perfect - not in the sense ofjust innocent, but perfect
in the sense ofbeing righteous - every comment He ever made would be
perfect; every response would be perfect. Something none of you parents have
ever even come close to experiencing. Every reactionto what anybody did
would be perfect. Everything would be exactlythe right thing to do, and do it
in the right way, with absolutely the right attitude. That would be a formula
for complete alienationfrom a pile of sinful siblings.
He drew no attention to Himself, in those 30 years He grew up in Nazareth,
with those half-brothers and sisters. Josephnow is dead. In the 30 years that
Jesus was growing up, before He beganHis ministry, others were born. New
Testamenttells us He had brothers and sisters. And in Mark chapter6, it even
names some of them. Verse 3 of chapter 6, it says that, “He’s the son of Mary,
and the brother of James, and Joses, andJudas, and Simon? And are not His
sisters here with us?” So much for the perpetual virginity of Mary. Mary was
not a perpetual virgin. She and Josephhad a whole family full of children.
The New Testamentis crystalclearabout that.

75. And growing up with Him, they would have seenHis perfection. It would be
inescapable. ButHe doesn’t really – as He’s growing up, doesn’t act in godlike
ways. That is He doesn’t create anything. He doesn’t go into the shop, where
they’re making a table, and saying, “The easyway to do this is ‘Table!’” He
doesn’t do that. He doesn’t hold classes;He doesn’t teachtheology.
And so, I think the bestthat could be said was the family probably thought of
Him – at leastthe siblings – as odd. They definitely did not believe in Him.
Scripture makes it clear, John 7:5, they were not believing in Him.
And now, this very odd child, this child with whom they cannotrelate, to
whom they cannot connect, the one who’s very presence satin righteous
judgment on every childlike sin they ever committed, has gone overthe edge.
He has now lost His mind. He is now declaring Himself to be God. He is now
proclaiming that He has supernatural powers, and He’s going to get Himself
killed because He’s literally creating a stampede coming right at Him.
And so, they decide maybe the best thing to do is to rescue Him. To rescue
Him before His lunatic conduct costs Him His life or, for that matter, brings
further embarrassmenton the family. Believe it; they didn’t think He was just
a goodteacher, Justa spiritual mentor, some especiallywise rabbi who had
developed in the months since He’d been gone from the family. They thought
He was absolutely out of His mind.
And they went to seize Him because He had lost His senses. Bythe way, the
term there – berserk, insane, lunatic; you canuse any of those English
language words – but the actualGreek, “He has lost His senses,”is the verb
that means to stand outside oneself. We would use, in the vernacular, the
phrase, “He’s beside Himself,” which is simply a way of saying, “He’s not in
control any longer.” The conclusionis He’s a madman. It’s really – it is really
a mad conclusion. It’s a lunatic conclusionbecause whatevidence in His 30
years of growing up in the family was there that He was a madman? That He
was irrational? Illogical? Insane? Detachedfrom reality? None.
And now the fact of the matter is He can heal people, and He can castout
demons. And He can do wonders. And His teaching is the likes of which no
one has ever heard for its profundity, clarity, truthfulness.

76. I guess the concessionwould be that at leastthey didn’t callHim satanic.
Many people did. John 10:20 says many people called Him demonic. They
bought into the lie of the Pharisees. There were some, like we saw back in the
earlier chapters of Mark, that said they were glorifying God for what they
saw, because theythought it had to be the power of God. But there were many
people who were buying the lie the Phariseeswere sowing. According to verse
22 of Mark 3, they were going everywhere, all the time – this is relentless,
folks – they were just repeating this same mantra that Jesus was satanic.
“And they came down from Jerusalemsaying, ‘He’s possessedby Beelzebul,
He casts out demons by the ruler of the demons.’” This is where they landed.
So, I guess we could say that at leastthe family hadn’t gone that far, but that
was not a reasonable explanationfor Jesus. Lunatics don’t talk and actand
think and behave the way He did.
Now, to complete the story about His family coming to seize Him, we have to
go to the end of the chapter, verse 31. This is where they show up. In the
meantime, there’s another story about the Pharisees. Thatis a very important
story, folks, from verse 22 to verse 30. It’s the text that talks about the
unforgivable sin. The unforgivable sin. And we’re going to talk about that
next Sunday. But we have to complete this story. So, we go to verse 31, “Then
His mother and His brothers arrived.” They came from Nazareth, no doubt,
to Capernaum, and they arrive. “Standing outside, they sent word to Him and
calledHim.”
Matthew 12:47 says the same thing; the parallel passagein Matthew gives us
the same account. By the way, I need to say, as a footnote, the sectionin
betweenwhere the leaders callHim satanic, this text in Mark 3 is parallel to
Matthew 12, but that happened on another occasionin Luke 11. Luke 11 has a
record of almostan identical conversation, but it’s different. This all
happened in Galilee. The one in Luke 11 happened in Judea. This one
happened in response to the healing of a deaf and dumb and blind, demon-
possessedman. The one in Luke, the situation of the healing was different.
What that tells me is that this conversationhappened at leasttwice, and the
facts are it may have happened a lot. And that lets us know that the Pharisees

77. were doing everything they could, everywhere they went, to tell people He was
satanic. Thatwas their mantra. Well, we’ll get to that next time.
So, His mother and His brothers arrived and stand outside. They sent word to
Him and calledHim. He’s inside the house;He’s surrounded by the crowd.
And verse 32 says, “A crowd was sitting around Him, and they said to Him,
‘Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You.’” This
is Mary, certainly a believer, not to be included in the generalunbelief of His
half-brothers and sisters who thought He was completely crazy. And she
wants to come and rescue Him for other reasons.She’s – maybe she wants to
protect Him, so she’s there. “They want You,” as if they had some right to
Him.
Do you remember when He was 12 years old? Mary must have remembered
this. And He went to Jerusalemwith His family; and they left, and they’re
starting home in the caravan, and they realize that He’s not there. And they
go back, and they find Him, and He’s in the temple, and He’s asking questions
of the doctors. And they says, “Whatare you doing? Why have you don’t this
to us?”
And He says, “I must be about My Father’s business. You’re not in charge of
Me anymore.” He had just reachedthe age where He was a sonof the law.
“You’re not in charge of Me; you’re not the authority anymore in My life.”
He went back home, was a dutiful child, but not of necessity, only in time – in
God’s timing, until the hour for Him to begin to do the will of His Father as it
was expressed.
So, the mother and the brothers still feelsome familial responsibility for Him,
as if they had some authority overHim. And so, they come to try to rescue
Him. And in a most interesting reply, verse 33, He answers the crowdwho are
saying, “Behold, Your mothers and Your brothers are outside looking for
You.”
“Answering them, He said, ‘Who are My mother and My brothers?’” Wow.
He acceptedthe interruption. I don’t know what He was saying at the time;
we don’t know, but He acceptedthe interruption. He could take any
interruption and turn it into a critical lesson, couldn’t He? He begins with a

78. question, “Who are My mother and My brothers?” Well, He’s not saying, “I
don’t know My family.” Of course He knows His family. He knows exactly,
from a human standpoint, who His mother is. And He knows exactlywho His
brothers and sisters are. Noris He showing disdain toward them on a human
level. It isn’t that He is unloving toward Mary. After all, when He was
hanging on the cross, according to John chapter 19, He saw Mary. Do you
remember when He was hanging on the cross, and He lookedto John, and He
said, “Behold, your mother”? And He lookedto Mary and said, “Behold, your
son.” And He committed His mother, in a loving actof care, into the
protective care of John. He loved her right down to the very moment of His
own death, when He was preoccupiedwith making sure that He was caredfor.
And that is not an issue. But maybe He didn’t love His siblings? Oh, He loved
them, too. In fact, He loved them right into His kingdom. Hmm? Becausein
Acts chapter 1, verse 14, when the believers were gatheredin the upper room,
on the Day of Pentecost,it says, verse 14, “Marywas there with His brothers.”
And it may even include His sisters. Did He love them? Sure, He loved them
enough to save them. He loved them enoughto draw them to Himself.
So, here they think He’s a lunatic. Some months later, however, they have
confessedHim as Lord, and they’re gatheredin the upper rooms. So, this is
not a statementthat in any way diminishes His love for His family.
By the way, His family didn’t resent Him either. I think His family did just the
opposite. Take two of His brothers, James and Jude or Judas. If James is a
familiar name, it should be. He wrote the epistle called James. He was also the
head of the JerusalemChurch. James certainly didn’t have any ax to grind
with Jesus, becausethis is how James introduces his letter and himself,
“James, a slave of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Hmm, how about that?
By the way, Jude, His other brother, introduces his epistle, “Jude, a slave of
Jesus Christ.” He loved them, and they came to love Him and to submit to
Him as slaves to their Lord. So, this is not about that. Jesus is saying
something here that transcends that kind of consideration. What He is saying
is, “Who really has a genuine relationship to Me? Who really has a genuine
relationship to Me? Who has a lasting relationship to Me?”

79. Verse 34, He answers His own question, “Looking about at those who were
sitting around Him, He said, ‘Behold My mother and My brothers!’” – all of
you who believe in Me - “‘Forwhoeverdoes the will of God, he’s My brother
and sisterand mother.’”
The Catholic Church would like to have a singled out Mary. Jesus didn’t do it.
Jesus didn’t single out Mary. Farfrom it. He said, in effect, that relationship
isn’t important. That relationship doesn’t matter. The relationship that
matters is the relationship of obedience to the will of my Father.
Luke 11. In Luke 11, Jesus is speaking about issues regarding demons and
following up that other conversationwith the PhariseesaboutHim being
Beelzebul. And in verse 27, “While Jesus is talking about this, one of the
women in the crowdraisedher voice and said to Him, ‘Blessedis the womb
that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed. Blessedis Your mother.’”
That was a very kind gesture on her part, wasn’t it? That was the Jewishway
of giving honor to Him and to His uniquely privileged mother, kind of a
Jewishexpression.
What His response? Verse 28, “Onthe contrary” – on the contrary – “blessed
are those who hear the Word of God and obey it.” The only relationship with
Jesus that matters is the relationship of one who obeys the Word of God. Who
obeys the will of God as expressedin the Word of God, and therefore obeys
the GospelofChrist. “This is My beloved Son, listen to Him, believe in Him,
confess Him as Lord.”
Well, back to verse 34, “BeholdMy mother and My brothers!” And who are
they? “Whoeverdoes the will of God, He is My brother and sisterand
mother.” The writer of Hebrews tells us that we are Christ’s brothers, and
He’s not ashamedto call us brothers.
James doesn’tintroduce himself, in his epistle, as James and then raise the
flag of the half-brother of Jesus. Jude doesn’t introduce himself as Jude, the
half-brother of Jesus. Thatrelationship doesn’tmatter. That has no
consequence spiritually, no consequence eternally. Bothof them are happy to
introduce themselves as slaves of Jesus Christ, because a slave brings up one
greatconcept:submission, obedience. The only relationship that matters is the

80. relationship that you have with Jesus Christas a believer in Him. That is
manifest by obedience.
You know, this is the message ofJesus from the get-go. If you go back to
Matthew chapter 7, that greatsermon, the first sermonin the New Testament,
as He brings it to its greatclimax in chapter 7 and verse 21, He says, “Not
everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ is going to enter the kingdom of
heaven.” You want to enter heaven? Not everybody who says, ‘Lord, Lord,
but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. And the will of My
Father who is in heaven is that you believe in the Son, and confess Him as
Lord, and obey Him, and submit to Him, and obey His Word.”
He even told a story, at the end of the sermon, about “A man who hears the
words of Mine and acts on them is like a wise man who builds His house on a
rock. The rain fell, the floods came, the winds blew, slammed againstthe
house. It didn’t fall; it was founded on a rock. But on the other hand,
everyone who hears these words of Mine, does not obey them is like a foolish
man who built His house on sand. The rain fell, the floods came, the wind
blew, slammed againstthe house, and it fell, and greatwas its fall.”
Always, in the New Testament, salvationis demonstrated by obedience. John
8:31, “You are My true disciple if you do whateverI tell you, if you continue
in My Word.” But Jesus saidthis againand againand again, that obedience is
the mark. You can look at it in John 12, John 14, John 15, “If you keep My
commandments, you’re Mine.”
I think it lingered so much in the mind of John that long after he had written
the GospelofJohn, when He wrote the epistle, it was still in the forefront of
His mind. In 1 John 2:4, he wrote, “The one who is says, ‘I have come to know
Him,’ and doesn’tkeepHis commandments, he’s a liar.” So, if you say you
know Him, but you don’t keep His commandments, you don’t know Him at
all. “Whoeverkeeps His Word, in him the love of God has truly been
perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: by keeping His Word, obeying
His Word.”
He recycles the same reality in chapter 3, verse 7, “Make sure no one deceives
you; the one who practices righteousnessis righteous; the one who practices

81. sin is of the Devil. No one born of God practices sin; His seedabides in him;
he can’t sin; he’s born of God. By this the children of God and the children of
the Devil are obvious. Anyone who doesn’tpractice particulars is not of God.”
It’s that simple. If you obey the Gospel, and you obey the Word of God
subsequent to the Gospel, you give evidence of a transformed life.
First John 3:24, “The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him.” He
recycles it againin chapter 5, “Whoeverbelieves that Jesus is the Christ is
born of God. And whoeverloves the Fatherloves the child born of Him. By
this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe
His commandments.”
James, who knew this principal well, James 1:22, writes, “Don’t be hearers of
the Word only, but” – what? – “doers, or you’ll deceive your ownselves.”
Well, in a sense it’s a sadthing that His family had come to this conclusion.
But the goodnews is they abandoned this ridiculous assumption that He was
crazy and embracedthe fact that He was Lord.
Now, go back to the story for a moment. The story within the story begins in
verse 22, when the scribes come down from Jerusalem. “Theysay, ‘He’s
possessedby Beelzebul.’” He’s not just mentally deranged; that’s not an
explanation for Him. He is poweredby hell. This is far more sinister; this is
far more spiritually devastating. This can be terminal.
Drop down to verse 28, “And I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of
men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoeverutters againstthe
Holy Spirit a blasphemy never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.”
The eternalsin? What was it? The eternalsin was the conclusion, after all the
evidence was in, that Jesus didn’t possessthe powerof God, but the power of
Satan. You can’t be saved from that final conclusion. And that’s exactly
where the leaders of Israelwere. We’re going to talk about that, the
implications of the unforgiveable sin, and to whom it applies next time.
As we come to the end of the service, Lord, we do so with grateful hearts. We
thank You for the power of the truth. We thank You for the way in which it

82. carries its own weight. When we just open the Word and let it speak, its power
is well nigh overwhelming.
We feellike we’ve had a conversationwith You, and indeed we have. Now we
understand we must come to Jesus and confess Him as Lord and abandon all
the superficialniceties saying that He’s a goodteacherand we admire Him.
We don’t have that option. He can’t be a lunatic; that’s a lunatic assumption.
Nor canHe be a liar from hell. We’re left with the only possibility, when all
the evidence is in, in that He is Lord of all.
And so, we as believers happily stand up, by the powerof the Holy Spirit, and
confess Jesusas Lord. That is our greatconfession. Maywe demonstrate that
confessionin a life of obedience to His commands as willing slaves, giving Him
all the glory, we pray in His name, amen.
DevotionalHours with the Bible, Volume 5: Chapter 18 - Malignant Unbelief
By J.R. Miller
Mark 3:20-35
One of the surestways to hurt a man's reputation, is to give him a bad
name. That was the course the scribes took with Jesus. Theycould not deny
that He did very wonderful works, forthere were the evidences--the
demoniacs in their right mind--but they were determined to damage or
destroy His influence over the people by starting this atrocious slanderabout
Him. They whisperedall around, that Jesus and Satanwere in league, and
that He receivedHis powerfrom Satan!"He has Beelzebub!" they said. The
same tactics have since been employed many times. Men who are vigorously
engagedin destroying the works ofSatan--are accusedofbeing themselves
Satan's agents!

