| Hosea 4:1 & 6 says: "Listen to the word of the LORD. ... My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." |
|
| THE ACTION OF ANGER |
|
Chapter X
"Those who choose evil shall have their choice. Men who hate divine mercy shall not have it forced upon them, but (unless sovereign grace interpose) shall be left to themselves to aggravate their guilt and ensure their doom. They have loved darkness rather than light, and in darkness they shall abide. Eyes which see no beauty in the Lord Jesus, but flash wrath upon Him, may well grow yet more dim, till death which is spiritual leads to death which is eternal." 1
Matthew 12:9-14 (NASB): "And departing from there, He [Jesus] went into their synagogue. And behold, there was a man with a withered hand. And they questioned Him, saying, 'Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?' ---in order that they might accuse Him. And He said to them, 'What man shall there be among you, who shall have one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take hold of it, and lift it out? Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep! So then, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.' Then He said to the man, 'Stretch out your hand!' And he stretched it out, and it was restored to normal, like the other. But the Pharisees went out, and counseled together against Him, as to how they might destroy Him." (Commentary on Matthew, Mark, and Luke by John Calvin says: "Matthew 12:9. And having departed thence. This narrative and that which immediately precedes it have the same object; which is to show, that the scribes watched with a malicious eye for the purpose of turning into slander every thing that Christ did, and consequently we need not wonder if men, whose minds were so depraved, were his implacable Enemies.") 2 Mark 2:24-28 & 3:1-6 (NASB): "And the Pharisees were saying to Him, 'See here, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?' And He [Jesus] said to them, Have you never read what David did when he was in need and became hungry, he and "his companions:" 3 how he entered into the house of God in the time of Abiather the high priest, and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and He gave it also to those who were with Him? And He [Jesus] was saying to them [the scribes and Pharisees], 'The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Consequently, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.' And He entered again into a synagogue; and a man was there with a withered hand. And they [the scribes and Pharisees] were watching Him to see if He would heal him on the Sabbath, in order that they might accuse Him. And He said to the man with the withered hand, 'rise and come forward! And He said to them, 'Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save a life or to kill?' But they kept silent. And after looking around at them [those] with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, He said to the man, 'stretch out your hand.' And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored. And the Pharisees went out and immediately began taking counsel with the Herodians against Him, as to how they might destroy Him." Luke 6:5-11 (NASB): "And He [Jesus] was saying to them, 'The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.' And it came about on another Sabbath, that He entered the synagogue and was teaching: and there was a man there whose right hand was withered. And the scribes and the Pharisees were watching Hito see if He healed on the Sabbath, in order that they might find reason to accuse Him. But He [Jesus] knew what they [the scribes and Pharisees] were thinking, and he said to the man with the withered hand, 'Arise and come forward!' And he arose and came forward. And Jesus said to them, 'I ask you, is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good, or to do evil, to save a life, or to destroy it?' And after looking around at them all, He said to him, 'stretch out your hand!' And he did so; and his hand was completely restored. But they [the scribes and Pharisees] themselves were filled with rage, and discussed together what they might do to Jesus." m closely,
Matthew records that the scribes and Pharisees questioned Jesus in order that they might accuse Him. Mark says that the scribes and Pharisees were watching Jesus to see if He would heal the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath, in order that they might accuse Him. Luke adds that the scribes and Pharisees were watching Him closely, to see if He healed on the Sabbath, in order that they might find reason to accuse Him. And, that the scribes and Pharisees themselves were filled with rage. (For the Greek word that is translated rage see the footnote.) 4 Webster's Universities Dictionary Unabridged defines rage as follows: "1. violent anger accompanied by furious words, gestures, or agitation; anger excited to fury."
The eyes of Jesus swept the room. Mark records that Jesus saw them, the scribes and Pharisees, and they were in the midst of anger. (See the footnotes for the Greek words that are translated "them" 5 and "Anger." 6 ) Jesus said to the man with the withered hand, "Arise and come forward!" And he arose and came forward and Jesus said: "I ask you, is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good, or to do evil, to save a life, or to destroy it?" He said to the man with the withered hand "stretch out your hand," and he stretched it out, and his hand was restored.
Luke records that Jesus knew what was in the minds of the scribes and Pharisees; "He knew what they were thinking." And, Mark clearly says that Jesus was "inwardly grieving [not angry] at their hardness of heart." Mark uses a Greek pronoun to identify the scribes and Pharisees as "them," or "those," the ones "with anger"; which literally translates from Greek to English as: "in the midst of anger." Luke uses the same pronoun to identify "the scribes and Pharisees as "they," the ones that were furious as the NIV translates it, or they were filled with anger excited to fury which is rage as the NASB translates it."
