Mark
3:20-35
20
and the crowd came together again, so that they could not even eat. 21
When his family heard it, they went out to restrain him, for people were
saying, "He has gone out of his mind."
22
And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, "He has Beelzebul, and
by the ruler of the demons he casts out demons." 23 And he
called them to him, and spoke to them in parables, "How can Satan cast out
Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom
cannot stand. 25 And if a house is divided against itself, that
house will not be able to stand. 26 And if Satan has risen up
against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but his end has come. 27
But no one can enter a strong man's house and plunder his property without
first tying up the strong man; then indeed the house can be plundered. 28
"Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven for their sins and whatever
blasphemies they utter; 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy
Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"— 30
for they had said, "He has an unclean spirit."
31
Then his mother and his brothers came; and standing outside, they sent to him
and called him. 32 A crowd was sitting around him; and they said to
him, "Your mother and your brothers and sisters are outside, asking for
you." 33 And he replied, "Who are my mother and my
brothers?" 34 And looking at those who sat around him, he said,
"Here are my mother and my brothers! 35 Whoever does the will
of God is my brother and sister and mother."
Mark 3:20-21 is a story about Jesus
involving the fears of the family of Jesus. Both Matthew and Luke omit the
story. In context, the tension between Jesus and his family shown in verses
20-21 and 31-35 form the context for the Beelzebul controversy. 20 and the crowd came together
again, so that they could not even eat. 21 When his family heard it,
they went out to restrain him. The family wanted to control the actions of Jesus. They combine concern for Jesus as a person
with a lack of sympathy for his purpose. Those
who thought they had known Jesus the longest and the best ‑‑ his oldest friends
and family ‑‑ cannot comprehend all the stir and turmoil that now follows him.
The reason the family acts this way is that people
were saying, "He has gone out of his mind." The Pharisees
made this charge as well. People are calling into question his sanity.
Let us
consider the possibility that at least in some area of our discipleship, it
would be good if the world considered us crazy. Saint Francis illustrates this
stage in many memorable ways. When he hears one day that the people of Assisi
are calling him a saint, he invites Brother Juniper to join him in a walk
through his old hometown. Brother Juniper was the first simpleton (that is a
compliment!), the holy fool of the original friars. Francis knew he could
always trust him to understand what he was saying. Francis once said, "I
wish I had a whole forest of such Junipers!" Francis told Brother Juniper,
"Let's take off these robes, get down to our underwear, and just walk back
and forth through Assisi. Then all these people who are thinking we are saints
will know who we really are!" Now that is a saint: someone who does not
need others to call him a saint. Therefore, he can walk foolishly in his
underwear the full length of Assisi. A few years later, when people were again
calling Francis a saint, he said, "Juniper, we've got to do it
again." This time they carried a plank into the piazza. They put it over
some kind of a stone or maybe the fountain, and there they seesawed all day.
They had no need to promote or protect any reputation or pious self-image. That
is a rather constant spiritual tradition in the Eastern Church and in the
Desert Fathers and Mothers, but it pretty much got lost after the 13th-century
Franciscans. We became more and more serious about this intense salvation
thing, or you might say we took ourselves far too seriously. Moralism replaced
mysticism. This only increased after the in-house fighting of the 16th-century
reformations. We all needed to prove we were right. Have you noticed that
people who need to prove they are right cannot laugh or smile?[1]
In verse 22, Mark
establishes the setting of this controversy. 22 The scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, "He
has Beelzebul, and by the ruler of the demons he casts out demons." Verses
23-26 are proverbial wisdom and subtle irony.[2]
Verse 23 states the general principle. 23
He called them to him, and spoke to them in parables, "How can Satan cast
out Satan? Verses 24-25 are the first illustration of the general
principle. 24 If a kingdom
divides against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 Further, if a house divides against itself, that
house will not be able to stand. Verse 26 is the second illustration of the
general principle. 26 Finally,
if Satan has risen up against himself and divide himself, he cannot stand, but his end has come. The saying may include a use of
irony. It may also simply be common wisdom. Jesus may have meant something like
this, using irony (Barth), “If I am in league with Satan, then Satan’s domain
is divided against itself.” In that
case, Satan is coming to an end and by his own hand working through me. Is that what you intend to say? The meaning
is obviously that he would have an end, even if they were right in their wild
supposition. However, the supposition is a thoroughly bad one.[3]
The
cultural/anthropological focus on these pericopes sees an overarching discussion
of "shame and honor" affecting all these players and pronouncements.[4]
The fact that Jesus ‑‑ a commoner outside the boundaries of the scribal
tradition or Pharisaic authority ‑‑ had publicly amazed people with his mastery
of Scripture, his healings and his exorcisms had gained him honor. In the eyes
of the scribes, this gain meant that they had lost honor and had shame heaped
upon them instead. The only accepted method of redistributing the shame/honor
scales was through public confrontation.