83. When there is no way of defeating the earnestnessorbreaking the power
of goodmen--vile tongues resortto slanderous speech. Base storiesare started,
or suspicions are breathed, or certainacts are misconstruedor
misrepresented, or motives are misjudged. Such slanders fly on the wind, and
the usefulness ofmany a godly Christian has been marred or altogether
destroyedby them. Yet we must not be surprised if the world treats us--as it
treated our Master. We may as wellmake up our mind to the fact, that if we
are very earnesteither in working for the lost or in fighting vice and
wickedness, we shallbe both misunderstood and misjudged. Some will say we
are crazy, and others will say that we have a devil. The way to escape allsuch
uncomfortable charges, is never to rise above the temperate point in Christian
fervor, and never to break over the lines of eminent respectability in active
Christian service. The devil does not worry overeasy-going Christians, for he
has little to fear from them. But when he finds a very earnestChristian, bold
and uncompromising, he tries relentlesslyto strike him down, or to render
him harmless.
Of the wonderful things that Jesus did, they said, "He is possessedby
Beelzebub! By the prince of demons--He is driving out demons!" It will be
noticed that even His enemies did not seek to deny that Jesus performed
miracles;they only tried to accountfor His mighty works in a way that would
blackenHis name. Skeptics in these days who deny the miracles of Christ,
should take note of this fact that even His worstenemies when He was in their
very midst, did not attempt to deny them. They confessedthatHe produced
miraculous works. The Pharisees andscribes confessedit. Herod confessedit,
and in his remorse thought that John the Baptist must have risen from the
dead. Notone of His opponents ever hinted a doubt concerning the fact of His
miracles. Thus, when the theory of demoniac possessionfailed, they invented
the theory of magic; but they never denied the miracles themselves.
"How can Satandrive out Satan? If a kingdom is divided againstitself,
that kingdom cannot stand." That is the way Jesus sweptawaytheir
slanderous charge. Satansurely would not join hands with Jesus in His work
of tearing down Satan's kingdom. Satanwould not be so foolish as to help
Jesus castout his tenants and agents. Satan's aimis to getpossessionofmen,
and when he had done this--he would not turn about and drive out the minor

84. demons he had at so much pains got into men's hearts. We should look with
greatcaution, even with suspicion, on professions ofinterest in the work of
Christ, from bad men. They have some other motive than the true one. They
mean not good--but evil, for the cause ofChrist; hurt, not help, for Christ's
Kingdom. Satanwill never help Christ destroy the works of darkness.
"No one canenter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions
unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house." Thus
Christ declaredHis power over Satan, and gave a hint of what He will in the
end accomplish. If He had not been strongerthan Satan, He could never have
entered his "house" or kingdom at all. Satan met Him at the door, at the time
of His temptation, and resistedhis entrance with all his power. But Christ was
too strong for him and overcame him and entered. That was the beginning of
Satan's downfall. At once our Lord beganto "carry off his goods," to expel
his emissariesfrom human lives, to rescue Satan's slaves fromhis clasp, to
undo the terrible work he had done in the world.
The work of Christianity in this world all these centuries, has been to
"carry off the goods" ofthe "strong man's house";and this work will go on
until Satan's kingdom is entirely destroyed, the lastvestige of his powerswept
away, and the last trace of the ruin wrought by him removed, and until the
kingdom of Christ has filled the world. It ought to be a great comfortto us in
our struggle with Satan--to know that Christ is strongerthan he, and that we
need but to flee to Him for shelter and help in danger. We ought to know, also,
on whose side we are, in this world; for there are but two sides, Christ's and
Satan's, and the sure doom of Satan and all his captives, is utter defeatand
chains and eternal darkness. If we are on Satan's side, we cannot escape the
ruin which is sure to overtake him and all his.
"I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven."
This is a wonderful saying. Mrs. Stowe, in Uncle Tom's Cabin, draws a
picture of a slave, wearyand worn, toiling in the sultry sun. One quotes to him
the words, "Come unto Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden--and I will

85. give you rest" (Matthew 11:28). "Them's goodwords," said the old slave;
"but who says them?" All their value depended upon who said them. If it was
only a man, there was little comfort in them. But it was Jesus Christ, the Son
of God, who said them; and therefore, they were of infinite value! The same
thought applies to these words: "All the sins and blasphemies of men will be
forgiven." They are goodwords--but who saidthem? It was the same Jesus;
and therefore, they are true.
"But whoeverblasphemes againstthe Holy Spirit will never be forgiven;
he is guilty of an eternal sin." Learned men do not agree in their idea of what
it is to blaspheme againstthe Holy Spirit. But no matter about the exact
meaning of the words; they stand here as a warning againsta terrible danger.
They are like a red light hung over a most perilous rock in the midst of the
sea. While we may not know just what constitutes the sin here warned against
so solemnly--it certainly is our duty to keepas far from its edge as possible!
And surely all willful and determined resistance to the influence of the Spirit,
is a step toward this point of awful peril. This utterance of our Lord should
lead us to treat with utmost reverence--everyappeal, persuasion, orbidding of
the Holy Spirit; never to resist--but always to yield and submit to His
guidance. We have no other Friend in this world, who canguide us home. If
we drive Him awayfrom us--forever we shall be left in the darkness ofeternal
night. How long we may continue to rejectHim and not go beyond the line
that marks the limit of hope--we know not; but the very thought that there is
such a line somewhere, oughtto startle us into instant acceptanceofthe
offered guidance.
"Whoeverdoes God's will--is my brother and sisterand mother." This
seems too goodto be true. To be the brother or the sisterof Jesus--didyou
ever stop to try to think out what it means? Then, for every Christian to be
takenby Christ into as close and tender a relationship as His own mother
sustainedto Him--did you ever try to think that out, remembering that you
are the one takeninto this loving fellowship? Thousands of women have
wished that they could have had Mary's honor in being the mother of Jesus.
Well, here it lies close to their hand. They cannothave her distinction in this
world--but they canhave a place just as near to the heart of Christ--as she
has! How wonderful is divine grace!How astonishing it is that sinful creatures

86. can be takenthus into the very family of God, and have all the privileges and
joys of children of God! We cannot understand it--but let us believe it and
think of it--until it fills our hearts with warmth and gladness. Butwe must not
overlook the first part of this verse that tells us who are receivedinto this close
relationship. If we would be the brothers and sisters ofChrist, we must obey
the will of God.
Back to J.R. Miller index.
Verses 20-30
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICALNOTES
Mar . His friends.—His kinsfolk or near relatives. Beside Himself.—In an
ecstatic state. Theythought He was carried awayby His zealand devotion
beyond all self-control.
Mar . Beelzebub.—Beelzebul, meaning either "lord of the dwelling," or "lord
of filth"—the title of a heathen deity, to whom the Jews ascribedlordship over
evil spirits. "He hath Beelzebul" is equivalent to saying, "He is possessednot
merely by a demon, but by Satan himself."
Mar . Spoil his goods.—Snatchandcarry off his vessels, orhousehold
treasures.
Mar . Hath never forgiveness.—Hathnot forgiveness unto the age or æon of
Messiah's reign. In dangerof eternaldamnation.—In the grip of an age-long
sin. None of the agencies employedby God for the conversionof sinners up to
the time of the SecondAdvent are powerful enoughto rescue suchan one
from the awful state to which he has reduced himself by his own deliberate
choice. Here the Saviour leaves the matter, without revealing anything as to
the man's ultimate fate or the ministries of the future world.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Mar

87. (PARALLELS: Mat ; Luk 11:14-23.)
Christ misunderstoodand misrepresented.—The paragraphbegins properly
with the lastclause of Mar : "And they went into an house" [see R. V. for
variations in reading and rendering]. Robert Stephens, who first divided the
Bible into verses, begana verse with these words, as was right; but Beza set
the fashionof adding them to Mar 3:19, which was unfortunately followedby
the A.V. translators. Theyreally begin the accountof Christ's fourth sojourn
in Capernaum, some weeks afterHis selectionof the apostles.
I. Misunderstoodby friends.—They judged Him, observes DeanChadwick, as
men who profess to have learned the lessonof His life still judge, too often, all
whose devotion carries them beyond the boundaries of convention and
convenience. There is a curious betrayal of the popular estimate of this world
and the world to come, in the honour paid to those who castawaylife in
battle, or sap it slowlyin pursuit of wealthor honour, and the contempt
expressedfor those who compromise it on behalf of souls, for which Christ
died. Wheneverby exertion in any unselfish cause health is broken, or fortune
impaired, or influential friends estranged, the followerof Christ is called an
enthusiast, a fanatic, or a man of unsettled mind. He may take comfortfrom
the thought that his Masterwas saidto be beside Himself—and that, too, by
His own friends—whenzeal for God and love for souls kept Him too busy to
think of bodily sustenance and rest.
II. Misrepresentedby foes.—The scribes are quick to turn to their own
advantage the admission of Christ's friends that He is "beside Himself."
Unable to deny the reality, or the miraculous nature, of the cures He wrought
(see Mat ), they insidiously suggestthatwhile His own reasonis dislodged
Satanhimself is in possessionofits throne. As much as to say: "He is an
incarnation of the Evil One, and by Satan's own powerHe expels the
subordinate demons." No doubt that was possible. If Satan, at that particular
period, was permitted to exercise, throughhis emissaries,a certain power
over men's bodies and minds, it is reasonable to suppose that he might still
retain authority over those emissaries,and be able to recall them at any time
he chose. The only question is, Would he be likely to do so? Would such a

88. policy serve his purpose? To the elucidation of this problem Christ addresses
Himself.
III. The scribes triumphantly confuted.—Whetherthe powers of darkness,
presided over by Satan, be comparedto a "kingdom," from the wide extent of
their influence, and the completeness oftheir organisation;or to a "house,"
from the closenessoftheir intimacy, and the identity of their interests,—in
either case division is fatal to them—subversive of their design, and
destructive of their power. The kingdom is brought to desolation, the house
falls to pieces, by the mutual jealousies andaggressionsoftheir component
members. Such would be the effect of Satancasting out Satan—ofthe chief of
the devils co-operating with one who went about dispossessing andhealing his
victims. The conclusionwas inevitable: that not Beelzebub, but God, was with
Him who did these things; that the kingdom of Satanwas being brought to
nought, not by internal dissensions, but by external force—bythe supervening
of a strongerinfluence and more powerful Monarch.
IV. The true state of the case explained.—Stillspeaking under the veil of
parable or allegory, Christ now draws a picture of a strong man living in the
peacefulenjoyment of his possessions.The illustration reminds us of the
turbulent times of our owncountry a few centuries ago, when the knights and
barons with their retainers, eachin his stronghold, maintained an armed
neutrality againstall comers. But peace whichis merely preserved by strength
is liable at any moment to be disturbed and overthrown by greaterstrength.
So here: the strong man is bound, his house invaded and plundered. In
attempting to expound the inner meaning of this, it may be well to include the
further details added in Luk ; Luk 22:1. The "strong man armed" is
Beelzebub or Satan:strong by natural endowments, a powerful spirit, who
had already even dared to defy the MostHigh; strong also in "his armour
wherein he trusted," to enable him still to wage war, and after eachdefeatto
reappear, if possible, strongerthan before.
2. By "his armour" we may understand his agents, otherwickedspirits, who,
like himself, kept not their first estate;but, not being so strong and ambitious
as he, naturally fell into a sort of dependence on him.

89. 3. With the aid of these his active instruments Satan is enabled to "keephis
palace," i.e. to maintain his dominion over the souls and bodies of those
unhappy men who have once been "takencaptive by him at his will." Every
sinner may truly be said to be "possessedwith a demon," and sometimes with
more than one, as Mary Magdalene (Luk ) and the Gadarene (Mar 8:30). So
some are possessedby many sins, "serving divers lusts and passions"—divers,
as directed towards different objects, but all having a common source and
parentage—all"oftheir father the devil," and ever ready to "do the lusts of
their father," as well as to co-operate with and inflame eachother.
4. And who is he who proves himself strongerthan this strong man, able to
bind him and spoil his house? Not one of the same kind, another passion, a
strongerdevil; but an antagonistin nature and principle, as well as in act.
Such was He who spoke these words. His great missionwas to "destroy the
works of the devil"; and His nature was Divine (see Isa ; Isa 63:5).
Throughout His ministry Christ invariably actedas a Victor in His dealings
with the demons: commanding them with authority; rebuking them; not
suffering them to speak;permitting them, as an indulgence, to enter into the
loweranimals, and wreak their impotent spite on those who had no souls to be
destroyedor saved. He also enabled His servants to do the same (Mar 3:15;
Luk 10:17). And ever since, though Satan is still permitted to "go about
seeking whomhe may devour," he has been restrained from exercising his
powerin the way of bodily possession;and with respectto the influence which
he may still exert over the spiritual part of us, he finds that he has to deal with
One strongerthan himself—even with Him who, having grappled with and
overcome him once for all upon the Cross, is ever ready to renew on behalf of
every individual soul the battle that He then fought for the whole human race.
By virtue of that victory we are now His "goods,"His lawful "spoil," His
purchased possession;and so long as we fight under His banner we are secure.
Satancannot lay a finger on the man who is alive to the responsibilities of his
Christian calling, who is diligent in the use of the means of grace, who lives in
the atmosphere of prayer, who "takes unto him the whole armour of God,"
"and fights the goodfight of faith."
V. The scribes solemnlywarned.—Christ has submitted His claim, in an
argument full of sweetreasonablenessandtouching forbearance, to the better

90. judgment of His foes;but now He declares, with solemn emphasis, as being in
possessionofthe secrets ofthe Almighty, the principles upon which the world
of spirits is administered. He asserts that sin has its scale, its climax. There are
sins of instinct, and of passion, and of ignorance. Where there is little light to
be guided by, there is little light to sin against. The next step is where there is
deliberation before the sin is committed. The last and worse stage is where not
only the deliberate judgment is gone against, but the attempt is made to deny
the principle of judgment in the soul itself. The hands of the watchmove
backwards;the lamp flags with the very abundance of oil; the man's soul dies.
Over againstthe words, "Repent!Be ye forgiven!" stand these—
"Irreclaimable!Unforgivable!" These scribes had now wrought themselves up
to such a pitch of hatred againstJesus, that they were standing, as it were, on
the very brink of the precipice;and in the extremity of His love the Saviour
utters this tremendous warning, to keepthem from taking the fatal plunge.
[In the Homilies that follow, this difficult subject is discussedfrom various
points of view.]
The sin againstthe Holy Ghost.—
I. The dignity of the person of the Holy Ghost.—This is implied in the
assertion, that whoso speakethagainstthe Son of Man may be forgiven, while
he that speakethagainstthe Holy Ghostcannot. The power of Deity was
inherent in the Incarnate Saviour; and He told the Jews expresslythat it was
by the Spirit of Godthat He castout devils. Had He been a created
Intelligence, would our Saviour have spokenas He does in the text? Had the
Holy Spirit been inferior, in essentialdignity, to the Father and the Son,
would He have been joined with them in one name in the sacredform of
Christian baptism? And would the new creation, the spiritual resurrectionin
the sinner's soul, have been ascribedto His sacredagency?
II. The nature and design of the Spirit's influence.—The Pharisees had
sufficient light to remove their errors; and they had conviction enough to lead
to a change of heart; but unhappily they resistedboth light and conviction:
pride and sensuality combined to close their eyes, and led them to spurn the
offered grace ofthe Holy Ghost. Their dreadful sin lay in the act of not being