Genesis 4:3-8 (NASB): "So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the Lord of the fruit of the ground. And Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and for his offering; but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard. So Cain became very angry. . . . Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him." How about that! From the very beginning; it was anger and then the murderous act. And so we know that back of the first ever murder in the records of eternity, was the anger of man. Galatians 5:19-21 (NASB) says: "Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envyings, drunkenness, carousings, and things like these, of which I forewarn you just as I have forewarned you that those who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." We had better believe it. We have already seen that Jesus forbids being angry in Matthew 5:21-22, when He said: "You have heard that the ancients were told, 'You shall not commit murder' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court" (ASV says: in danger of the judgment. See the footnote for the Greek participle that is translated: is angry.) 7 So, in Matthew 5:21-22, Jesus goes back of the murderous act, and forbids the anger and the reproachful words that precede it at the same time that He warns: "unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven." The exegesis and translation of prepositional phrases of the Greek New Testament provide implicit information as to the proper understanding of the ideas contained in the Greek text. Consider the debate regarding the proper understanding of the Greek text of Romans 1:17 8 translated in The Interlinear Literal Translation of The Greek New Testament as: "But the just by faith shall live." Some scholars insist that the prepositional phrase that is translated: by faith, is to be understood as adverbial qualifying the verb: shall live. However, there are scholars who insist that it is adjectival and qualifies the noun: the just or righteous man. Romans 1:16 (NASB) says: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to every one who believes [has faith], to the Jew first and also to the Greek." And, Romans 1:17 (NASB) says: . . ."as it is written, 'But the righteous man shall live by faith' (RSV says: 'He who through faith is righteous shall live')." The expression: "As it is written" refers to Habakkuk 2:4, and Habakkuk 2:4 (NASB) says: "But the righteous shall live by his faith." It appears from the context of Romans 1:16ff, that the Apostle Paul understood that the prepositional phrase e0k pi/stewj (transliterated ek pisteo>s and translated: by faith) of Romans 1:17 is to be construed as adjectival, characterizing the substantive, that is translated as "righteous man." Question: Is this prepositional phrase to be understood as, "the just shall live by faith," or is it to be understood as, "the just by faith shall live?"Now, consider the English expression: "He saw the man with the bat." The prepositional phrase "with the bat" is clearly adjectival qualifying the preceding substantive, the man. It would make no sense to say that it is to be construed adverbially qualifying the verb. One does not see with a bat. And, consider the English expression: "He saw the man with binoculars." The prepositional phrase "with binoculars" can be either adjectival or adverbial depending on whether he had the binoculars or depending on whether the man had the binoculars. A proper understanding of the prepositional phrase meta orghV of the Greek text of Mark 3:5, transliterated meta orge>s and translated: "with anger," is vital to rightly understanding Mark 3:5. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by Daniel B. Wallace, on page 357, makes reference to the fact that: "A proper understanding of prepositions is vital to exegesis. Many an exegetical debate has turned on the use of a particular preposition." 9 So, let us now consider the question: "Does the phrase with anger qualify the Greek participle periblepsamenos 10 that is translated: "after looking around at" in Mark 3:5 (NASB) and in Luke 6:10 (NASB); or, does the prepositional phrase "with anger" of Mark 3:5 function adjectivally, characterizing the preceding substantive, the Greek pronoun autous, that is translated: "them." Considerable attention, then, must be focused on the Greek text of Mark 3:5 that is translated in the NASB as: "and after looking around at them with anger." (See the footnote for the Greek text of Mark 3:5, with the literal interlinear English translation, and comments concerning the Greek text.) 11 |
| Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament, page 276, says: "When he had looked round on them with anger, Mark has a good deal to say about the looks of Jesus with this word (3:5,34; 5:32; 9:8; 10:23; 11:11) as here. So Luke only once, Luke 6:10. The eyes of Jesus swept the room all around and each rabbinical hypocrite felt the cut of that condemnatory Glance." 12 But wait, if what is referred to in Mark 3:5, is a "look with anger" then the prepositional phrase with anger would seem to characterize not the scribes and Pharisees but the participle: peribleyamenoV, transliterated periblepsamenos, which refers to: "a momentary look around about one's self, and it would therefore mean: "He experienced a swift look with anger." What possibly could a swift look around about one's self with anger mean? Webster's Universities Dictionary Unabridged, page 1004, defines the English word "look" and says: Look, (verb i.); 1. To direct the eyes toward an object with the intention of seeing it. And, Look, (noun); 1. Cast of countenance; expression of the face; aspect; as, a high look is an index of pride. If it were true that the prepositional phrase meta orghV, translated with anger, of Mark 3:5 refers to the look of Jesus, as some insist, to quote C. H. Spurgeon's comment delivered on the Lord's-day Morning, March 28th, 1886, at the Metropolitan Tabernacle: "Where else do we meet with such a statement while he was here among men? . . . He only looked, but spake no word of upbraiding." He only looked. To see is to apprehend images by the use of the eyes, to observe. Sadly, there are those who assume that the English translation: "after looking around at them with anger" in Mark 3:5 is the one place in all of the Bible that specifically says that Jesus was being angry. And, they say that this proves that Jesus had a temper. But wait, the Greek text, of Mark 3:5 does not say "after looking around at them that Jesus was being angry." The Greek verb, orgizomai, transliterated orgizomai, and translated: "being angry," is not found in any of the Greek texts of Mark 3:5. There is no verse in the Bible that says that Jesus experienced the sinful action of being angry. The word in the Greek text of Mark 3:5 that is translated by the English word "anger" is not a verb expressing action, kind of action or time of action, whether the subject produces the action or the subject receives the action. The English word "anger" can either be a noun or a verb. However, the English word "anger" in Mark 3:5 translates not a verb of the Greek text but a noun. (See the footnote.) 