Mark 3:4

4 And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.

Ver. 4. To do good or to do evil] Not to do good, then, as there is opportunity, is to do evil. Qui non, cum potest, servat, occidit. Non faciendo nocens, sed patiendo fuit, it is said of the Emperor Claudius. Not robbing only, but the not relieving of the poor, was the rich man’s ruin, Luk 16:19-23; passive wickedness is taxed in some of the churches, Rev 2:4; Rev 2:14; Rev 2:20; Rev 3:4; Rev 3:15-16.

To save life] Gr. ψυχην, soul, for man, and man for the body of man. So Psa 16:10; "Thou wilt not leave my soul in the grave," that is, my body, as Piscator senseth it.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mar 3:4. Ἤ, or) Not to save is to destroy. The opposition between the two words is immediate and direct. To save life refers to the whole man; to do good, to a part; and so in the respectively antithetic words—ψυχὴν, life) of man; and therefore also a man’s hand,—ἐσιώπων, they were silent); Luk 14:3.—ἡσύχασάν, They had nothing to say.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mar 3:4 . ἀγαθὸν ποιῆσαι ἢ κακοποιῆσαι , either: to do good or evil to one, or to do the morally good or evil. Recent commentators favour the latter as essential to the cogency of Christ’s argument. But the former seems more consonant to the situation. It was a question of performing an act of healing. Christ assumes that the ethically good coincides with the humane (Sabbath made for man). Therein essentially lay the difference between Him and the Pharisees, in whose theory and practice religious duty and benevolence, the divine and the human, were divorced. To do good or to do evil, these the only alternatives: to omit to do good in your power is to do evil; not to save life when you can is to destroy it. ἐσιώπων , they were silent, sullenly, but also in sheer helplessness. What could they reply to a question which looked at the subject from a wholly different point of view, the ethical, from the legal one they were accustomed to? There was nothing in common between them and Jesus.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

A figurative speech, by the figure Synecdoche. For this kind of saying, To save the life, is as much, as to save the man.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Verse 4. To do good - or - evil? to save life, or to kill?] It was a maxim with the Jews, as it should be with all men, that he who neglected to preserve life when it was in his power, was to be reputed a murderer. Every principle of sound justice requires that he should be considered in this light. But, if this be the case, how many murderers are there against whom there is no law but the law of God!

To kill - but instead of αποκτειναι, several MSS. and versions have απολεσαι to destroy. Wetstein and Griesbach quote Theophylact for this reading; but it is not in my copy. Paris edit. 1635.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

4. But they held their peace] St Mark alone mentions this striking circumstance, as also what we read in the next verse, that “He looked round about on them with anger.”

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And he saith unto them,.... Either to the whole multitude, to all the assembly in the synagogue; and so the Persic version renders it, "again he said to the multitude"; or rather, to the Scribes and Pharisees, who were watching him, and had put a question to him, which he answers by another:

is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil, to save life, or to kill? The Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions read, or "to destroy", as in Luk 6:9, To do evil, kill, or destroy, are not lawful at any time; and to do good, and to save life, must be right at all times: our Lord has a particular view to the Scribes and Pharisees, and the question is put home to their own consciences; whose hearts and thoughts, designs and views, were all open to Christ; and who were now watching to do evil to him, and even to destroy and take away his life: for the violation of the sabbath was death by the law, and this was what they sought to accuse him of: now he puts the question to them, and makes them judges which must appear most right and just in the sight of God and men, for him to heal this poor man of his withered hand, though on the sabbath day; which would be doing a good and beneficent action to him, whereby his life would be saved, and preserved with comfort and usefulness, and he would be in a capacity of getting his livelihood; or for them to cherish an evil intention against him, to seek to bring mischief on him; and not only destroy his character and usefulness as much as in them lay, but even take away his very life also: he leaves it with them to consider of which was most agreeable to the law of God, the nature of a sabbath, and the good of mankind;

but they held their peace; or "were silent", not being able to return an answer, but what must have been in his favour, and to their own confusion, and therefore chose to say nothing.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

A difficulty here arises, how to reconcile St. Mark with St. Matthew. St. Mark puts the words into the mouth of Jesus Christ: Is it lawful? When St. Matthew says, that they interrogated him: Is it lawful? To cut the knot of this apparent difficulty, we must understand that they first put the question to our Lord, whether it was lawful to heal on the sabbath-day or not: and that Jesus understanding their thoughts, that they wished to have some grounds of accusation against him, placed the sick man in the midst of them, and said what St. Mark here relates of him: Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath-day, or to do evil? (St. Augustine)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

4. To do good — As I now purpose to do to this man. Or to do evil — As you purpose to do to me. He intended to save life, nay, restore life to the withered hand. They sought to destroy life. He was on the side of goodness and mercy; they on the side of malice and murder. But our Lord’s purpose is to show them that they, with their laborious schemes of malice, are truly the Sabbath breakers. They held their peace — The silence of self-condemnation.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

"But they held their peace.

"There is much silence that proceeds from the Spirit of God, but there is also a devilish silence," says Quesnel; and it is not difficult to pronounce upon the character of this.