91. convinced, when a heavenly influence was offeredthem, and in the blasphemy
of attributing the works ofChrist to diabolical agency.
III. The precise nature, and the accompanying evidences of the sin againstthe
Holy Ghost.—Some have imagined that the words of blasphemy to which our
Saviour refers constitute the essenceofthe unpardonable sin. But words,
consideredabstractedly, possess no moral quality whatsoever:it is only as
symbols or indices of the mind that our expressions are criminal or otherwise.
Again—It has been supposed that the sin againstthe Holy Ghostwas confined
to the period of our Saviour's miracles;and that when the direct evidence
arising from these was withdrawn, this sin could no longer be committed. The
reverse, however, ofthis would rather appear to be the case:for our Lord
does not tell the Phariseesthat they were already involved in the guilt and
doom attaching to the commissionof the unpardonable sin: He rather
cautions them to beware of plunging themselves into so dreadful a situation.
In order, then, to guide us in endeavouring to ascertainin what cases the sin
againstthe Holy Ghost may have been committed, we may lay down the two
following positions: first, that the sin itself is a wilful resistance offeredto the
Spirit's invitations and influence; and, secondly, that its tendency is to shut up
the soulin judicial hardness and final impenitence. Both these positions are
recognisedin Heb , a memorable passage, bearing, I apprehend, upon the
subject.
1. The Spirit offers to draw men, but they will not follow Him: He repeats His
friendly solicitations againand again; but sensualpassions orearthly
affections absorbthe accents ofHis monitory voice, until at length it dies away
and is heard no more! It is not, I apprehend, because a man is too slothful, or
too negligent, or even, in a certainsense, too earthly-minded, that he is in
danger of fatally sinning againstthe Holy Ghost. It is because he hates the
renovating powerof that Divine Agent. It is because he rebels againstthe
reign of grace and holiness in the heart. It is because he cannotendure the
unrivalled supremacyof a spiritual principle bearing down the carnal
propensities of the soul, and bringing into subjection every thought to the
obedience of Christ.

92. 2. I now go on to remark on that judicial hardness and final impenitence, the
latter of which invariably, and the former with few if any exceptions, follows
the commissionof it. There is only one way in which a sinner caneffectually
close the avenues of reconciliationagainsthimself, and secure his place
beforehand in the regions of eternalwoe:that way is by putting himself out of
the reachof repentance—byresisting the motions of the Spirit, till they are
finally withdrawn—by tampering with conscience, till her energies are
paralysed, and he sinks, under a loadof unpardoned guilt, into a profound
lethargy.
Conclusion.—
1. Every sin is fatal in its tendency. If you are grasping the wages of
unrighteousness—ifyou are the slaves of lust or intemperance—if the world,
with its winning allurements, is enthroned in your hearts—or, in short, if you
are neglecting the greatsalvationof Christ,—you are in danger of perishing
everlastingly. Let your self-examination, then, be general, and not confined to
one point.
2. This subjectis replete with salutary caution. Many judicious persons have
supposedthat a degree of obscurity is permitted to hang around it, in order to
put Christians upon their guard, and to lead them to beware of everything
which might appear, in the slightestdegree, to savour of the unpardonable sin.
3. Lastly, I speak to you in the language ofencouragement. The darkestclouds
are sometimes tinged with a bright and beautiful radiance. The contemplation
of a sin which is pronounced to be unpardonable is certainly solemn,
peculiarly solemn;but still, when takenin its proper connexions, it needs to
alarm none but the wilful and determined transgressor. Onthe contrary, the
subject forms an occasionofexhibiting, in the strongestlight, the rich and
abounding mercy of God. It shews us an Almighty Sovereignholding out a
sceptre of peace, till the revolting rebel will no longer deign even to casta look
upon it. It discloses to us a Parentpleading with His undutiful children, till
His voice dies awayin the distance of their determined and fatal wanderings.
What inexpressible consolation, then, the subject, rightly understood, affords
to every anxious inquirer after mercy!—Wm. Knight.

93. Blasphemy againstthe Holy Ghost.—I. What the sin or blasphemy againstthe
Holy Ghostmeans, and wherein precisely it consists.—Isaidsin or blasphemy
againstthe Holy Ghost, because some callit the sin againstthe Holy Ghost,
though Scripture itself never calls it anything else but blasphemy, which is
worth the observing. It lies in words, is committed by speaking, and
particularly by evil-speaking, by reviling and defaming the Holy Spirit of
God. There may be, and there have been, severaloffencescommitted against
the Holy Ghostwhich yet do not amount to the blasphemy againstHim
specifiedin the text. There is such a thing as grieving the Holy Spirit, and
quenching the Spirit, when men refuse to hearkento His counsels, to follow
His motions, or to obey His calls. But this is not blaspheming Him. There is
also what St. Stephen calls resisting the Holy Ghost, which is opposing Him
with a high hand and rebelling againstHim, and is a very heinous sin; and yet
neither is that the same with blaspheming and slandering Him, which is what
those Pharisees were guilty of. Ananias and Sapphira grievously affronted the
Holy Ghostin telling Him a lie, either presuming upon His ignorance as not
knowing it, or upon His patience as if He should have connived at it. But yet
that was not so bad as what the Pharisees did in ascribing His works to the
devil. The malicious telling a lie of Him, to defame and slander Him, was a
more heinous offence than the telling a lie to Him under a weak and foolish
persuasion. There is also another way of affronting the Holy Ghost, by
vilifying His operations, whichyet comes not up to the sin of the text. Upon
the day of Pentecost, whenthe disciples, full of the Holy Ghost, beganto speak
with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance, there were some
standing by who mocking said, "These men are full of new wine," vilifying the
operations of the Spirit as the effects ofdrunkenness. But the men who said it,
said it perhaps wantonly or ignorantly, rather than spitefully or maliciously.
But the Pharisees who are chargedwith being guilty of blaspheming the Holy
Ghost, they very well knew that what they had seendone could not be
accountedfor in a natural way; and yet such was their spleen and rage against
the gospel, that they chose rather to impute the miracles of our Lord to the
devil than to acknowledgethe Divine hand, which was so visible in them that
they themselves could not but see it, had they been at all disposedto it. I may
here also mention Simon Magus as a person who very highly affronted the
Holy Ghost, when he offeredmoney for the purchasing His miraculous gifts.

94. But neither was that any such direct blasphemy againstthe Holy Ghost as
what the text mentions; for he had some respectand veneration for the
miracles he saw wrought and for the author of them, and was very far from
imputing them to the assistanceofthe devil. The blasphemy againstthe Holy
Ghostwas something worse still than anything I have yet mentioned: it was
defaming the Holy Spirit of God, and God Himself, under the execrable name
of Beelzebub; it was reviling, and that knowingly and desperately, the Divine
works as diabolicaloperations.
II. The heinousness ofthat sin.—It was a most wickedand impudent lie and
slander upon the Holy Spirit, and was flying, as it were, in the face of God.
One would think, when God Himself interposes, giving the Divine signalin
plain uncontestedmiracles, that it might become all men to be mute, and to
lay aside their otherwise unconquerable rancour and prejudice. But the
Pharisees were so resolute andso outrageous in reviling everything that gave
any countenance to Christ and His gospel, that they would not spare even God
Himself, but called Him Beelzebub, spitefully defaming His most Divine works
as being nothing else but diabolicalimpostures. They saw the miracles of our
BlessedLord, and were very sensible that they were real and true miracles:
they knew also that they were wrought in direct opposition to the devil and his
kingdom, having all the fair appearances possible ofbeing Divine: nor would
they have scrupled to have receivedthem as Divine, had they been wrought by
any one else excepting Christ or His disciples. But such was their envenomed
hatred and inveteracy againstHim and His, that, at all adventures, contrary
to all candour or equity, and in contradiction to reasonand common sense,
they resolvedto say, however scarceto believe (for they hardly could be so
stupid), that He was in league with the devil, and that all His mighty works
which He wrought in the name of God were the works only of Beelzebub, the
prince of the devils. There could not be a more insolent slander, or a more
provoking outrage againstthe Divine Majesty, than this. It was sacrificing the
honour of Almighty God, and both the present and future happines of men, to
their own private humours and party passions;being resolvedto take up with
any wretchedcavil, any improbable and self-contradictorylies and slanders
againstGod, rather than permit the honest and well-meaning people to
believe in Christ Jesus upon the brightest evidence of His miracles.

95. III. Whether any sins committed at this day are the same thing with it, or
which of them come the nearestto it.—
1. Forthe sake ofthe overtenderand scrupulous consciences, I would observe,
that roving, and which some call blasphemous thoughts, which rise up
accidentally, and as accidentallygo off again, are nothing akin to the sin
which I have been speaking of, which consistedin premeditated lies and
slanders againstGod, formed with design to obstruct or darken the evidences
of the true religion, and to prevent others from looking into them or being
convinced by them.
2. Even the atheists or infidels of these times can scarcecome up to the same
degree of guilt with the Pharisees ofold, because they have not seenthe
miracles of Christ with their own eyes. Rationaland historical evidence may
be as convincing as the other, when duly considered;but as it strikes not upon
the senses, it does not awakenthe attention, and alarm every passionof the
soul, in such a degree as the other does. For which reasonthe unbelievers of
our times, though abandoned and profligate men, are not altogetherso
blamable in the opposition they make to Christianity as the unbelievers of old
time were. Nevertheless, it must be said, that the obstinate rejecting the
miracles of our Lord and of His disciples (which have been so fully attested),
and much more the ridiculing and bantering them, and the endeavouring to
run them down by lies and slander, is a very high and heinous crime, as well
as horrid blasphemy; especiallyif committed in a Christian country, and in a
knowing age, and where men have all desirable opportunities of learning the
truth, as well as the strongestmotives offered for submitting to it.—
ArchdeaconWaterland.
Blasphemy againstthe Holy Ghost.—I. The blasphemy of speaking againstthe
Holy Ghostappears to have been the sin which those scribes and Pharisees
committed; for St. Mark expresslytells us that our Lord pronounced these
words, "because theysaid, He hath an unclean spirit"; and He Himself
declared(Mat ) that He had "castout the devil by the Spirit of God," i.e. by
the Holy Ghost;so that if He exercisedthe powerof the Holy Ghostin this
miracle which He wrought on the blind and dumb man, the scribes and the
Pharisees,who spake againstthis miracle, by ascribing it to an unclean spirit,

96. or to the prince of the devils, did most certainly blaspheme or speak against
the Holy Ghost.
1. It was a wilful and presumptuous sin; for though those scribes and
Pharisees hadnot seenthe miracle wrought by our BlessedLord, yet they
allowedand acknowledgedit to have been wrought by Him, and not
withstanding this they perversely ascribedit to the powerof Beelzebub.
2. It was committed againstGod Himself, whether we considerthe Holy Ghost
as one person in the Divine Trinity, or even if we considerthe Spirit of God as
that whereby God the Father actedin such wonderful operations (Mat ).
3. It consistedin despising the word of God, and rejecting His gracious
messageofpeace and pardon to mankind: for this miracle was performed,
and wrought in evidence of our BlessedLord's Divine mission, in proof that
the doctrine which He taught was from God, and that He Himself was the
Messiaswho was to appearamongst the Jews, and was to make an atonement
for the sins of all such as believed in Him, and qualified themselves for pardon
by faith and repentance.
II. Why, and in what sense, this sin hath never forgiveness.—
1. Forthe explaining of this aright let it be consideredthat our Saviour spake
this to Jews, andtherefore probably suited His expressions to their law, and to
the opinions then prevailing among them. And we find that the law of Moses
appointed sacrificesforlegaldefilements, and for sins of ignorance against
God, and appointed sacrifices insome casesand penalties in others for wilful
sins againstmen (Leviticus 4, 5, , 6); but for the greatersins againstGod, such
as wilful and presumptuous ones, the sentence of death was pronounced by
God againstall offenders of this sort, and there was no sacrifice orother
means by which the punishment incurred might be takenoff or suspended
(Num ; Num 15:35; Lev 20:10). And this is the very thing which St. Paul
means when he says to the Jews, thatby Christ all that believe are justified
from all things, from which they could not be justified by the law of Moses.
Where he plainly asserts thatunder the Jewishlaw there were crimes which
could not be atoned for and forgiven; and if not under the Jewishlaw, then
not under natural religion, because the Jewishlaw had that and all its

97. advantages included in it. As to the first sort of sins takennotice of by Moses
in his body of laws, viz. those of ignorance committed againstGod, and those
of wilfulness againstmen, when the sacrificesappointed in such casesare
commanded to be offeredby an offender, the usual phrase is, "The priest shall
make an atonementfor him, and it shall be forgiven him." So that such sins
might well be calledpardonable ones, there being a method prescribedfor the
atonement of them. But as to the other sort, that of wilful and presumptuous
sins againstGod, by which His word was despised, suchsins were properly
unpardonable ones, because the Jewishlaws had provided no sacrifice by way
of atonement for them. And that the unpardonableness of this heinous sort of
sins againstGoddepends upon their having no sacrifice appointedfor them
appears from Heb 10:28. Now, to bring these observations home to the case
before us, the blaspheming or speaking againstthe Son of Man, or againstthe
Holy Jesus, in His personalcapacity, and as man only, might be forgiven to
these scribes and Pharisees, becauseby the Jewishlaw a provision was made
for its expiation. But the blasphemy againstthe Holy Ghost, or the Spirit of
God, when it was a presumptuous sin, as this of the scribes and Pharisees was,
had no pardon under the Jewishlaw. God was reproached, and His word was
despised, and therefore the soul that thus offended was to be cut off from
among His people. Nor was there any pardon provided for it under the gospel
dispensation, because, whenthey thus blasphemed the Holy Spirit of God, by
which Christ wrought His miracles, the only means which could redeem the
adversaries ofthe truth from the Divine vengeance was the merit of Christ's
death applied to them by faith; and that benefit they wholly excluded
themselves from in the very actof their sinning, which consistedin their
rejecting the evidence which the Spirit of God gave of Christ being the
Messiasand Saviour of mankind. This was, as things then stoodwith them, an
unpardonable sin, either in this age, the age of the Jewishlaw, or in the age to
come, that is, the age of the gospel. But were the gates ofmercy for ever shut
againstthese blasphemers of the Holy Ghost? Was the sentence here passed
upon them unalterable and irreversible in all cases?No, surely: for, as
Athanasius observes, "OurBlessedLord does not say that it shall not be
forgiven to him that blasphemeth and repenteth, but only to him that
blasphemeth; and therefore He must have meant this of one that continued in
a state of impenitence; for with God no sin is unpardonable." If such

98. blasphemers could repent of that their heinous sin, no doubt but they might
be forgiven it under the Christian covenant:and who can sayof any man that
all means of repentance are cut off from him? Our Lord said in as strong
words as these are, "Whosoevershalldeny Me before men, him will I also
deny before My Father";and yet but a little while afterwards, whenPeter
denied Him before men three times, and in the most obstinate manner, Christ
was so far from rejecting him, that upon his weeping bitterly and repenting he
was continued even in his apostleship, and was ever after one of the leaders in
that blessedwork of propagating the Christian faith. And it is highly probable
that some of the three thousand whom St. Peterat his first preaching
convertedto the Christian faith had thus blasphemed the Holy Ghost in our
Saviour's days; for he describes them as those who "knew the miracles and
signs" which God wrought by His Son, and notwithstanding this "with wicked
hands had crucified Him." And yet he calls upon them to "repent and be
baptised for the remission of their sins," and evenencourages themto hope
that upon so doing they "should receive that Holy Ghost" whom they had so
often blasphemed in our Saviour's miracles. We are certain, likewise, that
among those who reviled Christ while He was hanging upon the Cross there
were scribes who said, "He savedothers, Himself He cannotsave";thereby
acknowledging that He had wrought miracles in healing diseases,this perhaps
before us in particular, and yet denying that He could "save Himself," and
consequentlydenying that what He wrought was by a Divine power. And yet
we find that our Saviour prayed even for these scribes, saying, "Father,
forgive them." And surely that sin of theirs was not unpardonable upon their
repentance, when Christ with His dying breath prayed for their forgiveness.—
Bishop Zachary Pearce.
The sin againstthe Holy Ghost.—Ishall never forgetthe chill that struck into
my childish heart so often as I heard of this mysterious sin which carried men,
and for aught I knew might have carried even me, beyond all reach of pardon;
or the wonder and perplexity with which I used to ask myself why, if this sin
were possible—if, as the words of our Lord seemto imply, it was probable
even and by no means infrequent—it was not clearly defined, so that we might
at leastknow, and know beyond all doubt, whether it had been committed or
had not.