13 Webster's Universities Dictionary Unabridged, page 1144 defines a noun as follows: "In grammar, a name: a word used to denote an object of which we speak, whether animate or inanimate, material or immaterial, a substantive." Jesus only looked. He swiftly looked around about. Question: "Is there anyone that would have the skill to describe "our Lord's look (whether in the sense of an English noun or in the sense of an English verb)?" And the answer is: "Of course not." There is one thing for sure, the English word: look (a verb); which means to direct the eyes toward an object with the intention of seeing it; and translated as a swift look around about one's self; is not a sinful action of human anger. And, the English word: look (a noun); which refers to the cast of countenance or expression of the face; even if it could be expressed and translated as "a swift look around about one's self" is not a sinful action of human anger. And that is the truth. Nevertheless, there are those who believe the devil's lie, and they say that the English translation of Mark 3:5: "after looking around at them (those) with anger (a noun in the Greek text)" specifically says that Jesus was "being angry" (as though the English word anger translates not a noun of the Greek text but translates a Greek verb in the passive voice, which describes the subject as being acted upon). That is a distorted view of Mark 3:5, and is, of course, not correct. Don't you believe that devil's lie. That devil's lie is the basis for some to suggest that since, as they in error say, Jesus was being angry, it must be OK for Christians to experience "being angry." In so doing, they disregard all of the Biblical prohibitions regarding the sinful "Action of Anger." How can a person believe that lie, in view of the fact that Jesus was always motivated by wise discernment, not by deluded passions; and, that during His earthly life Jesus did not commit the sinful action of "being angry?" How do we know that? Hebrews 4:14-15 (NASB) says: "Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. The sinful action of being angry, is a human emotion where the subject is being acted upon, and it is expressed in "biblical" Greek by a Greek verb in the present tense and passive voice (the subject receives the action). The Greek text of Mark 3:5 does not say that Jesus was experiencing the sinful action of being angry where the subject is being acted upon, short-circuiting the brain, inflaming the mind and disturbing the human tranquility. It has now been scientifically established that every time one becomes angry or wrathful, harmful biochemical correlates of these emotions are released into one's own system. The action of being angry on the part of human beings is a disturbing emotion of the mind. The action of being angry "expressed or suppressed, short-circuits the human brain. The action of being angry inflames the human mind; it disturbs the human tranquility; and it impairs one's mental and physical ability to choose an appropriate response to a confrontation or in getting something done that is important. Make no mistake about it! "The Action of Anger" is a negative, destructive and toxic emotion; it results in awful behavior problems, and as everyone knows, even murder. An angry feeling is generated by an attitude or belief. It is a habitual way of reacting incorrectly to circumstances of which we disapprove. It occurs once an anger trigger, embedded in our thinking, has been activated and as we say: "sets-us-off." Anger triggers are cognitive distortions that send a signal that it is time to get angry. Benjamin Franklin once said: "Whatever is begun in anger ends in shame." 14 The "Action of Anger" is the root cause of violence, terrorism and murder. Our emotions, including anger, are controlled by our thoughts. And, 2 Corinthians 10:5 (NASB) says, "we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ." The Fourfold Gospel or A Harmony of the Four Gospels, commenting on Mark 3:5, repeated a then current "fallible philological supposition" that says: "The anger of Jesus was not a spiteful, revengeful anger passion, but a just indignation (Eph. IV:26). 15 God may love the sinner, but he is angry at sin. Anger is not sin, but it is apt to run into it: hence it is a dangerous passion. Righteous anger rises from the love of God and man, but that which rises from self-love is sinful." 16 Don't you believe the devil's lie that man's anger is good or righteous and not sinful. And, concerning the statement that anger is not sin; there is no verse in the Bible that says: anger is not sin. Proverbs 29:8 (NASB) says: "Scorners set a city aflame, but wise men turn away anger." James 3:13 & 17 (NASB) says: "Who among you is wise and understanding? Let him show by his good behavior his deeds in the gentleness of wisdom. . . . The wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy." Jesus, the wisest of all the wise men who have ever lived in the flesh, would have known the effect that the sinful action of being angry, and its provocations, would have had on Him and on His relations with others and He would have not have been angry, at any time. And, without a doubt, Jesus would have known that "the anger of man doeth not that which is right in the sight of God" (James 1:20). It makes no sense that Jesus became angry. Jesus was not insecure. And, it really should surprise no one that the scriptures in no place say that the reaction of Jesus to any circumstance or to any troubling event was orgizomai, transliterated orgizomai; and translated as: "the sinful action of being angry." Mark 3:5 does not say that Jesus was being angry. The Greek verb that expresses the sinful action of being angry simply is not in this verse. Nobody questions the fact that the pronoun "them" in Mark 3:5 correctly refers to the scribes and Pharisees. And make no mistake about it, the phrase "with anger" correctly characterizes the emotion that they were experiencing. How do we know that? Luke 6:7-11 (NASB) says: "And the scribes and Pharisees were watching Him closely, to see if He healed on the Sabbath, in order that they might find reason to accuse Him. But He [Jesus] knew what they were thinking, and He said to the man with the withered hand, 'Arise and come forward!' And he arose and came forward. And Jesus said to them, 'I ask you, is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good, or to do evil, to save a life, or to destroy it?' And after