Let's
take on one hard saying at a time:
1. The unforgivable sin --
Vernon Robbins [1] states "As Jesus elaborates his response to the
scribes, he uses the argumentative procedures of wisdom discourse that
features parables, enthymemes, and contraries." Here he lays out the
structure of the argumentation:
Proposition/Result: (23) How can Satan cast out Satan? [=
Satan cannot cast out Satan.]
Rationale:
Case: (24) If a kingdom is divided against itself,
Result: that kingdom cannot stand.
Case: (25) And if a house is divided against itself,
Result: that house will not be able to stand.
Case: (26) And if Satan has risen up against himself and is
divided,
Result: he cannot stand, but is coming to an end.กจ
[Unstated Rule: If a powerful domain rises up against itself,
it will destroy itself.]
Argument from the Contrary:
Case: (27) "But no one can enter a strong man's house and
plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man;
Result: then indeed he may
plunder his house."
[Unstated Contrary Rule: If one powerful domain overpowers
another, it may plunder the domain it subdues.]
Conclusion As Authoritative Apocalyptic Judgment:
Rule: (28) "Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the
sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; (29) but whoever
blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is
guilty of an eternal sin"
Case: (30) for they [the scribes] had said, "He has an unclean
spirit." [= they had said that he cast out unclean spirits by an
unclean spirit (Beelzebul), thus blaspheming against the Holy Spirit.]
[Unstated Result: The scribes never have forgiveness for their
assertion about Jesus.]
2. Did Jesus' family want to "intervene?" [2]
The writer of Mark has sandwiched one story, the accusation of
possession by demons, inside the account of Jesus' relations with his
family. This is a typical pattern in Mark. This creates a parallelism
between Jesus' own family and the Jerusalem authorities (Crossan 1991,
p318) that reflects negatively on the family of Jesus.
Price (2003) argues that this story is built out of the story of
Moses, his family, and his appointment of judges over Israel (see
previous pericope for details).
"Further, the implication that Jesus'
"relatives and his own house" give him no honor is almost certainly
added by Mark who also constructed 3:20-35 to show Jesus' relatives'
failure properly to appreciate him."
thought he was out of his mind and wanting to seize him to be
historical, since it was "too offensive for it to have been invented."
He also notes that Matt and Luke delete these ideas. Once again we
have a naive, faulty deployment of the embarrassment criterion, since
neither writer nor audience are known, so it cannot be known who would
have taken offense, and at what. Many exegetes interpret this gospel
as a handbook on how to be a disciple. Here Jesus acts as the model,
showing that his way is more important than relationships with
families. Further, far from being too offensive to invent, it is a
signature Markan theme that those close to Jesus did not understand
him. Finally, recall that the writer's Christology is Adoptionist.
That means that he sees Jesus as an ordinary human whom God Adopted to
be his Son (in Mk 1:11). As Paul noted in Romans 8:14-17, believers
were the adopted sons of God.
This pericope can only be seen as "embarrassing" if the reader sees it
through the lens of later Church doctrine about the nature of Jesus,
which defined him as the pre-existent Son of God, who of course could
never be possessed. But for the writer of Mark, it was probably
perfectly natural that an ordinary man who suddenly thought he was the
Adopted Son of God should be suspected of possession by his loved
ones; indeed, it would strange if he were not. The full irony of their
misunderstanding is in fact perfectly consonant with the same
misunderstandings of Jesus' real identity elsewhere in Mark, and
typically Markan. Jesus is in truth possessed, but by God, not a
demon. Hence, as Fowler (1996) points out, the debate here is not over
whether Jesus is possessed. Rather, it is over whether the spirit that
possesses Jesus is good or evil.
35: Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and
mother." [3]
Guijarro (2004) defines this unit from the source-critical
perspective that sees this unit as going back to Jesus:
"These teachings about the relationship of the disciples among
themselves and with God reveal that Jesus configured the group of his
closest disciples according to the model of the family. He formed with
them a surrogate family, in which they could find support, protection
and identity. The gospel scene in which Jesus declares that his true
family are his closest disciples, those that put into practice God's
will (Mark 3:31-35), is therefore a faithful reflection of the kind of
group formed by Jesus and his disciples."
Painter (1999) sees as one possibility that the writer of Mark is
attacking the status of the Jerusalem leaders who are members of the
family of Jesus. By identifying Jesus' family as those who follow
Jesus, and not necessarily those related to him, the writer of Mark
denigrates the status of the Jerusalem in-group.
Funk et al (1997) notes that the dialogue here focuses on comparing
those who are "outside" with those who are "inside." Outside and
inside are important considerations in Mark.