99. I. The two phrases "this [present] age" and "the coming age," whichour Lord
here adopts, were perfectly familiar to the Jews, and had a clear and definite
meaning on their lips. "This present age," or"the age that now is," was the
age in which they lived, with all its apparatus of religious teaching and
worship, the age of the Law and the Temple; while "the coming age," or"the
age to come," was that happier time of which the advent of the long-promised
Messiahwas to be the sign and the commencement, although it could not fully
come until Jesus the Christ ascendedinto heavenand poured out His Spirit
from on high. So that what He really affirmed was, that there is a sin which is
just as unpardonable under the Christian dispensation as it was under the
Mosaic dispensation.
II. But what is this sin for which, at leastin the presentworld, there is no
forgiveness, orno provision for forgiveness? It is that wilful and invincible
ignorance which refuses to be taught, that love of darkness which refuses to
admit the light even when the sun is shining in the sky. They saw the light, and
knew that it was light; and yet they loved darkness more than light, because
their deeds were evil. Like the servants in the parable, they said, "This is the
Heir," only to add, "Let us kill Him, that the inheritance may be ours"—ours,
and not His. Jesus "knowing their thoughts," knowing too the desperate
moral condition from which their thoughts sprang, simply warned them that
it was desperate. Theywere deliberately sinning againstlight, against
conscience, againstallthat was true and right and good;in a word, they were
"speaking againstthe Holy Ghost," the Spirit of all truth and goodness;and
so long as they did that there was no hope for them.
III. So far, then, from giving us a dark mystical saying in which our thoughts
are lost, our Lord simply states a moral truism, as we might have inferred
from the casualand unemphatic manner of His speech. And the truism is that,
since salvationis necessarilyof the will, if men will not be saved, they cannot
be saved; if they will not yield to the Divine Spirit when it moves and stirs
within them, they cannot be redeemed and renewedby that gracious Spirit.
Under whateverdispensationthey live, they are self-excludedfrom the
kingdom of heaven, by the one sin which is therefore calledan "eternal" or
"onial" sin.

100. IV. That this unpardonable sin might be pardoned, that it was the sin, and not
the men who committed it, which could never be forgiven, is clear:for many
of the Pharisees who had long resistedthe Spirit of God in Christ—and be it
remembered that even Saul of Tarsus had long "kickedagainstthe goads"
which urged him towardthe kingdom—afterwards repentedof their sin,
receivedHis words, believed His works, and were welcomedinto the
fellowship of the Church. And even of those who never knew an earthly
repentance, and of their doom in "the world to come," this passage says
absolutely nothing. It leaves us to our own conjectures, ourown hopes; and
neither approves nor condemns those who trust that in the world to come even
those who leave this world impenitent may be taught "evenagainsttheir will,
and by means of a largerexperience, the lessons they would not learn here;
and so be brought to confess theirguilt and folly, and be takenat last—so as
by fire—into the arms" of the Divine Compassionand Love.
V. But where lies our danger of committing this sin againstthe Holy Ghost,
our need therefore of the warning that, so long as we persist in this sin,
pardon and salvationare impossible to us? We fall into this sin, must be my
reply, wheneverwe consciouslyand wilfully resistthe Spirit of truth and
goodness—whenever, i.e., we see a truth and do not acceptit, because it cuts
our prejudices againstthe grain—wheneverwe know what is good, and yet do
it not, because we love some evil way too well to leave it. To speak againstany
form of truth or any form of goodnesswhichwe inwardly recognise as good
and true, or even suspectto be true and good, is "to speak againstthe Holy
Ghost":and, be it remembered, "deeds speak louderthan words." In our
religious life we sin againstthe Holy Ghostif, as we read the gospel, we learn
that in Christ Jesus we have preciselysuch a Saviour from all sin and
uncleanness as we need—if, as we read, I say, conscienceleaps up in approval
of what we read and urges us to acceptthe offered salvation, and we refuse to
listen because we are too engrossedwith the outward affairs of life, or too
attachedto some of the forms of sin from which Christ would save us to part
with them yet, we commit the sin which cannot be pardoned, and from which
we cannot be saved so long as we cleave to it. Or, again, if after we have
accepted, orprofessedto accept, His salvation, we catchglimpses of new and
higher truths, and shut our eyes againstthem because we do not want to be at

101. the trouble of revising and recasting our theologicalformulas—orif we are
inwardly called to new and difficult duties, and turn awayfrom them because
they would impose a strain upon us or a sacrifice which we are not willing to
bear,—in thus sinning againstconsciencewe sin againstthe Holy Ghost. Nor
is there any one respectin which we refuse to recognise truth as true or duty
as binding upon us, whether in the formation of our political views or the
discharge of our political functions, or in the principles on which we conduct
our business, or even in the spirit in which we conduct our literary or
scientific investigations, in which we do not or may not fall into this very sin.
For the Holy Spirit is the Spirit from whom all true thoughts and all forms of
goodness do proceed. To close oureyes to any truth, to neglectany duty, is not
only to shut that truth out of our minds, and not only to lower and impoverish
the tone of our life; it is also to grieve and resistthat pure and gracious Spirit
by whom we are made one with the Father and the Son; it is to impair the
very organby which truth comes to us, and to cripple the very faculty by
which we are enabled for all dutiful and noble enterprise.
VI. There is still, however, one difficulty which must be met, and which I meet
the more cheerfully because it will give an opportunity of noticing what is
peculiar in St. Mark's report of this great saying, viz. the phrase, "Whosoever
shall blaspheme againstthe Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of
eternal sin." The difficulty I am told is this: "Whenwe read of a sin that
cannot be forgiven whether in the Mosaic age orthe Christian, we naturally
assume our Lord to mean that it cannot be forgiven even when it is repented
of; for no sin can be forgiven men until they repent; and our Lord is here
drawing a distinction betweenone sin and all others. What, then, can this
distinction be but this: that, though all other sins may be forgiven when men
repent of them, this sin cannotbe forgiven, let them repent of it how they
may?" But we may ask those who urge this objection: How do you know that
there are no sins which God will not forgive men even before they repent, and
even though they should never repent, at leastin this present life? We may
suggestthat our Lord is here drawing a distinction betweenoutward overt
transgressions whichmay be forgiven us on, or even perhaps apart from,
repentance, and the inward sinful principle which cannever be forgiven, but
must be renounced and castout. What is the sin which our Lord Himself

102. compares, orcontrasts, with the unpardonable sin? It is the sin of speaking
againstHimself, the gracious Sonof Man. It is to deny that there was any
manifestation of God in the Godmanifest in the flesh; in more modern
phraseology, it is to deny that there is anything Divine in the Christian
dispensationand faith. That, alas!is a sin only too common in our own days.
There are intelligent and learned men only too many, and men whom, judged
by any other standard, we should all pronounce to be honest and goodmen,
who deny that God has ever given any immediate revelationof His will to
mankind, who even doubt both whether any such revelationbe possible and
whether there be any God to make it. They may have been blinded by
intellectual prepossessions oran inherited bent of mind: but are we to blame
blind men because they do not see, and to accuse them of a wilful rejection of
the light that shines from heaven? And if we do not, will God? The fault may
be ours, rather than theirs. We may have turned the very light into a
darkness. We may so have misrepresentedour Masterto them, that, instead
of seeing Him as He is, they may have seenonly that imperfect and misleading
image of Him which we have made in our ownlikeness. If a man has honestly
doubted, if he has followedthe inward light and been true to the inward voice,
and he should die before discovering that Christ is other and better than he
knew, that He is indeed the true light of every man and the very brightness of
the Father's glory—if, that is, he should never repent in this world of his sin in
speaking againstand rejecting the Sonof Man,—willhis sin never be forgiven
him, or will it not, rather, never be counted againsthim, howeverheavily he
may reckonit againsthimself? On the other hand, if a man has not been
honest in his doubts and denials—if, besides sinning againstthe God without
him who soughtto revealHimself to him, he has also sinned againstthe God
within him; if when reasonor conscience said, Thatis true and you ought to
believe it, or, That is duty and you ought to do it, he has refused to acceptthe
truth, or do the duty which he felt to be clothed with Divine sanctions;if he
has consciouslyshut out the light and refused to walk in it; if, in the language
of our passage, he has added the sin againstthe Holy Ghost to the sin against
the Sonof Man, and if he should leave the world without repenting of his
sin,—how can we deny that he has put himself outside the pale of forgiveness
by making forgiveness impossible? Whatmay become of him in that other,
future, world we cannot say, we are not told, though we are still allowedto

103. cherish the hope that new moral forces may be brought to bear upon him and
may take effectupon him; all we can be sure of is that so long as he
deliberately shuts out the light, the light cannotreach him—that so long as he
refuses to part with his sin, he cannotbe savedfrom his sin.—S. Cox, D.D.
OUTLINES AND COMMENTSON THE VERSES
Mar . The strain of constant publicity.—In the crowdthere is no moderation.
They can go to a pitch of enthusiasm in one direction, or of animosity in
another; but in the presence ofChrist they cannot act with calmness. Nothing
is so wearing as the excitement of constantpublicity. Unless quiet alternate
with the excitementof great gatherings, the body wastes,the nerve frets, the
mind is jaded, and the soulitself goes stale andflat. Popularity has,
accordingly, often a cruel kindness, which claims untimely and exhausting
service from him whom it flatters with its approbation.—R. Glover.
Mar . The taunts of unbelievers.—It is very hard for the Christian to bear the
taunts of unbelievers. It is difficult to work bravely on, without the sympathy
of one's fellows;it requires great grace notutterly to lose heart, to bear being
calleda fanatic, to be sneeredat and scorned. To human nature such
treatment gives keenestpain; yet God's grace is sufficient to triumph in us.
When we are sorely tried, let us not think of the discouragements,but of
Jesus, who bore a shame and obloquy for us far deeper than we can ever bear
for Him.
Opposition from friends is very common in the careerofreformers and of
those who depart from the ordinary course. History is full of instances. It is
very frequent, too, in the case ofthose who, in irreligious families or societies,
seek to become Christians. (See Mat ; Mat 10:35-37.)Here is a severe test. But
the only way in which this world can be improved and saved is by that faith,
and character, and truth which will do right, no matter who opposes. They
who when "at Rome do as the Romans do" in matters of conscience, will
never change Rome into the city of God.
Friendship's shortcomings.—
1. Unable to follow the highestmoods of the soul.

104. 2. Unable to see the spiritual meaning of outward circumstances.
3. Seeking to interfere with spiritual usefulness.
4. Seeking to reduce life to commonplace order. The sincere servantof Jesus
Christ will take his law from the Masterand not from public opinion.—J.
Parker, D.D.
The zealous spirit.—A zealous spirit is essentialto eminent successin
anything. Perhaps there is the more need to insist upon this because
enthusiasm is out of fashion. It is bad form nowadays to admire anything very
warmly. To be strenuously in earnestis almost vulgar. Especiallyis this so in
regard to religion. "Our Joe is a very goodyoung man," said an old nurse the
other day; "but he do go so mad on religion." That was the fly in the
ointment—which spoilt all. Did not Pope say long ago, "The worstof madness
is a saint run mad"? And he only put in terse and pithy speechwhatother
people saymore clumsily.
1. And yet how can one be a Christian without being an enthusiast?
Indifferent, half-hearted Christians are not true Christians at all. The author
of Ecce Homo cannotbe saidto exaggerate in his declarationthat
"Christianity is an enthusiasm, or it is nothing."
2. And what goodwork has everbeen wrought without enthusiasm? Said a
greatpreacher: "If you want to drive a pointed piece of iron through a thick
board, the surestway is to heat your skewer. It is always easierto burn our
way than to bore it." Only "a soulall flame" is likely to accomplishmuch in
the teeth of the difficulties which besetevery lofty enterprise.—G. H. James.
Mar . Zeal in opposing Christ.—These scribescame allthe way from
Jerusalemto oppose Christ. Had there been as much earnestness in
propagating the truth as there has been in trying to check it, the whole world
might by this time have been regenerated.
Satanversus Satan.—WouldGodthat we might hear of strife and contentions
in the ranks of the kingdom of darkness!If the public-house keepers might
rise up againstthe gamblers; if thieves and swindlers might but take each
other by the throat; if the managers of the horse-racesmight but begin to

105. make war upon the organisers ofthe lottery schemes;if drunkards and
seducers would but fall out; if only Satanmight fight againstSatan, and his
kingdom fall into bitter, relentless, anduncompromising internecine strife,
asking and giving no quarter,—then would it be a goodday for this poor
devil-ridden world. But no such goodthing as this is happening, or ever will
happen.—G. F. Pentecost, D.D.
Lessons.—
1. Every argument of truth and evidence of Divinity can be explained away, if
only you are bad enough to do it.
2. Falsehood, if indulged, may lead you to lie in the most sacredmatters, and
utter the most depraved blasphemy.
3. Man has ultimately only the single alternative—to be devout or
superstitious; you must be a believer in God, or in a devil.
4. There is no knave who is not a fool; for if he were not a fool, he would not
be a knave.—R. Glover.
Mar . Christ's question.—Jesus has questions to ask as wellas His opponents.
Too much attention is given to the answering of questions. We listen to the
"How?" and the "Why?" of the sceptic;but are we alive to the advantage that
we should gain if we were to propose questions for ourselves?
Mar . Blasphemy againstthe Holy Ghost.—Blasphemy, that is, speaking
against. But thought is speechto God. "Heardmelodies are sweet, but those
unheard are sweeter,"says Keats. Heardblasphemy is bitter: is unheard
blasphemy less bitter to the earof the Holy One? And speechis deed.
Therefore, "by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt
be condemned." The blasphemy againstthe Holy Spirit does not demand
audible speech. At the very time Christ used this unparalleled language, He
was replying to the inaudible speechof the Pharisees:"Knowing their
thoughts, He said unto them." So the essentialthing is not in the speech, but in
the objectof it. "No man cando these miracles except Godbe with him"—
that was the witness of the truth they knew. "He castethout devils by
Beelzebub, the prince of the devils"—that was the lie to their ownsense of