looking around at them all, He said to him, 'stretch out your hand!' And he did so; and his hand was completely restored. But they [the scribes and Pharisees] themselves were filled with rage, and discussed together what they might do to Jesus." Rage is anger excited to fury. What do we say to those who continue to insist that the prepositional phrase meta orghV, meta orges, of Mark 3:5 is to be construed with the aorist tense, and middle voice participle: peribleyamenoV, transliterated periblepsamenos which is translated: "after looking around at" or literally "after seeing around about one's self? The answer: "They have believed a devil's lie." And, it seems to me that they are insisting that the aorist tense, and middle voice participle: peribleyamenoV transliterated periblepsamenos which is translated: "after looking around at" or "after seeing around about one's self" refers to the outward appearance of Jesus, the cast of his countenance, or the expression of His face, as though Mark was using the word "look or looks in the sense of an English noun." It is true that the English word "look," in English, can be either a verb which means "to direct the eyes on an object" or a noun "that describes an outward appearance." But, what do these narratives, in the original Greek texts, and taken together, really say? The simple truth is these narratives say that Jesus did, with the activity of His eyes see them, the scribes and Pharisees, and the scribes and Pharisees were angry and Jesus knew what they were thinking. What does the Bible really say regarding the human emotion of anger? The truth is, concerning the human emotion of anger, there are several verses in the Bible that list "anger" and "all anger" among the sins that Christians are commanded to get rid of. An example is found in Ephesians 4:29-32 (NIV): "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice." Regarding Ephesians 4:31; The Renaissance New Testament says: "Translation - Let all hatred and wrathful outburst and anger and angry arguments and blasphemy be put away from you along with all vicious disposition. Comment: These are all psychological sins that result in overt speech, all of which is socially disjunctive. Cf. 1 Peter 2:1. A certain cure - 'love, joy, peace ... et al' (Gal. 5:22,23) for the evils of verse 31 is available to the Christian who yields to the Holy Spirit (Gal 5:16)." 17 Question: What did the early Christians believe? Answer: TERTULLIAN (A.D. 145-220) in Volume III of The Ante-Nicene Fathers, on page 685, said: "How will he appease his Father who is angry with his brother, when from the beginning 'all anger' is forbidden us?" 18 Galatians 1:7 (NASB) says: "there are some disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ." "Our subject is "The Scribes and Pharisees and Anger" and because meta orghV (transliterated meta orges and translated "with anger") is a prepositional phrase in the Greek text of Mark 3:5, it is important for us to know if this prepositional phrase functions adjectivally. If adjectivally, does it qualify the preceding substantive, the pronoun autouj, translated "them." Or, if and in what way does it qualify the participle of the aorist tense and middle voice: peribleyamenoV, transliterated; periblepsamenos, that literally translates as: "seeing around about one's self?" We have previously mentioned the English expression: "He saw the man with binoculars" where the prepositional phrase "with binoculars" can be either adjectival or adverbial depending on whether he had the binoculars or depending on whether the man had the binoculars. The prepositional phrase with anger in Mark 3:5, can be adjectival and it can qualify the pronoun "them" if the scribes and Pharisees, themselves, were angry. Luke makes it clear that "they [the scribes and Pharisees] were furious" as the NIV renders it; or, "they themselves were filled with rage (anger excited to fury)" as the NASB renders it. That should settle the question: "Do the words with anger correctly characterize the sinful emotion that the scribes and Pharisees were experiencing? If so, the prepositional phrase with anger is adjectival and it qualifies the preceding substantive, the pronoun: them. The scribes and Pharisees were furious, filled with rage, and they sought to have Jesus put to death. Luke 6:27 (NASB) Jesus said: "But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you." And, in Matthew 5:22 (NASB) Jesus said: "Whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment." So, if Jesus lost His "cool" and was in fact angry, as some suggest, what would that say about the character and teaching of Jesus? Do as I say--not as I do? Is this a devil's lie, or what? In the case of Cain and Abel, Cain's anger preceded the killing of Abel. In this case, the scribes and Pharisees were watching Jesus closely to see if He would heal the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath, in order that they might accuse Him. And the scribes and Pharisees were furious, filled with rage, and they immediately began taking counsel with the Herodians against Him, as to how they might destroy Him. So we know that the scribes and the Pharisees were angry, and that it certainly makes good sense for the prepositional phrase with anger in Mark 3:5 to refer to them. Ecclesiastes 7:9 (NASB) says. "For anger resides in the bosom of fools." But are there really instances in the Greek text of the Bible where prepositional phrases can only be adjectival as opposed to adverbial? And the answer is: absolutely. I am an amateur when it comes to Greek, but regarding the use of meta - transliterated, meta with a noun in the genitive case; Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by Daniel B. Wallace on page 357 says: "In general, the prepositions that take accusative and dative case objects function adverbially, while those that take a genitive case object often function Adjectivally." 19 Greek-English Concordance To The New Testament by J. B. Smith, page 228 lists 102 instances in the New Testament Greek Text (KJV) of the preposition "meta" with an accusative case object that functions adverbially; and, on page 227 it lists 371 instances in the New Testament Greek Text (KJV), and 44 instances in the Gospel of Mark alone where "meta" with a genitive case object (a noun or pronoun) that often functions Adjectivally, a very common occurrence in the Gospel of Mark. 20 The Exhaustive Concordance To The Greek New Testament, by John R. Kohlenberger III, Edward W. Goodrick and James A. Swanson, on page 630 lists 105 instances in the New Testament Greek Text (NIV) of the preposition 'meta" with an accusative case object that functions adverbially; and, on pages 630 and 631 it lists 364 instances, 53 in the Greek Text (NIV) of Mark, of "meta" with a genitive case object (a noun or pronoun). Clearly, "meta" with a genitive case object, very often functions adjectivally and is a very common occurrence in Mark and in "biblical" Greek. 