However, Jesus easily disarms the barbed accusations of
"blasphemy" that the scribes hurl at him. His logic shoots down their
attack ("How can Satan cast out Satan?") and sinks them deeper into
shame. If regaining lost honor and making Jesus look bad were the scribes'
original intentions, they failed miserably.
Verses 27-30 imply
that Jesus binds Satan now, through his ministry.27 But no one can enter a strong man's house and plunder his
property without first tying up the strong man; then indeed the house can be
plundered. Jesus offers the surprising comparison of exorcism to breaking
and entering. Exorcisms prove that Jesus has bound Satan. It is consistent with
what Jesus taught about the kingdom of God.
Bultmann himself believes this might have been characteristic of the
preaching of Jesus. No one can invade
Satan’s domain without first overpowering Satan. Comparing the conquest of Satan through
exorcism to house breaking and entering is a bold stroke. One might compare it to Luke 16:1-9 and
Thomas 98, in which the texts compare God’s rule to a dishonest or violent
act. The “strong man” is Satan. If the text recalls Isaiah 49:24-25, it may
reflect belief in Jesus as the victorious servant of God. The binding of evil powers is eschatological.
Verses 28-29
relate sayings on the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. 28 "Truly I
tell you, people will be forgiven for their sins (note the universality of
forgiveness) and whatever blasphemies
they utter; 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can
never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"— 30
for they, the scribes from Jerusalem, had
said, "He has an unclean spirit." The source is material common to Matthew and Luke as well as Mark.
The point here is that the mighty acts of Jesus are the work of the Holy
Spirit.[5] God
will not forgive the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. God can forgive all human offence. Since the Spirit is in Jesus, God cannot
forgive anyone who criticizes Jesus. In
terms of the sin against the Holy Spirit, we must remember that forgiveness of
sin is a primary theme of the gospel.
This sin is a perversion of spirit in which one calls light
darkness. Attributing charitable acts,
such as exorcism, to Satan, would be such blasphemy. There is great moral
danger in getting to this point. The darkest of all the sayings of Jesus occurs
after these parables, the saying about the blaspheming against the Holy Spirit
that makes those who commit it guilty of an eternal sin for which they can
receive no forgiveness. If they knew what they were saying, calling the clean
unclean, the holy unholy, the good bad, life death, the kingdom of God the
kingdom of Satan, they would have realized their danger. They excluded
themselves from liberation, the new aeon, the proclamation of forgiveness,
salvation, their reception. Jesus did not identify himself as angry. He has
nothing more to say to those who think and speak in this way. He simply draws
attention to this sin. If they have fallen into it, they have done so through
their actions.[6] The
controversial saying may be part of the theme that the Spirit has a function at
the judgment. The fatal result of such judgment finds illustration in the story
of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11).[7]
Mark 3:31-35 is a pronouncement on the true family of
Jesus. Mark
does not focus on the fallout from this diagnosis until verse 31. At this
point, the closest family of Jesus arrives.
31 Then his mother and his brothers came; and standing outside, physically
and metaphorically, they sent to him and
called him. They seem to demand that he come to them. 32 A crowd was sitting around him; and they said to him,
"Your mother and your brothers and sisters are outside, asking for
you." This unprecedented behavior leads Jesus to offer a pronouncement
about the new nature of kinship. 33
He replied, "Who are my mother and my brothers?" 34
Looking at those who sat around him, he said, "Here are my mother and my
brothers! 35 Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister
and mother." The priority of blood family ties recedes in favor of
spiritual ties that bind together all those who do "the will of
God." One can use the shame and
honor culture to explain this story. Here the issue of kinship and blood
loyalty makes honor an even more crucial commodity. The flagrantly dis‑honorable
action of one family member could bring shame and dishonor on the entire
kinship unit. Because one's most basic identity lay with the group, the family,
threatening the honored status of the group put all members at risk.
[1] --Adapted from "Franciscan Mysticism" (an
unpublished talk). Some wisdom from Richard Rohr's Daily Meditations -- HOLY
FOOL, Wednesday, December 17, 2014:
[2] A separate tradition from the material common to
Matthew and Luke is in Luke 11:14-15, 17-18. In Q, “son of man” may refer to
humanity. Mark’s version of the
kingdom divided against itself in v. 23-26 is a later version than in Luke
11:17-18. Q contradicts Mark in that
blasphemy against the son is forgivable.
Yet, given I Corinthians 12:3, it is difficult to imagine the church
inviting criticism of Jesus. However, it
is more likely that the saying is an example of the community setting limits on
the ecstatic leaders.
[3] Barth, Church
Dogmatics IV.2 [64.2] 231.
[4] (See David M. May. "Mark 3:20‑35 From the
Perspective of Shame/Honor," Biblical Theology Bulletin 17 [1987], 83‑87.)
[5] Pannenberg, Systematic
Theology Volume 1, 266.
[6] Barth, Church
Dogmatics IV. 2[64.3] 231-2.
[7] Pannenberg, Systematic
Theology Volume 3, 623.
No comments:
Post a Comment