106. right. And it was because ofthat deliberate lie againstthe light within them
that Jesus told them of the sin that hath never forgiveness. Since the
departure of Jesus from the earth, the Holy Spirit has been to men the inner
light. Magnificentgift! Momentous responsibility! He takes the place of it
within us. We no longerobey it, resistit, quench it: we obey, resist, quench
Him. He is the Advocate, come to plead the cause ofright within us, the cause
of righteousness and judgment againstus. He convicts the world of sin and of
righteousness andof judgment.—Expository Times.
Mar . The soul incapacitatedfor repentance.—Strength, Purity, Light, Life,
and Love,—are not these the foundation pillars of the throne of God? And
these are the words under which the nature and work of the Holy Ghost are
revealedto us. Now suppose a man by an act of deliberate and conscious
choice renounces this God of Holiness, this Spirit of Light, and Life, and
Love,—saying, "Theseare things that I hate. Deathand corruption are better
than the life of God. His love I trample on and despise." Imagine a man
speaking to himself after this fashion, and proceeding to shape his life
accordingly. Would not that be a kind of blasphemy which might well
incapacitate the soul for repentance, and so, as a necessaryconsequence,for
forgiveness?—W. R. Huntington, D.D.
The man who blasphemes againstthe God within him—who calls that right
which he knows and feels to be wrong, and who, knowing the good,
deliberately says to evil, "Be thou my good,"—isnot to be forgiven in this age.
No, verily: for this age has brought him all that it has to bring, and he has
rejectedit: the most penetrating and intimate ministries of Divine Grace have
been vouchsafedhim, and he has resistedthem: let him feelthe judgments of
this age, since he will not acceptits choicestgifts;let him pass out of this age
only to enter into the discipline of the next: and as he suffers these æonial
judgments, let him considerand reconsiderhimself, lesthe also lose the ages
beyond.—S. Cox, D.D.
ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 3
Mar . The world's estimate of Christian zeal. The Rev. Rowland Hill, on one
occasion, strainedhis voice, raising it to the highestpitch, in order to warn

107. some persons of impending danger, and so rescuedthem from peril. For this
he was warmly applauded. But when he elevatedhis voice to a similar pitch in
warning sinners of the error and evil of their ways, and in order to save their
souls from a still greaterperil, the same friends who before had praised him
now pronounced him fool and fanatic.
Zeal.—Whensome one expostulatedwith Duncan Matheson, the evangelist,
that he was killing himself with his labours, and ought to have rest, he replied,
"I cannot rest whilst souls are being lost: there is all eternity in which to rest
after life is done."
Earnestnessin work.—SoonafterDr. John Morison's ordination, a
neighbouring minister calledon him, and said, "You are doing too much; you
must take care that you do not overwork yourself." "Dependupon it," replied
Morison, "the lazy minister dies first." Six months later he was calledto the
death-bed of this same minister. "Do you remember what you once said to
me?" askedthe dying man. Morisoncould only reply falteringly, "Oh, don't
speak of that!" "Yes, but I must speak of it," said his friend; "it was the truth.
Work, work while it is calledday, for now the night is coming when I cannot
work."
Mar . Christ's actions prove His Divine mission.—Whenthe Netherlanders
broke away from the bondage of Spain, they still professedto be loyal subjects
of King Philip, and in the king's name went out to fight againstthe king's
armies. That was a kind of loyalty which Philip refused to recognise. The
scribes professedto believe that the devil was content with loyalty like this—
that, in fact, he hugely enjoyed the destructionof his own works by Jesus, and
supplied Him with all the help He wanted in that line. A sane man does not
burn his insurance policy, and then setfire to his house as a means of
providing for his family. A loyal soldier will not undermine his own camp, and
blow it into the air, as a means of increasing the strength of that camp. The
captain who is anxious for the safetyof his ship will not step down into the
hold and bore a hole through the ship's bottom. Nor will Satan join in
destroying his own kingdom. That Christ came and destroyedthe works ofthe
devil shows that He is Satan's enemy and Satan's conqueror.

108. Mar . Penal elementin punishment.—Punishment has surely an element
which is purely penal—vindictive, if the word must be used, but with a Divine
vindictiveness. And this seems to be the confessionofthe human heart in the
most differing states of society. An Indian judge tells of the impression
produced by a thief who cut off a child's wrists merely to get some tightly
fastenedbracelets. As the maimed stumps were held up in court, a hundred
voices cried, "Deathis not enough." In the south of France a monster amused
herself with her paramour at the theatre, while her little boy was found slowly
starved to death, with his cheek laid againsta little dog which nestled close to
him. Many cried, "The priests are right; there must be a hell."—BishopWm.
Alexander.
Unpardonable sin as to the body.—There is an unpardonable sin that may be
committed in connexion with the lungs, or with the heart, or with the head.
They are strung with nerves as thick as beads on a string; and up to a certain
point of excess orabuse of the nervous system, if you rebound there will be
remission, and you will be put back, or nearly back, where you were before
you transgressednature's laws;but beyond that point—it differs in different
men, and in different parts of the same man—if you go on transgressing, and
persist in transgression, you will never getover the effectof it as long as you
live.—H. W. Beecher.
No hope for those past feeling.—A man may misuse his eyes and yet see;but
whosoeverputs them out can never see again. One may misdirect his
mariner's compass, and turn it aside from the north pole by a magnet or piece
of iron, and it may recoverand point right again; but whosoeverdestroys the
compass itselfhas losthis guide at sea. So it is possible for us to sin and be
forgiven: recoverythrough God's Spirit is not impossible. But if we so harden
our hearts that they cannot feelthe powerof the Spirit, if we are past feeling,
then there is no hope.
A terrible text.—In my first charge, when I was young and inexperienced, the
very first grave task setme was to carry what comfort I could to my
predecessor's widow, a singularly devout and devoted woman, who, in the
depths of her grief, had come to the conclusionthat she had committed "the
unpardonable sin," or "Godwould never have been so hard with her." No

109. reasonings, no prayers, had the slightesteffectupon her, or seemedso much
as to touch the fixed idea she had takento her heart. With an almost
incredible ingenuity, she turned all grounds for hope into food for her despair.
And in a few weeks she passedfrom my care into an asylum, only to be
carried from the asylum to the grave. For years after I shrank from this text
as if it had been guilty of murder. Such experiences bite deep.—S. Cox, D.D.
Shrinking from the commissionof this sin.—A striking testimony to the power
which these solemnwords have had over the minds of men is afforded by the
absence ofthis one sacredname, "the Holy Ghost," from all the vocabularies
of profaneness. It shows how men whom we are accustomedto call bad men
have often, after all, more reverence for what is holy than we give them credit
for having—nay, more than they credit themselves with having. They may
have committed crimes innumerable, and may have boastedof them; still,
notwithstanding this, they shrink from the commissionof what is worse than
any crime—the unpardonable sin. The shrinking is to their credit.—W. R.
Huntington, D.D.
This sin consists not in words only.—I remember the case ofa young man in
college, who, having fallen into a morbid state of mind under the pressure of
religious excitement, went out upon a lonely bridge at midnight, and shouted
out into the darkness words which he supposed to be the blasphemy against
the Holy Ghost. It is not easyto believe that for doing this he fell under the
fearful condemnationof which Christ speaks. Onthe other hand, it is not
difficult to believe that the sin againstthe Holy Ghost may have been
committed by persons who have never in any spokenutterance blasphemously
used that awful name.—Ibid.
Paralysis of the soul.—It is told of some of the Hindoo ascetics,that they will
at times, in compliance with a vow, keepa limb in a constrainedposition until
the natural use of it is wholly lost and gone. May not the habitual putting of
evil for goodand goodfor evil bring on a similar paralysis of the soul? May
not the devotees ofthe god of this world so keepthe vows they make to him, as
to rob themselves of the power to take the postures of a holier devotion?—
Ibid.

110. Eternal sin.—
"A sin that passes!" Lo, one sadand high,
Bearing a taper stately like a queen,
Talks in her sleep—"Willthese hands ne'er be clean?"
"What's done cannot be undone." She walks by
As she must walk through her eternity,
Bearing within her that which she hath been.
"The sin that I have sinn'd is but one scene,
Life is a manifold drama," so men cry.
Alas! the shadow follows thee too well.
The interlude outgrows its single part,
And every other voice is strickendumb.
That which thou carriestto the silent dell
Is the eternalsin thou hast become.
The everlasting tragedythou art!
Bishop Wm. Alexander.
Preacher's Complete HomileticalCommentary
J. C. RYLE

111. Let us notice, in the lastplace, how our Lord Jesus Christ's zeal was
misunderstood . We are told that they "wentout to lay hold of him, for they
said, he is beside himself."
There is nothing in this fact that need surprise us. The prophet who came to
anoint Jehu was calleda "mad fellow." (2 Kings 9:11.) Festus told Paul that
he was "mad." Few things show the corruption of human nature more clearly,
than man's inability to understand zeal in religion. Zeal about money, or
science, orwar, or commerce, or business, is intelligible to the world. But zeal
about religion is too often reckonedfoolishness, fanaticism, and the sign of a
weak mind. If a man injures his health by study, or excessive attentionto
business, no fault is found--"He is a diligent man." But if he wears himself out
with preaching, or spends his whole time in doing good to souls, the cry is
raised, "He is an enthusiast and righteous over-much." The world is not
altered. The "things of the Spirit" are always "foolishnessto the natural
man." (1 Corinthians 2:14.)
Let it not shake our faith, if we have to drink of the same cup as our blessed
Lord. Hard as it may be to flesh and blood to be misunderstoodby our
relations, we must recollectit is no new thing. Let us callto mind our Lord's
words, "He that loves father and mother more than me is not worthy of me."
Jesus knows the bitterness of our trials, Jesus feels forus. Jesus will give us
help.
Let us bear patiently the unreasonablenessofunconverted men, even as our
Lord did. Let us pity their blindness and lack of knowledge,and not love them
one whit the less. Above all, let us pray that God would change their hearts.
Who can tell but the very persons who now try to turn us awayfrom Christ,
may one day become new creatures, see allthings differently, and follow
Christ themselves?
END OF PRECEPT AUSTIN RESOURCES

112. They Thought Jesus Was Crazy Too
Ben Giselbach
They Thought Jesus Was Crazy Too
Jesus had just finished revealing Himself as The GoodShepherd (John 10:1-
16), predicting His death and resurrection(10:17), and reaffirming his
relationship with the Fatherand His complete commitment to His Father’s
Will (10:18), when many responded(10:20),
He has a demon and is insane;why listen to Him?
This text is both discouraging and encouraging to me.
I find it discouraging because mostofHis audience didn’t understand. They
listened as their Creator(John 1:1, 3) told them the truth about His identity
and purpose. And they thought He was insane. How awful is sin that it blinds
people to the truth? Sin kept them from listening to the words of their own
Maker. This disheartens me. Sin keeps people from seeing reality (Psa. 40:12,
Col. 2:2). So many unbelieving and unconverted hearts are just as hard these
days as they were in Jesus’day. And if few actually listened to Jesus in the
flesh, few will listen to Him through His New Testamenttoday.
But I find it encouraging becauseI know Jesus saidwhat He saidperfectly. He
didn’t forget any important points; He didn’t choose His words poorly. He
said exactly what He wanted to say and they thought He was insane. If they
thought Jesus was insane, why should we who preach the same message expect
to be treatedany differently? When I preach the Word with authority (Titus
2:15, cf. 2 Tim. 4:1-2), I don’t have to wonder about what is wrong with me or
my message(cf. 2 Tim. 4:3). The problem is not with the Word, but with
hearts of those listening. Those who teachthe truth will be rejected, just as
Jesus was rejected(Luke 10:16).

113. We should always remember that it is this “foolish” messagethatcauses
people to believe (1 Cor. 1:18). Many write this messageoff as nonsense or
‘not a big deal,’ and others will value the same messageand come to know the
Son because ofit. The truth is polarizing! It is only through this messagethat
we come out of the blindness and death of sin and into the life of Christ. “He
goes before them and the sheepfollow Him, for they know His voice… If
anyone enters by Me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find
pasture.” (John 10:4, 9).
Was Jesus “Crazy”?
Article by Dan Kent
“Do you believe I’m the messiah,” the man asked, in a voice that was part
tenor, part nasal-congestion. He was rubbing his robe collarbetweenhis
thumb and index finger. This detail sticks in my memory because his
fingernails were thick and uncut, the colorof banana slices left out on the
counter too long.
“No,” I said, right to his oily, unshaven face.
His eyes widened as self-righteous frustration splashedover him and he
jerked up from his chair. “Woe to you-” he began, then leanedtowards my
name tag, “—Dan! Do you not know I hold this very universe in my hand? In
the tips of my very fingertips?” He stepped back and shoved a chair. “Do you
not recognize Godwhen he speaks,”he asked, doing his best to muster a
thunderous voice. I stepped towards him. “You’re scaring other patients,
Russel, keepyour voice down.”
These types of situations happen all the time in mental health. I’ve personally
known dozens of people convinced they are God and/or Jesus (I once worked
with 2 patients who thought they were Jesus atthe same time, on the same
unit!).

114. The word “crazy” has become too derogatory, too hopeless. I don’t like it. But
the question is still urgent: was Jesus who the gospels sayhe was (the messiah,
anointed by God, even God-himself incarnate)?
For sake ofdiscussion, let’s grant that the gospels are trustworthy historical
documents: the writers accuratelyand faithfully record what they
experienced. It’s still possible that the words and actions they recorded were
those of a lunatic.
And, to be clear, even within traditional Christianity, Jesus couldhave been
everything the gospels sayhe was, and yet still he could have suffered from
mental illness. Christianity affirms Jesus as not only divine (he was God), but
as fully human (Hebrews 2:17). In fact, he was human “in every way.” Jesus
maturated up through the biologicalsloshthat is human nature. So I have to
suppose that it’s technically possible that he could’ve had a mental illness
(while still being messiah), just as it is possible he could’ve had acne, gotten
diarrhea, or developed an allergy to pistachios.
But I don’t think he did. I don’t think he was delusionalor mentally ill. He
might have been wrong about everything he said about himself, but he was
not “crazy.” I say this based on almost 2 decades ofworking with delusional
patients. I’ve workedwith people who believe the government is controlling
our thoughts with magnets on satellites (one was a professorwho actually
wore a tinfoil hat). I’ve workedwith a womanwho believed her brain was on
fire, so she constantly drank water (which happened to flush her medications,
keeping her in her delusional state). And many, many more.
If Jesus was delusionalhe most likely would’ve suffered from a disorder
within the cluster of disorders betweenSchizophrenia and Bi-Polar1. In what
follows, I will considerthese diagnoses forJesus, plus one non-psychotic
disorder: sociopathic personalitydisorder.
Schizophrenia:
It’s true that schizophrenia is marked by chronic and grandiose false beliefs.
When a schizophrenic has a delusion, it’s almost always about being God, or
fighting Satan, or being the key figure in some enormous geo-political

115. conspiracy. With schizophrenia, there is always something incredible at play.
They never falsely believe, say, that they ought to file their taxes early, or that
their mailman is “really” the leaderof a top secretmodel airplane club.
Jesus definitely expressedsome BIG beliefs, which were both chronic (his
ministry lastedseveralyears before he was crucified) and grandiose (you
know:being God incarnate sent to bring us eternallife by defeating Satanand
freeing us from the bondage of sin, and all). The narrative Jesus pushes to his
followers involves invisible beings and hidden kingdoms in epic cosmic
conflict, with the fate of every living thing hanging in the balance. Jesus’
beliefs, you could say, were not just grandiose but omni-grandiose.
But even if his big beliefs turn out to be false, there is more to schizophrenia
than delusions. Schizophrenia is also marked by isolationand extreme pre-
occupation. The delusions are usually so epic and full of dreadful implication
that schizophrenics getmentally wrapped up in them—so much so that they
lose track of time, lose track of their surroundings, and lose track of others.
They lose all sense of reallife. In fact, you can often spot a chronic
schizophrenic when they are first admitted to the hospital by just their smell.
They might go days, or weeks,without showering or wearing deodorant. This
is not because they’re slobs or anything like that, but because they’ve fallen
into a dissociatedstate—like anintense daydream they can’t shake themselves
from. The poor hygiene, the intense paranoia, and the total self-orientationof
schizophrenia’s delusions often pushes others away, leaving the schizophrenic
wandering in isolation(in fact, the man in the new testament who more
accuratelysuggestsschizophrenia is the poor naked man tormented by
Legion—see Mark 5:1–20).
But Jesus did not turn people off. In fact, we see people drawn to him—in
large numbers. We see him interacting with them, and showing interest in
their unique needs. He was focusedon others, and his affectwas welcomedby
others. He was social. He was a partier (John 2:1–11). He ate meals at big
gatherings (John 13) — gatherings so intimate that John was recorded
reclining, leaning back, resting his head on Jesus’shoulder, as they drank
their wine and discussed, presumably, fantastic things (John 13:23).