21 Question: Does Mark ever use "meta" with a genitive case object to qualify a preceding pronoun in any instance other than in the context of Mark 3:5? Answer: Not only does Mark use "meta" with a genitive case object in Mark 3:5; but in Mark 2:25, that immediately precedes the account of Mark 3:5, Mark uses the following "meta" with a genitive case object: meta autou, transliterated; meta autou: translated: "with him" in the KJV; and, translated: "companions" in the NASB. (See the footnote for the Greek text translated: "he and his companions" with a literal English interlinear translation.) 22 Mark 2:24-26 (NASB) says: "And the Pharisees were saying to Him, 'See here, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?' And He [Jesus] said to them, Have you never read what David did when he was in need and became hungry, he and his companions [companions: the ones with Him --"meta" with a genitive case object --qualifies the preceding pronoun]: how he entered into the house of God in the time of Abiather the high priest, and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and He gave it also to those who were with Him?" Now, let us imagine for a moment, that at some point, Jesus briefly glanced around at a Leper colony, and Mark in describing it, used exactly the same linguistic construction as that used in Mark 3:5; same conjunction, same aorist participle, same pronoun in the same case, same preposition but followed by the noun "lepras" - kai peribleyamenoV autouV meta lepraV - translated: "after having looked around at them with leprosy" (lepraV - transliterated; "lepras" is the genitive case object of the preposition meta/ - transliterated; "meta" and is describing the preceding pronoun autouV transliterated; "autous"). In such a case would anybody insist that the prepositional phrase: with leprosy qualify the participle peribleyamenoV, translated: "after having looked around at" And the answer is: "No way!" It makes no sense! One sees by the use of their eyes not by the use of leprosy. Or, suppose He looked around at the scribes and Pharisees and they had their swords drawn ready to attack Him, and Mark in describing it, used exactly the same linguistic construction as that used in Mark 3:5: "after looking around at them, with swords"(with swords as opposed to with anger). In such a case would anybody insist that the prepositional phrase: with swords qualify the participle that is translated: after looking around? Answer: "I don't think so." One does not see with swords. "What did Jesus see" according to Mark 3:5? And the answer is: "Jesus saw them, the scribes and Pharisees, and they, the scribes and Pharisees were so angry that they were filled with rage." So then, it simply makes good sense for the prepositional phrase "with anger" to be adjectival qualifying the preceding substantive, them [those], because the passage clearly says that Jesus did see them and they (the scribes and Pharisees) were in the midst of anger. ("To see" is to apprehend images by the use of the eyes, to observe. Literally, it is the activity of the eyes. See the footnote for a closer look at the Greek participle that is translated "after looking around at.") 23 We have said that the original words of the Bible, contain all the ideas in it (that includes Mark 3:5); and in order that the ideas may be perceived, the words need to be rightly understood. We have learned that the original Greek word, peribleyamenoV, transliterated periblepsamenos which is translated: "after looking around at" or "after seeing around one's self" in Mark 3:5, is a participle in the aorist tense and middle voice, and that it concerns the activity of the eyes that have been directed (around about one's self) on an object. John 8:32 (NASB) says: "And you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." So, what does Mark 3:5 say regarding "The Scribes and Pharisees and Anger?" Jesus did, by the activity of His eyes, see them; and, He knew what they were thinking, and they were furious (violent anger accompanied by furious words, gestures, or agitation; anger excited to fury)." The prepositional phrase meta orghV (transliterated meta orges, translated: "with anger") is found in Mark 3:5, in a context where it simply makes good sense that the prepositional phrase characterize the pronoun autouV, transliterated autous and translated: "them"--referring to the scribes and Pharisees. What does this mean? It means, that based on the grammar and the context in which it is found, the prepositional phrase in Mark 3:5: meta orghV transliterated meta orge>s, and translated: with anger is to be construed as an adjectival phrase. Orges is the genitive case object of meta (meta with the genitive). It is found in a context where that prepositional phrase can be said to characterize a substantive, the preceding pronoun autouV, transliterated autous and translated as "them" [those]. And so autous refers to: The Scribes and Pharisees, and meta orges refers to: their Anger. Mark records that following the quick momentary look around (as expressed by the aorist participle periblepsamenos), Jesus was greatly grieved (as expressed by the present participle sullupoumenos) at their hardness of Heart. Jesus was being greatly grieved. He was not being angry. The present participle, sullupoumenos is in the passive voice, and it expresses the true emotional reaction of Jesus. It does not indicate an emotion of anger but an inward, compassionate, emotion of sadness or grief. Jesus was compassionately grieving. He was not seething. He was not angry. (See the footnote for the Greek text and the interlinear English translation of the Greek words.) 