I WHAT WAS INTENDED BY IT. It was evasive. Christ had propounded a dilemma which those who watched him dared not answer, since, had they done so, they would either have compromised themselves or committed themselves to approval of his action. It was doubtless intended also to suggest that the problem was too difficult for them to solve, at any rate without due consideration.

II WHAT IT SHOWED. There was no concealing from his eyes its real meaning, which he at once denounced. The circumstances of it and the exposure it received made it evident that it was due:

1. To unwillingness to be convinced. The state called "hardness of heart" it is not easy to resolve into all its elements, but this is undoubtedly the chief one. These men had come into the synagogue with sinister designs against Christ, and so strong was their prejudice that they refused to assent to the most cogent evidence. The language used by their intended Victim conveys the impression that this "hardening" was in process whilst the scene lasted. It is impossible to dissociate religious opinion from character. Prejudice and malice incapacitate the mind for the reception of truth. Here the most cogent evidence was resisted; for they evidently expected that he would heal the man, and yet were unwilling to attach its due weight to the miracle as a proof of Christ"s Divine mission. How much of modern scepticism is to be attributed to similar causes it is impossible to say; but that a large proportion of it is to be so explained cannot be doubted. The hesitation to reply is the more noticeable in this instance as the question is one turning, not upon material evidence, but upon moral considerations.

2. To lack of sympathy. The condition of the sufferer did not move them to compassion, even in the house of God. A touchstone of the religious professions of men may still be found in the pool the suffering, etc.

3. To dishonesty and cowardice. They knew how the question ought to have been answered, but they feared the consequences. The question as to killing alarmed their own guilty consciences, for they knew that they had come thither not to worship but to compass the destruction of a fellow-creature. There is still a great deal of suppressed religious conviction amongst men; how are we to interpret it? When moral obligations are evaded, and scepticism is made an excuse for uncertainty of conduct and laxity of life, we are justified in attributing such behavior to the same principles. There are circumstances that demand candour and outspokenness, and in which silence is dishonorable; we ought "to have the courage of our convictions:" occasions when it is wrong to be silent; when religious zeal is made a cloak for murder, cruelty, injustice, and licentiousness; when the difficulty of theological problems is made an excuse for compromise, or inaction, or moral indifference; when, in the face of the clearest evidence, a man says he "does not know.

III WHAT IT EARNED.

1. The anger of Christ. His look must have searched their hearts and abashed them. There would be in it something of the awfulness of the judgment day. This moral indignation, in which there is surely an element of contempt, is still the sentence upon all similar conduct.

2. Consciousness of guilt. They were self-convicted, but the condemnation of one so pure and loving would seal their sense of unworthiness and dishonor.

3. Exposure. No one in that crowd was deceived as to their real motive. The same law still prevails; the moral obliquity which refuses to pronounce upon great questions of duty and righteousness will sooner or later be made evident to others. Just as there are circumstances which precipitate opinion, so there are circumstances in every life which call for decided action, and reveal the manner in which one has dealt with one"s convictions. At such junctures the man who has been true to his best lights and sincere in following out his convictions, will be honest, fearless, chivalrous; the man who has not been truly in earnest, or disinterested in his attachment to truth, will be seen to shuffle, to shirk responsibility, and to shrink from sacrifice; or, worse still, he will yield to the lusts and tendencies of his baser nature, and act with unscrupulousness, inhumanity, and godlessness. It is the law that opinions determine character; and that, in the course of life, character must inevitably make itself known. M.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Is it lawful to save life or to kill? - Which he knew they were seeking occasion to do. But they held their peace - Being confounded, though not convinced.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

The healing:

v. 4.And He saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath-days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.

v. 5. And when He had looked round about them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, He saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out; and his hand was restored whole as the other.

v. 6. And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against Him how they might destroy Him.