116. Bipolar 1 Disorder:
Perhaps a better diagnostic option would be bipolar disorder. Unlike
schizophrenics, people with bipolar disorder can be gregarious and convivial.
In fact, they canoften be the ‘life of the party.’
Bipolar stands for ‘2 polemics,’or ‘2 states.’Specifically, a depressive state
(indicated by episodes ofunusually low energy and hopelessness)and a manic
state (indicated by unusually high energy, sleeplessness, pressuredspeech, and
hyper-animated activity). People with bipolar disorder will swing from one
state to the other. Relevanthere, the manic state can become delusional and
often overflows with grandiosity.
Mania is a type of high. It’s intoxicating, exhilarating, and manic patients will
do whatever they canto sustainit and protect it. Forinstance, they initiate
conversations strategically, trying to conjure the mania, trying to get others
enthused (as a way of affirming and reinforcing the grandiosity), and, like a
toddler at a fun party, they fight sleep (they don’t want the fire to go out).
We’re all familiar with the archetype of the “crazygenius” who stays up for
days pounding away at a typewriter, producing pages ofbrilliant insight. And,
for sure, many a genius has suffered from mania. But their mania has nothing
to do with their genius. In fact, mania sabotagesgenius. The “crazygenius”
archetype is a lie. Mania will keepa person up for many hours (days even)
typing away, but the output will be more gibberish than genius. The pages are
more likely to be filled with meaningless wordplays, adolescent-level
philosophy, and laughable loose associations.
One guy I workedwith, a professionalwriter, was admitted to the hospital
with a grocerybag full of pages, an entire novel, which he had written in just
5 days of non-stop writing (over 1,000 pages!). As a writer myself, I felt envy.
Such output! Such productivity! But then I began reading the pages. This
otherwise competentwriter had vomited out pages and pages ofnothing. Most
of it made no sense. The parts that did make sense were dumb (his protagonist

117. was in a canyon and shouted“hello!” and 3 pages were just the word “hello”
echoedover-and-over-and-over).
A hand-written diatribe from a manic person.
I understand the temptation to considera bipolar diagnosis for Jesus. He
rushes from crowdto crowd preaching “goodnews,” forgiving sins, and
promising eternallife. His teachings ride upon the fantastic images of the Old
Testament—ofparted seas,eternalpeace, andrighteous kings. But Jesus
actually makes sense!You may not agree with him, but you understand him.
Manics will leverage anything to fuel their mania, to feed their grandiosity,
including the bible. But it’s always used for effect, and everyone, soon, sees
through the self-aggrandizing show to the emptiness underneath. The
teachings of Jesus, though, build upon and dance with complicatednarratives
of the Old Testamentin surprising and intricate ways. His teachings are so
basic and so engaging that children can understand them, yet so rich that
bearded scholars scourthem for decades uncovering layer-upon-layer of
insight. There is substance and coherence to his words; far-far more than the
words of a manic person.
Jesus didn’t simply wow the masses withflashy speechesand sugarystories.
There’s no Rah-Rah or motivational mantras. There is, rather, a rich
philosophy that was “goodnews” to the masses, but was also a cold correction
to the religious thought-leaders of his time. His was a teaching that was so
coherentthat it confronted and “silenced” the Sadducees (Matthew 22:24),
and thoroughly frustrated the Pharisees (Matthew 22:46).
The energyand enthusiasm of a manic personcan charm us and draw us in,
but it never takes long to realize “something’s not right.” We see quickly how
vaporous, how unconnectedfrom reality, they are. And when we try to reason
with them, when we challenge their grandiosity, we are seenas a threat to the
intoxication of their manic state, and we are most likely immediately &
mercilesslyostracized. The mania must be protected!

118. But Jesus does not seemto be trying to promote or protect some exhilarating
mental state, or to fan the flames of some cognitive intoxication. His words
swirl with both inspiration and warning. Jesus was motivated, not by some
grandiose mental state, but by an important truth—a truth he believed others
needed to hear.
Finally, there’s no indication that Jesus had pressuredspeech, rapidly
changing emotions, or that he experiencedlack of sleep. In fact, we see Jesus
taking goodcare of himself in this regard. He even slept on a boat during a
terrifying storm (Mark 4:38), and often retreatedby himself to pray and rest.
His teaching was so measuredand coherentthat it attractedand captivated
thousands.
Sociopathic PersonalityDisorder:
Even if Jesus wasn’tdelusional, he could’ve still had a personality disorder.
Maybe all his grandiositywas the fantastic show of a sociopath. Sociopaths
manipulate their words, deeds, and affects to build socialconnections—which
they later manipulate for their own gains. They work their community over to
build big followings and tacticalrelationships. To do this, it is essentialfor
them to always look good, or to be charming, to the targetedcommunity. This
is often done through lying, flattery, self-promotion, and general
superficiality.
I understand why someone might considersociopathic personalitydisorder
for Jesus. After all, he did charm large crowds, and many loved him dearly.
And, indeed, Jesus taught “goodnews,”and opened minds with radical
visions of God’s kingdom.
But 2 things make this diagnosis ultimately inappropriate:
Jesus oftentold people preciselywhat they did NOT want to hear. In fact, his
teachings were often sobering, stuffed with images of a cold God on the other
side of a narrow gate (Matthew 7:14), who spits out those he deems
unacceptable (Revelations 3:16), who abandons those who are not prepared
(Matthew 25:1–13), and who chastisesthe fearful (Matthew 25:14–30).

119. Self-inflation is the core of Sociopathic behavior. Yet the defining motif of
Jesus’entire ministry was his self-sacrifice.He hoarded no possessions, he
gatheredno wealth, he fed the hungry, he washedthe feetof commoners, and
he ultimately gave his life to his enemies.
One final observation. The curious thing about mental disorders is that they
seemto transcend the criteria they are composedof. There is more to them
than symptom-pattern. They eachhave their owntype of spirit, their own
type of aura. I canoften tell a manic, a schizophrenic, a sociopath, ora
borderline personality before I’ve witnesseda single symptom. And this spirit
causes commonreactions in everyone around them. Beyond the fact that Jesus
does not fit the symptom constructof these disorders, he also does not present
with the less tangible ‘aura’ of these disorders. People did not reactto him in
the waythey reactto schizophrenia, mania, or sociopathy.
Jesus couldhave been wrong about everything he taught and believed, but
according to the impressive and thorough charting we have (the gospels)he
was certainly not crazy (of course, the rest of this site is dedicated to showing
that he wasn’t wrong, either).
Daniel Kent is the author of The Training of KX12 and is the producer and
host of ReKnew’s PodcastGreg Boyd:Apologies & Explanations.
Is Jesus Crazy or is He God? (John 5:17-23)
RelatedMedia

120. 00:00
00:00

121. Editor's Note:Apologies for the audio quality. The recording encountered
technicaldifficulties. Pleasebearwith the inconvenience, thankfully the
manuscript is also available below.
September 15, 2013
The Christian faith rests entirely on the correctanswerto Jesus’question
(Matt. 16:15), “Who do you saythat I am?” If Jesus is the promised Messiah
of Israel, the eternalSon of God in human flesh, who died on the cross in the
place of sinners, who was raisedbodily from the dead, and who is coming
againin powerand glory to judge the living and the dead, then everything else
is secondary.
There may be difficulties in the Bible that you cannot resolve, but that’s
secondary. You may struggle with hard questions, like, “Why do little
children suffer and die?” or “Why do some people never have the chance to
hear the gospel?”but those questions are secondary. You may struggle with
doubts because ofpersonaltrials or unanswered prayers, but those struggles
do not undermine the truth of Christianity. If Jesus is who He claimed to be
and who the Bible proclaims Him to be, then the entire Christian faith stands.
If He is not who He claimed to be, then our faith in Christ would be in vain
(see 1 Cor. 15:13-19).
You’ve probably heard liberal professors ortheologians saythat Jesus never
claimed to be God. The Jehovah’s Witnessesand Mormons hold Jesus in high
esteemand even claim to believe in Him, but they deny His true deity. There
are many others who think that Jesus was a greatmoral teacherand example,
but they do not affirm that He is God.
But C. S. Lewis slammed the door on that option in an often-quoted
statement. He said(Mere Christianity [Macmillan], p. 56):
A man who was merely a man and said the sortof things Jesus saidwould not
be a greatmoral teacher. He would either be a lunatic … or else he would be

122. the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Eitherthis man was, and is, the
Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a
fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet
and callHim Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing
nonsense about His being a greathuman teacher. He has not left that open to
us. He did not intend to.
So you’ve got to decide:Is Jesus crazyor is He God? And that decisionwill
have drastic effects on how you live your life and on where you spend eternity.
We’ve just studied the story of Jesus healing the man at the Poolof Bethesda
(John 5:1-16). It’s an interesting miracle for John to use in his Gospelof
belief, because there is no indication that the man believed in Jesus. He didn’t
even know who Jesus was whenHe did the miracle. When he found out, he
never thanked Jesus for healing him. Rather, he went to the Jewish
authorities to report Jesus, so that they could go after Him for violating their
Sabbath traditions. Since John wrote his Gospelso that we would believe in
Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, you have to ask, why did he include this
miracle where the healedman did not believe?
John included this story because it illustrates the irrational but growing
hostility of the Jewishleaders towardJesus that led to His crucifixion. They
beganto persecute Jesus becauseHe was doing these things on the Sabbath
(5:16). But also, the confrontationbetweenthe Jews and Jesus that erupted
because ofthis event set the stage for Jesus to make some of the strongest
statements for His deity in the Bible (5:17-47). J. C. Ryle states (Expository
Thoughts on the Gospels [Baker], 3:283):“Nowhereelse in the Gospels do we
find our Lord making such a formal, systematic, orderly, regularstatement of
His own unity with the Father, His Divine commissionand authority, and the
proofs of His Messiahship, as we find in this discourse.” The practicalbottom
line for us is:
Christ’s amazing claims to be God demand that we honor Him as God and
submit to Him as Lord.
When the Jews accusedJesusofbreaking the Sabbath, He could have pointed
out their error in interpreting the Sabbath laws, as He did on other occasions.

123. He could have said that it was right to do goodon the Sabbath. But rather, He
put His own activity on the Sabbath on a par with God’s activity (5:17). When
they then accusedHim of making Himself equal with God (5:18), rather than
denying it with horror, as even the greatestofthe Old Testamentprophets
would have done, Jesus goes onto affirm it emphatically. Our text reveals six
ways in which Jesus is equal with God:
1. Jesus is equal with God in His nature, but distinct from the Father as the
Son (5:17-18).
In response to the Jews’accusationthat Jesus was breaking the Sabbath and
to their persecution, Jesus answered(5:17), “My Fatheris working until now,
and I Myselfam working.” Johnexplains (5:18), “Forthis reasontherefore
the Jews were seeking allthe more to kill Him, because He not only was
breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making
Himself equal with God.”
First, Jesus calls God, “MyFather.” The Jews wouldsometimes speak of “our
Father,” or if they used “my Father,” they would add, “in heaven,” or some
other expressionto remove any suggestionof familiarity (Leon Morris, The
GospelAccording to John [Eerdmans], p. 309). But Jesus speaks ofGodas
His Fatherin the most intimate of terms. Leon Morris (p. 310, italics his)
states,
He was claiming that God was His Fatherin a specialsense. He was claiming
that He partook of the same nature as His Father. This involved equality.
Later, Jesus explicitly stated (John 10:30), “I and the Father are one.” As a
result, the Jews againsoughtto kill Him. When Jesus askedforwhich of the
many goodworks from the Father they were stoning Him, they replied
(10:33), “Fora goodwork we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and
because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” They understood
His claims!The problem was, they didn’t acceptHis claims.
While Jesus is equal with God in sharing the same nature, He is also distinct
from the Fatheras the Son. Jesus’existence as the Son of God does not imply
that there was a point in time in which He did not exist, and then He was

124. createdas the Sonof the Father. That was Arius’ heresy, whose modern
followers are the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Johnhas already made it clearthat the
Word existed in the beginning with God and that He createdall things that
have come into being (1:1-3). If Jesus came into being at a point in time, that
verse would be false. Nordid Jesus become the Sonof God when He was
conceivedin Mary’s womb by the Holy Spirit.
Rather, Jesus has existed eternally as the Son of God in relation to God the
Father. Just as a human son shares his father’s nature, so Jesus shares the
same nature as God the Father. But just as a human son is a distinct person
from his father, so Jesus is distinct from the Fatheras the secondpersonof
the Trinity. In John 5:19-26, Jesus refers to Himself as “Son” nine times; He is
emphasizing His divine Sonship. As the Son, Jesus is equal to and yet
functionally subordinate to and distinct from the Father(as the following
verses show). Godis one God who exists as three Persons:the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit.
2. Jesus is equal with God in His works (5:17, 19).
By saying (5:17), “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am
working,” Jesus links His own activity directly with God’s activity. As D. A.
Carsonpoints out (The GospelAccording to John [Eerdmans/Apollos], p.
247), “Forthis self-defense to be valid, the same factors that apply to God
must apply to Jesus ….” The Jews acknowledgedthat after creationGod
workedon the Sabbath to sustain His creation. Jesus is saying, “To accuseMe
of Sabbath-breaking is to accuseGodof Sabbath-breaking, because He is My
Father and I work exactly as He works. The Fatherworks continuously,
including on the Sabbath; so do I.”
Also, implicit in Jesus’statementthat He is working right alongside the
Father is that He always has been working alongside the Father. The Bible is
clearthat all three members of the Trinity were involved in the work of
creation. John has told us specificallythat Jesus, the Word, was involved in
creation. Since He and the Fatherare one, Jesus has been working with the
Father since the beginning of time. Clearly, Jesus was claiming to be God!