24 So, Mark 3:5 clearly says that Jesus was "being greatly grieved [not angry] at their hardness of heart." His reaction to the scribes and Pharisees was a compassionate, peaceable, full of mercy emotional experience. Jesus did good, not evil, on the Sabbath. As He always did; in the gentleness of wisdom, He showed by His good behavior this good deed on this Sabbath day. Do not believe the devil's lies! And, concerning the devil and the devil's lies, in John 8:44 (NASB) Jesus said: "He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature; for he is a liar, and the father of lies." In Matthew 11:29 (NASB) Jesus said: "Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart." Jesus was gentle and humble in heart and He was tempted as we are, yet without sin. Jesus would not have allowed human anger, expressed or suppressed, to short-circuit His human brain and impair His mental and physical ability to choose an appropriate response to a confrontation such as the one described in Mark 3:1-5. If we want to; we can choose to follow in His steps. It is a matter of fact that we can choose to change any thought, any emotion, any behavior, and thus change the way we interact with each other. And, we can choose to make the decision that it is simply not worth it to get angry. "Biblical scholars" correctly point out that there is no reference in the original Greek text of the New Testament, where the Apostle Paul said that Jesus was, at any time, either angry or that He "looked" to be angry. And, in the writings of Peter, James, Jude, John, Matthew and Luke, including the Acts of the Apostles there is no reference that says that Jesus was, at any time, either angry or that He "looked" to be angry. And, there is no reference in Timothy, Titus, Philemon or Hebrews that says that Jesus was, at any time, either angry; or that He "looked" to be angry. The Apostles were instructed to teach the teachings and commandments of Jesus Christ. They taught that Jesus forbids being angry. And, they taught that those who follow the teachings and commandments of Jesus were to get rid of all anger. Ephesians 4:29-32 (NIV): "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you." 25 As it relates to anger and rage, the instruction is absolutely clear: "Get rid of all rage and anger." Colossians 3:8-10 (NASB) clearly says: "But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices, and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him." "Put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice." Polycarp (A.D. 65-155), in the EPISTLE OF POLYCARP TO THE PHILIPPIANS (Volume I of The Ante-Nicene Fathers, page 35), quotes 1 Thessalonians 5:22: "Abstain from every form of evil"; and says: "For if a man cannot govern himself in such matters, how shall he enjoin them on others?" 26 And, the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:1 (NASB) said: "Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ." Far from teaching that Jesus was angry, and that it is all right for Christians to ignore the teaching of Jesus that forbids being angry; in Ephesuans 4:29-32 the Apostle Paul commanded them to get rid of all anger ("imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ"). And in Ephesians 4:26-27, when fully translated, he literally said: "You are experiencing anger, and do not continue sinning; do not allow the sun to set on the cause of your anger nor give the devil any portion of space, place or dwelling." In the "New Testament," there is no record where any of the Apostles taught the false doctrine, as some do today, that it was all right to be angry because Jesus was angry. No where did the Apostles, whose words were spoken "as the Spirit gave them utterance," ever teach that Jesus, himself, experienced the "Action of Anger." But wait, what about the early Christian writers. The editors of The Ante-Nicene Fathers, said: "their words are lingering echoes of those whose words were spoken 'as the Spirit gave them utterance.'" An examination of the writings of the following "Ante-Nicene Fathers" confirms the fact that there is no reference in their writings where they said that Jesus, was, at any time, either angry or that He "looked" to be angry. Clement of Rome (A.D. 30-100) did not say that Jesus was, at any time, either angry or that He "looked" to be angry; nor did Mathetes (A.D. 130); nor did Polycarp (A.D. 65-155); nor did Ignatius (A.D. 30-107); nor did Barnabas (A.D. 100); nor did Papias (A.D. 70-155); nor did Justin Martyr (A.D. 110-165); nor did Irenaeus (A.D. 120-202); nor did The Pastor of Hermas (A.D. 160); nor did Tatian (A.D. 110-172); nor did Theophilus of Antioch (A.D. 115-181); nor did Athenagoras (A.D. 177); nor did Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 153-217); nor did Tertullian (A.D. 145-220); nor did Minucius Felix (A.D. 210); nor did Commodian (A.D. 240); and, nor did Origen (A.D. 185-254). So, what is going on? Skeptics, deceivers, and unbelievers have decided to make Christ a sinner in Mark 3:5. By distorting the meaning of the prepositional phrase "with anger" in Mark 3:5, they say: "Jesus, who got very easily irritated, was angry." But, if Jesus sinned, then He could not have been the spotless Lamb of God. If Jesus sinned, then all of us are still in our sins because He could not have taken away our sins. Some refer to Jesus as a "theomaniac" -- often speaking in tones of authority. They say that "He would not permit contradiction of His teaching; He attacked merchants with a whip; He showed his respect for life by drowning innocent animals (Matthew 8:32); and, He refused to heal a sick child until he was pressured by the mother (Matthew 15:22-28)." They say that the burning of unbelievers during the Inquisition was based on the words of Jesus: "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned" (John 15:6). And they say that "the most revealing aspect of his character was his promotion of eternal torment. The Son of man [Jesus himself] shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 13:41-42). "And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched" (Mark 9:43). They ask "Is this nice? Is it exemplary to make your point with threats of violence? Is hell a kind, peaceful idea?" They even say that "Jesus seeing the dove coming down on him during his baptism (Mark 1:10-11) is the classic example of the type of mystic vision experienced by theomaniacs." So, what is going on? We had better believe that Satan is very active; he is telling all sorts of lies about Jesus and anger. Satan dwells in anger and he is protecting his territory. There is no verse in the Bible that says that Jesus experienced the sinful action of being angry. He was the Son of God, the Lamb of God, the Lord of the Sabbath, and He was the Master Teacher. He was, at this time and in this synagogue, teaching a very important lesson. Jesus said to the man with the withered hand, "Stretch out your hand." And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored. Jesus simply spoke and it was so. Jesus was not healing this man's withered hand on the Sabbath because He was angry at the scribes and Pharisees. He demonstrated by His good behavior this good deed in the gentleness of wisdom. He had just taught them saying: "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." Jesus did good on the Sabbath, not evil. And, the scribes and Pharisees were filled with rage. |
|
Consider the following facts:
F. Luke 6:11 (NASB) clearly says: "But they [the scribes and Pharisees] themselves were filled with rage, and discussed together what they might do to Jesus." Anger expresses itself in rage and rage is anger excited to fury. Luke 6:8 (NASB) says: "But he [Jesus] knew what they [the scribes and Pharisees] were thinking." The scribes and Pharisees were angry and Jesus knew that they were angry.