Jesus acted with the greatest patience and kindness. He tried to win His enemies by actual persuasion, by causing them to see the correctness of His position. His question to them is: Is it the right and proper thing, ought people to feel this as their obligation, to do good, to save life, to be of assistance to one’s neighbor on the Sabbath? Or can it be possible that anyone should want to advocate the doing of evil, the destroying of life, on that day? The omission of a good deed, the neglect of some act of kindness, is, in fact, equal to actual murder in a case where the personal well-being of the neighbor is concerned. The conscience of every man will tell him that on the Sabbath, as well as on any other day, deeds of mercy are not only permitted, but very distinctly commanded. We should help and befriend our neighbor in every bodily need. But the Pharisees here deliberately hardened their hearts. Just because their conscience condemned them before this Teacher, they determined not to give Him the satisfaction of yielding. And so they stubbornly refused to answer. Jesus waited. But when their purpose became increasingly evident, He let His stern gaze wander around in the circle, from one to the other. He was filled with righteous indignation over such unreasonable stubbornness. And, incidentally, He was deeply grieved over the obduracy, the callousness, the blindness of their hearts. Note: The anger of Jesus is always directed against the transgression, against the sin; for the sinners the Lord has only the feeling of deepest sorrow and sympathy. "By a long resistance to the grace and Spirit of God, their hearts had become callous; they were past feeling. By a long opposition to the light of God, they became dark in their understanding, were blinded by the deceitfulness of sin, and thus were past seeing. By a long continuance in the practice of every evil work, they were cut off from all union with God, the Fountain of spiritual life; and, becoming dead in trespasses and sins, they were incapable of any resurrection but through a miraculous power of God. " Christ’s decision therefore was swiftly carried out. He bade the man stretch forth his hand. And the man obeyed, and his hand was restored to perfect health, so that he could now use it as before. This result of their little scheme angered the Pharisees beyond all semblance of reasonableness. They had enough. Without waiting for further teaching, they left the synagogue. Their minds as to their course were made up. It remained only to find ways and means to carry out their design. It was not so much the fact that their orthodox Sabbath-keeping had received a severe jolt and that, in their opinion, the Sabbath had been broken by the performance of the miracle of healing, but that the miracle brought fame to Jesus, and that they had been unable to answer His simple question without making their own position untenable. It was, then, in brief, nothing but vengeful spite that moved them. And they sought allies and chose the Herodians. This society, with its peculiar ideas regarding the Messianic calling of the family of Herod (See Mat 22:1-46:, might easily be influenced against Christ, if the Pharisees would but point out the growing influence of Jesus over the common people, who might soon be ready to hail Him as the promised Messiah. So these two parties, otherwise not the best of friends, readily agreed in counsel against Jesus, how they might destroy Him. So far hypocrisy and the semblance of piety may drive people that they try to cover the most obvious lack of love and mercy, yea, even mortal hatred and enmity, with pious usages and practices.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4. Is it lawful … to save life, or to kill? A home thrust at the fault-finders. They were harboring murderous thoughts; he was seeking to save life. Which was breaking the Sabbath?

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

4. It might have been sufficient to say that it was no violation even of their rules respecting the Sabbath for the man to stretch out his hand. But Christ appeals to a broader principle (cf. Mar 2:17; Mar 2:27). To refuse to do good is to do evil (Jas 4:17), and, Sabbath or no Sabbath, it is wrong to do evil and right to do good. His enemies cared nothing about the man’s hand. Κακοποιεῖν is class. Grk, but not ἀγαθοποιεῖν, which in LXX. takes the place of the class, εὖ ποιεῖν.

ψυχὴν σῶσαι ἢ ἀποκτεῖναι. This second way of putting the alternative has two points. (1) The Rabbis themselves allowed attending to suffering when life was in danger, and life being in danger was interpreted liberally. (2) They were plotting to kill Jesus. Which did more honour to the Sabbath, His healing or their plotting? “To save” means more than “to preserve from death”; it includes restoring to health. Mt. here inserts the argument about the animal fallen into a pit, which Lk. (Luk 14:1-6) has in the healing of the man with the dropsy.

ἐσιώπων. They remained silent. They cannot refute His arguments, but they will not yield. Mk alone mentions the silence of the Pharisees, which, like the watching, continued for some time. See on Mar 10:48. Here and in Mar 3:5 we seem to have the vivid recollections of an eye-witness, such as Peter.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4. αὐτοῖς] Luke adds ἐπερωτῶ ὑμᾶς εἰ ἔξεστιν: as his account is the most detailed, I refer to the notes there.

ἀποκτ. does not belong to ψυχήν: to save life or to kill?

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4. Ἔξεστι ἀγαθοποιῆσαι4—Is it allowable to do good? ἀγαθοποιῆσαι, and its contrasted verb κακοποιῆσαι, may mean to do good or evil, either in the sense of right and wrong, or of benefit and injury. The connection here points to the latter meaning.

Mt. says that the Pharisees began by asking him if it was lawful to heal on the Sabbath; Lk., that he knew their thoughts, and so asked them the question about doing good and evil. Both are attempts to explain the apparent abruptness of Jesus’ question.

This question of Jesus not only suggests the general principle that makes healing permissible on the Sabbath, but is aimed directly at the specious distinction made by the Scribes. They admitted no healing, except where life was in danger, on that day. The point of Jesus’ answer is found in the substitution of the positive for the negative in the second part of the contrast. They regarded the not healing as simply an omission of ἀγαθοποιῆσαι; Jesus treats it as a positive κακοποιῆσαι. Not to do good to a person needing it is the same as to do him evil; to withhold a good is to inflict an injury. But he deals more directly and boldly with their fallacy in the second part of the question, showing that not to heal is in any case to be classed with killing. The case in which life is in danger is not therefore a case by itself, but includes in itself a principle applicable to all cases of sickness. To weaken life is not the same thing in degree as to end life, but of the same kind notwithstanding, and therefore morally in the same class. The principle is analogous to that stated in the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus shows that the law against murder is directed equally against any manifestation of anger. In all these discussions, beginning with 2:13, Jesus appears as the emancipator of the human spirit, revealing principles, instead of rules, as the guide of human conduct, and so delivering all men possessed of his spirit from the fetters of conventional morality.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.