125. The Jews gotit. They sought all the more to kill Him because He was making
Himself equal to God. Jesus responded(5:19), “Truly, truly, I say to you, the
Son cando nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father
doing; for whateverthe Father does, these things the Son also does in like
manner.” Jesus uses “truly, truly” three times in this discourse (5:19, 24, 25)
because He wants us to take specialnote of what He says.
The first thing he affirms is that “the Son cando nothing of Himself, unless it
is something He sees the Fatherdoing.” This is not a statement of weakness or
limitation, but rather of His absolute unity with the Father in nature and in
will. He is saying that it is impossible for the Son to act independently of the
Father because theyshare the same nature. What the Father does the Son
does and what the Son does, the Father does. There is a complete
correspondence intheir actions. In Jesus, we see God. When Jesus worked, it
was God working. WhateverJesus did was an actof God; whateverHe said
was the word of God. There was no moment of His life and no action of His
which did not express the life and action of the Father.
Yet at the same time, these verses revealthat as the Son, Jesus is always
subordinate to the Father in terms of carrying out the divine will. The Father
commands and the Son obeys. Jesus was sentto this earth by the Father(5:23)
to accomplishthe work that the Father gave Him to do (4:34), especiallythe
work of redemption on the cross (3:14; 12:27). But subordination in the
hierarchy of the Trinity does not in any wayimply inferiority. All three
Persons ofthe Trinity are equally and eternally God. But for the sake of
carrying out the divine plan, the Son is subject to the Father and the Spirit is
subject to the Father and the Son.
The lastpart of verse 19 explains why it is impossible for the Son to do
anything of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing: “for
whateverthe Fatherdoes, these things the Son also does in like manner.”
Carson(p. 251, italics his) explains the thought: “It is impossible for the Son
to take independent, self-determined action that would sethim over against
the Fatheras another God, for all the Son does is both coincident with and co-
extensive with all that the Father does.” So John’s point is that while Jesus as
the Sonof Godis subordinate to the Fatherand carries out His works in

126. obedience to Him, He is at the same time fully equal to the Fatheras God. No
lesserbeing could make the claim of verse 19.
3. Jesus is equal with God in His love and knowledge (5:20).
In verse 20, Jesus explains how the Son can do whateverthe Father does:“For
the Fatherloves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing;
and the Father will show Him greaterworks than these, so that you will
marvel.” The Father’s love for the Son is seenby His disclosing to the Son
everything that He is doing.
In a recent sermon, John MacArthur pointed out the startling implications of
this verse (“The MostStartling Claim Ever Made,” Part1, on gty.org):
It might shake you up to hear this, but at the heart of God’s redeeming work
is not God’s love for you, not God’s love for me. Not God’s love for the world.
Not God’s love for sinners. At the heart of redemption is … the Father’s love
for the Son and the Son’s love for the Father.
You say, “Didn’t Jesus die because He loved us?” In a secondarysense, but in
a primary sense, Jesusdied because He loved the Father. “Didn’t the Father
send Jesus to the cross becauseHe loved us?” In a secondarysense. In
primary sense He sent the Son to the cross becauseHe loved the Son. You say,
“How am I to understand that?”
You’re to understand it this way, that the whole purpose of redemption, the
whole purpose of creation, the whole purpose of the world, the universe,
human history is so that God cancollecta bride to give to His Son a bride
that’s an expressionof His love…. The Father … will give to the Sona
redeemedhumanity, collectedone day in heaven forever and everand ever to
praise and serve and glorify the Son and always be an everlasting expression
of the Father’s love.
Jesus’point in 5:20 is that the Father’s love for the Son is displayed by the
fact that He shows Him all that He Himself is doing. I understand that to refer
to the time when Jesus was onearth, since before He came to earth, Jesus and
the Fatherpossessedallknowledge inherently, so that there would have been
no need for disclosure. In Colossians 2:3, Paulsays that in Christ “are hidden

127. all the treasures ofwisdom and knowledge.”These treasuresare disclosedto
us in God’s inspired Word, which is sufficient for all of life and godliness (2
Pet. 1:3). We don’t need to turn to the “wisdom” ofthe world for answers to
our personaland relationalproblems. The answers are in Christ and in God’s
Word.
The “greaterworks”thatJesus refers to in 5:20 are in the next two verses:
Giving life to whom He wishes and judging all people. We’ve seenthat Jesus is
equal with God in His nature, His works, and in His love and knowledge.
4. Jesus is equal with God in His sovereignpower(5:21).
John 5:21: “Forjust as the Fatherraises the dead and gives them life, even so
the Sonalso gives life to whom He wishes.” This verse is an example of how
Jesus does the works ofthe Father: He gives life to whom He wishes. It’s a
startling claim! What mere man could claim that he could give life to
whomever he wished? Either Jesus is crazy or He is God!
“Life” here refers on one level to Jesus’ability to raise the dead physically, as
He did on three recordedoccasions:The widow of Nain’s son(Luke 7:11-17);
Jairus’ daughter (Luke 8:49-56); and Lazarus (John 11:1-44). Also, at the end
of the age, Jesus willgive the command and all the dead from all ages will
arise, either for judgment or eternal life (John 5:28-29).
But Jesus’miracles were illustrations of spiritual truth. His power to give
physical life to whomeverHe wills and to raise the dead physically at the end
of the age show us that He also has the sovereignpowerto give spiritual life to
those who are spiritually dead. In John 5:24 he says, “Truly, truly, I say to
you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternallife,
and does not come into judgment, but has passedout of death into life.”
As with many aspects ofsalvation, we see all three members of the Trinity
involved in the giving of life. Here we see that both the Father and the Son
raise the dead and give them life. In John 6:63 Jesus says, “Itis the Spirit who
gives life.” But clearly the giving of life is an activity that only God cando (1
Sam. 2:6).

128. And, Jesus asserts His sovereigntyin the giving of life. Leon Morris (p. 315)
says, “Menmay not command the miracle. The Son gives life where He, not
man, chooses.” As verse 24 states, to have eternallife we must hear Jesus’
word and believe in Him. But He initiates the process. We cannotbelieve in
Him or know the Father unless the Sonwills it (Luke 10:22). That way we
can’t take any credit for our salvation. He gets all the glory.
5. Jesus is equal with God in judgment (5:22).
John 5:22: “Fornot even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all
judgment to the Son ….” In verse 21, the roles of the Father and Sonare
parallel in giving life. But here, the Fatherhas delegatedall judgment to the
Son, because (as Jesus explains in 5:27), “He is the Sonof Man.” BecauseHe
took on human flesh and died for the sins of the world (1:29), the Father
delegatedall judgment to Jesus (Acts 17:31).
In John 3:17, we saw that Jesus did not come “into the world to judge the
world, but that the world might be savedthrough Him.” His purpose for
coming was to provide salvation. But those who reject Him are already under
condemnation because they have not believed in the only provision for their
sins that God graciouslyprovided (3:18). If they die in that condition, they will
face His eternal judgment.
Also, to be a just and fair judge, Jesus has to possess allknowledge ofall
people who have ever lived. If an earthly judge is missing keyfacts, he is likely
to make an erroneous judgment. To judge every person, Jesus has to know all
of their circumstances, their thoughts, and their motives. So again, to make
this claim, Jesus eitherwas crazy or He was God. Finally,
6. Jesus is equal with God in worship (5:23).
John 5:23: “… so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He
who does not honor the Son does not honor the Fatherwho sent Him.” If
Jesus is not fully God, then His words in verse 23 are nothing short of
blasphemy! What createdbeing could saythat we should honor him just as we
honor the Father? Clearly, Jesus is claiming to be God.

129. This means that you can testanyone’s claim to believe in God by their views
of Jesus. If they claim to believe in God, but they think that Jesus was justa
goodman, they do not believe in the living and true God. They only believe in
a god of their own making. If they do not honor Jesus, they do not honor the
Father.
John MacArthur (“The Most Startling Claim Ever Made,” Part 2, on gty.org)
recalls a conversationthat he had with Larry King after he had taped a TV
show one evening. Larry said, “You know, John, I’m going to be okay…going
to be okay.” Johnsaid, “What do you mean you’re going to be okay?” “I
think I’m going to make it to heaven.” John said “Basedon what, Larry?” He
said, and he named a certain evangelistand said, “He told me because I’m
Jewish, I’m going to be okay.” Johnconcludes, “Thatmay be the worst thing
that anybody told him. But to come from a Christian evangelistto tell him
that?”
No one will be okayon judgment day who has not honored and loved and
worshiped Jesus Christas God! As Calvin puts it (Calvin’s Commentaries
[Baker], p. 202), “The name of God, when it is separatedfrom Christ, is
nothing else than a vain imagination.” As John puts it (1 John 2:23),
“Whoeverdenies the Sondoes not have the Father;the one who confessesthe
Son has the Father also.” Jesus is equal with the Fatherin belief and in
worship.
Conclusion
Polls have shown that a majority of Americans believe that Jesus is God, but
that belief has not changedthe face of America. It’s not enough to believe that
Jesus is God intellectually. You must also trust in Him as your Saviorfrom sin
and judgment and live in submission to Him as Lord of all your life.
Remember, to believe in Jesus as merely a greatmoral teacheris not an
option. Either He was crazy or He was God in human flesh. Believe in Him as
your God and Saviorand you have eternallife!
Application Questions

130. There are some Pentecostalgroups that believe that Jesus only is God. Thus
they deny the Trinity. Can such people be saved?
Can people who deny the deity of Jesus be saved? Why not?
Discuss the implications of Jesus’claimin John 5:21 to give life to whom He
wishes. How does this interface with our responsibility to believe?
Why does Jesus’subordination to the Father not imply inferiority to the
Father? What parallels does this have in Christian marriage roles (Eph. 5:22-
33)?
Copyright, Steven J. Cole, 2013,All Rights Reserved.
Was Jesus Crazy (and Are We For Following Him)?
May 13, 2015 by Christian Piatt
36 Comments
C.S. Lewis is known for many things, but one of his statements about Jesus in
particular has stuck with me. He says that either Jesus was who he said he
was, or he was a madman.

131. But what if he was a little of both?
And if so, what does that make us for following him?
I’ve been considering this a lot lately, as I work through the year long trek
I’m calling My Jesus Project, in which I’m trying to – maybe for the first time
– really understand what we’re talking about when we talk about following
Jesus.
Granted, Jesus spoke oftenin hyperbole (which some folks both within and
beyond Christianity still try to interpret word-for-word), and he came from a
culture whose values and symbols don’t always make sense to us, but that
aside, some of what he wants us to do is, by common cultural standards, more
or less nuts.
First off, he has a MessiahComplex(at leastif he wasn’t the Messiah). I
mean, there were scads of others going around claiming to be the Messiah, so
he’s not the only one. And though most Christians embrace the idea that Jesus
will return, look at how we treat people who have said they are the Son of
God, come again?
Straightjacketforone, aisle two, please…
Next, he tells us to hate our bodies, and even die to self. He wants us to follow
him, but tells us up front that it’s going to suck. A lot. I mean, look what
happened to him and to most of his followers.
Woohoo!Sign me up please!
Then there’s his whole communication style. Consider an example below:
Disciple:Hey Jesus, we have this problem and we need your help.
Jesus:Let me tell you a story…
Disciple:Ummm…what?
Basically, here’s the messagesome Christians sign up for: forgo benefits and
pleasures of life here for some hope of a better thing later. But you only getit

132. after you die, and you just have to trust us that it’s really, really there. Even
though we don’t personally know either.
Another perspective is simply that indulging in earthly pleasures is akin to
throwing your life away. And yet, when we do what Jesus claims we should,
we reject so much that the world suggestswe hold dear. Sounds like throwing
your life away, doesn’tit?
Rejectyour family.
Be poor on purpose.
Give all your stuff away and wander around (i.e., be homeless).
Talk to an invisible…something, out there…somewhere.
Love other people, including the ones who may even try to kill you, and even
succeedin doing it.
Yell at fig trees.
Subvert the laws of your culture.
Challenge the leaders in your government.
Challenge the religious figures who know the rules at the heart of the religious
culture you come from.
It’s really no wonder so many Christians lean on selling the “ticketout of
hell” angle so often. It’s so much simpler, it appeals to the human instinct for
self-preservation, and it’s less, well, crazy than the alternative.
And yet…
There’s some sense of“rightness” to it all. Notin the sense of “I’m right,
you’re wrong,” but rather it feels strangely, curiously compelling. It draws us

133. in, begs deeperinquiry, study, discernment. It pulls us together, beyond the
sum total of our individual component parts. It helps us more clearly imagine
the possibility of things we hope for in this world, even if we haven’t yet seen
it.
It feels as if there’s a deeper sense ofmeaning, belonging and purpose to it all
than can be achievedby adding another title to our resume or another zero to
our paycheck. After all, the personwho dies with the most toys still dies,
right? And we’ve chasedthose rabbits of external status and materialism ad
nauseam, to no avail. We always still want…more.
Questions remain that haunt us, like:
Why are we here?
What’s the point?
Is there anything more important than what the world says is important?
Is there really anything worth living for, or maybe even worth dying for?
Pursuing these questions can make anyone a little crazy by conventional
standards. But considering the state of things all around us in the world, the
state of our environment, our propensity for specious pursuits and mutual
destruction at a blinding pace, maybe “normal” is less sane than we’ve
thought.
Maybe, in the end, the only reasonable optionis to go a little crazy.
Was Jesus Insane?

134. What a preposterous question: was Jesus insane?!Those who are pious
Christians may even be offended that such a question is raised. On the other
hand, those who are highly anti-Christian may think the answeris obvious: in
most likelihood he was.
This is no new question, though. Early in the Gospels we read, “Whenhis
family heard what was happening, they came to take control of him. They
were saying, ‘He’s out of his mind!’” (Mark 3:21, CEB).
And repeatedly Jesus was accusedby his religious opponents of being
possessedby demons. As you know, demon possessionwas atthat time the
explanation of what we would call mental illness.
The question of Jesus’sanity was raisedanew in the nineteenth and first part
of the twentieth century. In 1913 Albert Schweitzerwrote his thesis for an
M.D. degree. It was titled (in English translation) “The Psychiatric Study of
Jesus.”
According to Schweitzer, the German theologianDavid Friedrich Strauss
(1808-74)was the first in modern times to conjecture that Jesus was
“psychopathic.” Schweitzer, however, mainly analyzed the works of three
contemporary medical writers—a German, a Frenchman, and an American—
who between1905 and 1912 soughtto explicate Jesus’insanity.
Schweitzer’s conclusion, though, was that the efforts of those who claimed
Jesus was insane fell “far short of proving the existence ofmental illness.”
I started thinking about this topic when reading a book with the unlikely title
The Ethiopian Tattoo Shop (1983), a collectionof 22 “parables” written by
Edward Hays, a Catholic priest in Kansas. (The book was recently mentioned
by a friend who knows Hays, and I have heard others also speak highly of
him.)
One of Hays’s stories is “The Hired Hand,” a man that was wonderfully good
and kind to his employer and his family. But he said his name was Jesus
Christ, and before long he was arrestedas an escapeefrom the “State Insane
Asylum.”