A Treatise On The Anger of God by Lactantius refers to the "action of anger" when it falls upon the human Mind. 27 And, Mark 3:5 does not, in any way, say or indicate, and teachers should not teach, nor should preachers preach, that Jesus in this brief moment experienced mental confusion, or that His human mind was inflamed, or that His human tranquility was disturbed, or that the condition of His mind was such that He trembled, or His tongue stammered, or His teeth chattered, or His countenance was alternately stained with redness spread over it and then with white paleness as a result of this confrontation with those filled with anger excited to rage, and seeking to accuse and destroy Him.
So, "God was in Christ" and Mark 3:5 (NASB) says: "And after looking around at them [those] with anger" [anger is a noun and He only swiftly looked]. Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament, page 276 says: "The eyes of Jesus swept the room all around and each rabbinical hypocrite felt the cut of that condemnatory Glance." Even if that is the meaning of Mark 3:5; "a condemnatory Glance" is not a sinful human passion or human emotion verbally described in the Bible as being angry. It is, also, worth reiterating that "God is not a human being. And, even though we necessarily use human words and phrases to attempt to describe the anger of God, we do not suggest that the anger of God is a human passion or a human emotion. 'The anger of God is not a disturbing emotion of His mind, but a judgment by which punishment is inflicted upon Sin.' 28 And, Isaiah 55:8-9 (NASB) says: 'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, Neither are your ways My ways," declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are my ways higher than your ways, And my thoughts than your thoughts.'"
Questions for Discussion1. What do you think of John Calvin's understanding that "This narrative and that which immediately precedes it have the same object; which is to show, that the scribes watched with a malicious eye for the purpose of turning into slander every thing that Christ did, and consequently we need not wonder if men, whose minds were so depraved, were his implacable Enemies"? 29 2. Jesus was teaching in the synagogue: "It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath." The scribes and Pharisees sought to have Jesus put to death because He healed on the Sabbath. Agree? Disagree? 3. Since "madness expresses itself in rage" and "rage is anger excited to fury," we know that the scribes and Pharisees were very angry because "they were filled with rage." Do you agree or disagree? 4. Jesus was always motivated by wise discernment, not by deluded passions. Jesus did not commit the sinful action of "being angry." What does Hebrews 4:14-15 say? Did any one of the Apostles say that Jesus was angry? Jesus forbids anger and the Bible says: get rid of all anger and abstain from every form of evil. "If a man cannot govern himself in such matters, how shall he enjoin them on others?" 5. In light of the fact that Jesus forbids anger and that there is no verse in the Greek text of the Bible or the English translation thereof that says that Jesus was being angry, why do you think anyone would believe the "distorted" teaching that Mark 3:5 says: Jesus was angry, which is clearly a devil's lie? 6. Do you agree that the exegesis and translation of prepositional phrases of the Greek New Testament provide implicit information as to the proper understanding of the ideas contained in the Greek text? And, do you agree that a proper understanding of the prepositional phrase meta orges of the Greek text of Mark 3:5, and translated: "with anger," is vital to rightly understanding Mark 3:5? If not why not? 7. From our study in this chapter of the overall context, do you agree that it simply makes no sense for the prepositional phrase meta orge>s translated: "with anger" in Mark 3:5, to qualify the Greek participle periblepsamenos that is translated: seeing around about one's self? If not why not? 8. How important do you think it is that the English word "anger" in Mark 3:5 translates not a "verb" of the Greek text but a "noun" in the genitive case (the genitive case is the case of description employed to qualify the meaning of the preceding noun or pronoun)? 9. From our study in this chapter, do you agree that it simply makes good sense for the prepositional phrase meta orges translated: "with anger" in Mark 3:5 to function adjectivally, characterizing the preceding pronoun autous that is translated: them (the scribes and Pharisees)? If not why not? 10. The eyes of Jesus swept the room. Do you accept the fact that one apprehends images by the use of the eyes not by the use of anger; and sees by the use of the eyes not by the use of anger? Do you agree or disagree that Mark 3:5 says that Jesus did, with the activity of His eyes, see them, the scribes and Pharisees; and that the facts are: the scribes and Pharisees were angry and Jesus knew it?
1 Anger Illustrations by Crosswalk.com. Source: Charles Spurgeon 2 Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke (v2) (ii.x) by John Calvin (Public Domain). 3 "his companions" translates the Greek words, oi meta autou; literally "the ones with Him." This is one of 44 instances in the Gospel of Mark where "meta" a preposition, is with a genitive case object to form a phrase that functions adjectivally. 4 Rage. The Greek word anoiaV, transliterated anoias: from anoia, transliterated anoia, and translated: "rage" is a noun in the genitive case. The genitive is the case of description employed to qualify the meaning of the preceding pronoun: autoi, transliterated autoi, and translated as "they." Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament says that anoia, transliterated anoia, and translated "rage" means: "madness expressing itself in rage, Luke vi.11." 5 Them. The Greek word autouV, transliterated autous, is a pronoun and in the NASB it is translated as "them," referring to the scribes and Pharisees. If autous were translated "those," as in Matthew 21:41 by virtually all translations, the passage would read: "After looking around at those with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, He said to the man, Stretch out your hand." 6 Anger. The Greek word orghV, transliterated orge>s and translated "anger" is a noun in the genitive case. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament says: "In biblical Greek orge>, (orgh) is from orgao> (orgaw ) to teem, denoting an internal motion." 7 The English expression is angry of Matthew 5:22 translates the Greek participle orgizomenoV, transliterated orgizomenos, from orgizomai, transliterated orgizomai. Orgizomenos is the verbal word picture in the passive voice--the subject receives the action; and thus, orgizomenos describes a negative emotional experience: the sinful action of being angry. 8 Greek text of Romans 1:17: o de dikaioV ek pistewV zhsetai, transliterated ho de dikaios ek pisteo>s ze>setai. 9 Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by Daniel B. Wallace (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996). 10 peribleyamenoV, transliterated periblepsamenos and translated: "after looking around at." 11 Mark 3:5: kai peribleyamenoV autouV meta orghV. And after looking around at them [those] with [in the midst of] anger
orghV, is transliterated orges, and translated: anger, denoting an internal motion, a negative emotion. The Greek word is a noun in the genitive case. It is not orgizomai the verb in the passive voice. The genitive case of the noun is the case of description (characterized by) employed to qualify the meaning of the preceding substantive, noun or pronoun. In this text the preceding substantive is the pronoun autouV -- autous translated: them, referring to the scribes and Pharisees who were themselves filled with rage. So, in view of the context, and the literal meaning of the Greek words autous and meta, and that the prepositional phrase meta orge 12 Word Pictures in the New Testament, Volume I by A. T. Robertson (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1930), page 276. 13 It should be clearly understood that in Mark 3:5 the Greek word orghV (transliterated orge>s) is a noun in the genitive case (the case of description employed to qualify the meaning of the preceding noun or pronoun); and it is the object of the Greek preposition meta (transliterated meta) in the prepositional phrase meta orghV (transliterated meta orge>s); and orghV (transliterated orge>s) is translated: "anger" by the English noun anger not by the English verb anger. The Greek noun orge>s, is not the Greek verb orgizomai (present tense, passive voice) that is translated: "being angry." 14 Anger Quotes and Proverbs, Benjamin Franklin (www.heartquotes.net/Anger). 15 For a full and complete translation of the Greek text of Eph. IV:26, see Chapter IV. 16 (The Fourfold Gospel or A Harmony of the Four Gospels by J. W. McGarvey, LL.D. and Philip Y. Pendleton, A.B. (Cincinnati, OH: The Standard Publishing Company, Public Domain) page 216. 17 The Renaissance New Testament (Volume 14, page 314) by Randolph O. Yeager (Gretna, LA: Pelican Publishing Company, Inc. 1998) 18 The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume III (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Reprinted 1976). 19 Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by Daniel B. Wallace (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996). 20 Greek-English Concordance To The New Testament by J. B. Smith (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1974). 21 The Exhaustive Concordance To The Greek New Testament by John R. Kohlenberger III, Edward W. Goodrick and James A. Swanson (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995). 22 Mark 2:25: autoV kai oi meta autou He and they, the ones with him 23 Concerning the English word to "see" or to "look" we need to take a closer look at the Greek participle of Mark 3:5 (NASB) in the middle voice and aorist tense, peribleyamenoV, transliterated, periblepsamenos and translated: "after looking around at." peri /, transliterated "peri," means, according to Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: "around, about"; plus blepw, transliterated "blepo,>" that means, according to Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: "to see." The participle is in the middle voice and Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament says: "In the New Testament only in the middle voice and it means: to look round about one's self," page 502. So, the participle peribleyamenoV, transliterated, periblepsamenos means; "to see" around about one's self, or "to look [see] round about one's self."24 Mark 3:5: sullupoumenoV epi th pwrwsei thV kardiaV autwn. being greatly grieved on (at) the hardness of the heart of them
25 The Interlinear NASB-NIV Parallel New Testament in Greek and English by Alfred Marshall (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993), page 564-565. 26 The Ante-Nicene Fathers ,Volume I (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975). 27 The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VII, page 261 (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975). 28 St. Augustine's City of God and Christian Doctrine by Philip Schaff, page 304. 29 Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke (v2) (ii.x) by John Calvin.
It is the Word of God!È & ÇThe Truth Shall Make You Free! |
Website powered by Network Solutions® |