135. What would happen, Hays wonders, if Jesus were to reappearamong us
today? Quite possibly, he would be consideredinsane or “demon possessed”
just as he was when he lived on earth 2,000 years ago.
Then I began reading The Underground Church (2013), anengaging book by
UCC PastorRobin Meyers. The first chapter is titled “SweetJesus:Talking
His MelancholyMadness.”Thatthought-provoking chapter is basedin part
on the poem “Maybe” by Mary Oliver (which is also attractively presented on
Vimeo here).
Meyers also refers to Thomas Merton’s reflections on Adolf Eichmann in
Raids on the Unspeakable (1964). At Eichmann’s trial, he was found to be
“perfectly sane,” andMerton found that disturbing. So he concluded that “in
a societylike ours the worstinsanity is to be . . . totally ‘sane’” (p. 49).
Similarly, in Don Quixote Cervantes wrote, “Whenlife itself seems lunatic,
who knows where madness lies? Perhaps to be too practicalis madness. To
surrender dreams—this may be madness. Too much sanity may be madness—
and maddest of all: to see life as it is, and not as it should be!”
This same sentiment is expressedby the preeminent Japanese filmmaker
Akira Kurosawa (1910-98):“In a mad world, only the mad are sane.”
According to a former employee of the CIA whom I heard speak earlierthis
month, the U.S., which during the Cold War implemented the military
strategyknown as Mutual Assured Destruction(appropriately knownas
MAD), still supports the same policy increasinglyapplied to the tense
relationship betweenIsraeland Iran.
In this light, perhaps the “madness” ofJesus is sanity, after all.
https://theviewfromthisseat.blogspot.com/2015/05/was-jesus-insane.html

136. SPROUL
Jesus and His Family
“Then he went home, and the crowd gatheredagain, so that they could not
even eat. And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they
were saying, ‘He is out of his mind.’ ”
- Mark 3:20–21
Pictures and statues of Mary the mother of Jesus and His other family
members tend to portray His relatives as pious individuals who were devoted
to our Savior. Certainly, many of His family members were men and women
of greatfaith. Mary believed God’s messagethrough the angel Gabrielthat
she would bear the Messiah(Luke 1:26–38). James the brother of Jesus
became an Apostle after our Lord’s resurrection (1 Cor. 15:7). However, these
artistic depictions may give us an incomplete picture of what Jesus’family
actually thought about Him. After all, Scripture does not tell us that they were
sinless, and there are passagessuggesting thatthey sometimes failed to
recognize Him and His message.
Mark 3:20–21 narrates one of those occasions whenJesus’family did not
know who He was. First, we must note that there is some discussionas to
whether these verses are actually talking about the relatives of our Lord. The
“his family” of verse 21 translates a Greek expressionthat is most literally
rendered “those of him.” Contextual clues, however, indicate that we should
understand this phrase as referring to Christ’s relatives. It would not make
sense for it to be referring to the larger crowd, since “those of him” clearlysits
in distinction to the crowdin verse 20. In other words, it does not say“those of
the crowd.” It also does not say“of the disciples.” In any case, Mark is not
hesitant to tell us explicitly of those occasionswhenthe disciples did not
understand Jesus (see 4:41;6:51–52;8:31–33). Why, then, would he refer to
them ambiguously here? Furthermore, Jesus’family, including Mary His
mother, appears explicitly just a few verses later (see 3:31–35). Thus, “those of
him” in Mark 3:21 must refer to those of Jesus’flesh, that is, those who
shared a flesh-and-blood familial relationship with Him.

137. Today’s passagemakes itimpossible to embrace doctrines such as Mary’s
sinlessnessorto view the relatives of Jesus as super-saints who are far beyond
any of the restof us in their piety. At leastat this point in Jesus’ministry, His
family was blinded enough by sin to mistake His teaching for the ravings of a
man suffering a bout of insanity. But this text also has an important message
for anyone who becomes a disciple, or follower, of the Lord. If even Christ’s
own family did not understand Him and thought He was out of His mind, we
should not be surprised that our relatives might think the same of us when we
are faithful to our Savior.
Coram Deo
Dr. Sproul writes in his commentary Mark that “anyone who takes his faith
seriouslyand speaks onbehalf of Christ and His kingdom will be accusedof
fanaticism at some point.” When we follow Jesus, we will inevitably face
people—perhaps even our closestrelatives—who think we are strange, crazy,
or maybe even evil. When this occurs, let us recallthat Jesus Himself faced
people who misunderstood Him. Still, He loved them, and so too must we love
those who think we are fanatics.
Passages forFurther Study
Psalm81
Jeremiah38
Matthew 5:11–12
Luke 2:41–52

138. Today’s Christians need to be as crazy as Jesus was, says the presiding bishop
of the EpiscopalChurch in this sermon.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Editor’s note: Faith & Leadership offers sermons that shed light on issues of
Christian leadership. A version of this sermonwas preached at the General
Convention of the EpiscopalChurch in Indianapolis, Ind., July 7, 2012.
Mark 3:19-21
This day we are commemorating the witness of Harriet BeecherStowe, a
woman who used her words to setthe captive free. I’ll saymore about her
later, but right now I want to note that in 1943-44 herwitness was celebrated
in a Broadwayplay titled “Harriet.”
It was Helen Hayes who played the part of Harriet BeecherStowe. At the end
of the play BeecherStowe’s family stands around Harriet and sings the words
of “The Battle Hymn of the Republic,” affirming the Christian witness of this
brave and bold woman. Partof the hymn goes like this:
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born acrossthe sea,
With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me:
As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.
For a text today, I offer these words from Mark 3:19-21 (NRSV): “Then
[Jesus]went home; and the crowdcame togetheragain, so that they could not
even eat. When his family heard it, they went out to restrain him, for people
were saying, ‘He has gone out of his mind.’”

139. The King James Versionof the Bible translates the concernof Jesus’family
for him in these words:“He is beside himself.” The old J.B. Phillips New
Testamenttranslates it, “People were saying, ‘He must be mad!’” But my
favorite is from the 1995 ContemporaryEnglishVersion, which says, “When
Jesus’family heard what he was doing, they thought he was crazy and went to
get him under control.”
So forgive me for saying it this way, but Jesus was, andis, crazy! And those
who would follow him, those who would be his disciples, those who would live
as and be the people of the Way, are calledand summoned and challengedto
be just as crazy as Jesus. So I want to speak on the subject“We need some
crazy Christians.”
I don’t want to be too quick to judge Jesus’mother and the whole family.
They had goodreasonto be concerned. We just read from 1 Petera teaching
that reflects what Jesus taughtin the Sermon on the Mount: “Do not repay
evil for evil or abuse for abuse; but, on the contrary, repay with a blessing” (1
Peter3:9). That’s crazy. In the Gospelreading from Matthew, readjust a few
moments ago, Jesus says, “The greatestamong you will be your servant”
(Matthew 23:11). That’s crazy.
What the world calls wretched, Jesus calls blessed. Blessedare the poor and
the poor in spirit. Blessedare the merciful, the compassionate. Blessedare
those who hunger and thirst that God’s righteous justice might prevail.
Blessedare those who work for peace. Blessedare you when you are
persecutedjust for trying to love and do what is good. Jesus was crazy. He
said, “Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, pray for those who
despitefully use you.” He was crazy. He prayed while folk were killing him,
“Father, forgive them; they know not what they do.” Now, that’s crazy.
We need some Christians who are as crazy as the Lord. Crazy enough to love
like Jesus, to give like Jesus, to forgive like Jesus, to do justice, love mercy,
walk humbly with God -- like Jesus. Crazyenough to dare to change the
world from the nightmare it often is into something close to the dream that
God dreams for it. And for those who would follow him, those who would be

140. his disciples, those who would live as and be the people of the Way? It might
come as a shock, but they are calledto craziness.
Let me suggestone example of such a call from the New Testament:Mary of
Magdala, MaryMagdalene. Forwhateverreason, Maryoften gets a bum rap.
Think back to the crucifixion of Jesus. Crucifixion was executionby the
empire for crimes againstthe state. It was public torture. It was an
intentionally brutal means of capitalpunishment, an execution designedto
send a messagethat revolution and revolutionaries would not be tolerated. If
you were a supporter or followerof the person being crucified, it was
dangerous to stand too close by during the execution. The rational and
sensible thing to do was to go into hiding or exile.
Having said that, let’s call the roll of those Jesus calledto follow him; let’s
take the attendance of the apostles atthe crucifixion of their Lord. Simon
Peter? Absent. James? Absent. Andrew? Absent. Bartholomew? Absent.
Thomas? Absent. Judas? Definitely absent. Mary Magdalene? Presentand
accountedfor! That’s a disciple! When the old slaves sang, “Wereyou there
when they crucified my Lord?” there was a womannamed Mary who could
answer, “I was there!” Now, that’s crazy!
Now, it may not be obvious at first, but we actually have a day to remember
crazy Christians. I think we call it All Saints’ Day. It’s not called“All the
Same Day”; it’s All Saints’Day, because, thoughthey were fallible and
mortal, and sinners like the rest of us, when push came to shove, the people we
honor as saints marched to the beat of a different drummer. In their lifetimes,
they made a difference for the kingdom of God. As you know, we are even
working on a book to help us commemorate them. We are calling it “Holy
Women, Holy Men.” But we might as well call it “The Chronicles of Crazy
Christians.”
One of the people we celebrate in the book is Harriet BeecherStowe, a
descendantof Mary Magdalene. She was born in 1811 into a devout family
committed to the gospelofJesus and to helping transform the world from the
nightmare it often is into the dream God intends. She is best-knownfor a
fictional work titled “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.”

141. In this fiction, she told the truth. She told the story of how chattel slavery
afflicted a family, afflicted real people. She told the truth of the brutality, the
injustice, the inhumanity of the institution of chattel slavery. Her book did
what YouTube videos of injustices and brutalities do today. It went 19th-
century viral. It rallied abolitionists and enragedvested interests.
The influence of that book was so powerful that Abraham Lincoln is reputed
to have said, upon meeting Harriet BeecherStowefor the first time, “So this is
the little lady who started this greatwar!”
A woman of her era was supposed to write nice stories, not stories that would
disturb the conscienceofa nation. She was supposedto marry well, raise well-
bred children, participate in a few charitable activities and be fondly
remembered by all who knew her. That was the life she was supposedto have.
But she had been raised in a family that believed that following Jesus means
changing the world from the nightmare it often is into the dream that God
intends. And sometimes that means marching to the beat of a different
drummer. Sometimes that means caring when it is tempting to care less, or
standing up when others sit down. Sometimes it means speaking up when
others shut up. Sometimes it means being different -- even being crazy.
When Steve Jobs, one of the founders of Apple Inc., died last year, an old
Apple commercialfrom the 90s went viral on YouTube. It was a commercial
that aired in 1997 and that attempted to re-brand Apple products. The tag
line for the commercialand the company was “Think different,” a phrase that
is grammatically incorrect-- which is part of the point.
In the commercial, they showeda collage ofphotographs and film footage of
people who have invented and inspired, createdand sacrificedto improve the
world, to make a difference. They showedBobDylan, Amelia Earhart, Frank
Lloyd Wright, Maria Callas, Muhammad Ali, Martin Luther King Jr., Jim
Henson, Albert Einstein, Pablo Picasso, Mahatma Gandhi and on and on and
on. As the images rolled by, a voice read this poem:
Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels.
The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes.

142. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules.
And they have no respectfor the status quo.
You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them.
About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them.
Becausethey change things.
They push the human race forward.
While some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius.
Becausethe people who are crazy enough
to think they can change the world,
are the ones who do.
We need some crazy Christians. Sane, sanitized Christianity is killing us. That
may have workedonce upon a time, but it won’t carry the gospelanymore.
We need some crazy Christians like Mary Magdalene andHarriet Beecher
Stowe. Christians crazy enough to believe that God is real and that Jesus lives.
Crazy enough to follow the radical way of the gospel. Crazyenough to believe
that the love of God is greaterthan all the powers of evil and death. Crazy
enough to believe, as Dr. King often said, that though “the moral arc of the
universe is long, … it bends towardjustice.”
We need some Christians crazy enoughto believe that children don’t have to
go to bed hungry; that the world doesn’t have to be the way it often seems to
be; that there is a way to lay down our swords and shields, down by the
riverside; that, as the slaves usedto sing, “there’s plenty goodroom in my
Father’s kingdom,” because everyhuman being has been createdin the image
of God, and we are all equally children of God and meant to be treated as
such.
In the beauty of the lilies, Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me:

143. As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
God’s truth is marching on.
If they thought Jesus was Crazythen…
Erik Raymond | January 13, 2012
Share
Tweet
Email
More By Erik
Jesus Doesn’tKeepthe Receipt
How Does GodHide His Face from Us?
RecentReads April 2020
Why Do Quiet Times Get So Noisy?

144. Encouragedby Pandemic Pastors
He has a demon, and is insane, why listen to him? John 10.19
This passage, in light of Jesus’clearcommunication of who he is, is both
discouraging and encouraging.
It is discouraging because they did not getit. Jesus, standing before them and
preaching the truth, was thought to be crazy. How sinful is sin that it stops up
the unbelieving ears so full that they cannot hear their maker’s words? This is
disturbing. Every unbelieving heart is just this hard. Left unto ourselves Jesus
and his message is crazy.
It is encouraging because there was obviously nothing wrong with Jesus’
sermon. He didn’t leave out any key points or magic phrases that would have
made them believe. He preachedand they thought he was crazy. And if people
thought Jesus was crazythen it should follow that when we preachthis same
messageto like hearts then we will getthe same response. I am encouraged
that I don’t have to wonder what is wrong with me or the message, it is the
heart of the hearer that is out of tune.
Furthermore, we should be encouragedthat it is this same, foolish message
that actually brings people to faith. Isn’t that interesting? That truth that
makes one snickerand bristle can also make the same persontrust and
treasure Christ! In fact, in this very passage we readthat “my sheep hear my
voice…” (v.27). It is and always be the words of the Son of God that brings us
from the grave of unbelief to the table of gospelfeasting.
Therefore, let us be humbled, encouraged, sustainedand exhorted unto gospel
joy and fidelity.
ohn B. Phillips
Home

145. About
Blog
Books
Drawings
Contact
The Scripture Blog
Was Jesus Crazy?
by John B. Phillips on October1, 2015
According to his family, he was. In Mark 3:20-21 (NIV), we read: “Then Jesus
entered a house, and againa crowdgathered, so that his disciples were not
even able to eat. When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of
him, for they said, ‘He is out of his mind.'” Another translation says his
family thought “he was crazy.”
The genesis forthis post is a sermon by Bishop MichaelCurry, recently
shared with me by a friend. If you’d like to hear it, go to You Tube and type
in Bishop Curry GeneralConvention Sermon. It’s powerful and not that
lengthy.
Bishop Curry proclaims that a Christian is calledto be as crazy as Jesus.
Before you agree, think about what Jesus taught. Turn the other cheek. Give a
needy person more than she asks. Whenyou give, do it secretly. Love your
enemies. Pray for those who do you wrong. You can’t serve both God and
money. Don’t worry about anything. Don’t judge others. And that’s the tip of
the iceberg.
All that sounds pretty crazy. It sounded crazy in Jesus’time. It sounds just as
crazy today. Think about it.
I’ve spent much of my life trying to convince people that I’m perfectly
normal, reasonable or, at the very least, not crazy. It’s daunting to think
about embracing the craziness ofJesus.

146. I believe what Jesus taught. But by the standards of almostany society,
howeverold or new, living what he taught is crazy. In Mark 9, we readof the
boy who convulsed, rolled around on the ground, and foamed at the mouth.
Before Jesus healedhim, he said to the boy’s father, “Everything is possible
for one who believes.” I understand the father’s response:“I do believe; help
me overcome my unbelief!”