The Gospel of Mark 3:20-35 - The Honor of God and Shame of Men
Haven done great and mighty miracles, having cast out many demons, Jesus must now face His most painful attacks, those from His own family! Jesus is accused of being crazy by His own family! During this time some Scribes also come to Him and accuse Him of using the power of the Devil to perform these works.
Text
“Then he went home, and the crowd gathered 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.” And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and “by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.” And he called them to him and said to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end. But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. Then indeed he may plunder his house. “Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”— for they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.” And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, seeking you.” And he answered them, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” And looking about at those who sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.”
Mark 3:20-35 (ESV)
Discussion:
- A Markan Sandwich
While writing his great work on the Gospel, Mark made use of a literary device which helps to highlight a particular story or passage. Scholars and Bible nerds refer to this literary device as a “Markan sandwich” (also called intercalation). In it he takes a story, interrupts it with another story, and then completes the first story. The first and ending story, which is one story, are like the bread of a sandwich and the center story is like the filling. This way of writing can be used to build interest and suspense, compare or contrast two elements or stories, or make a theological point. In this case, the story of Jesus family calling Him crazy is interrupted by the story of the Scribes saying that He works using demonic powers (perhaps implying that He has a demon) (Lane 1974, 137). The comparison becomes even stronger when we remember that in ancient times they often linked mental illness with demonic possession or influence (Marcus 2008, 271). But what is the point that Mark is trying to make here? In order to understand the point we must dig a little deeper into what his family said when they accused Jesus of being crazy.
- He is out of His mind
“Then he went home, and the crowd gathered 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.”
Mark 3:20-21 (ESV)
There is discussion as to what the phrase “He went home” means. We know that He had moved to Capernaum, however, the involvement with His family indicates that He was either back in Nazareth visiting His family, or perhaps that they had come to see Him in Capernaum. The reactions of the crowd seem to point to Capernaum but the closeness of His family seems to point to Nazareth. Since Matthew says that His family “stood outside” (Matthew 12:46) and that same day He went to the sea (Matthew 13:1), this seems to indicate that He is indeed in Capernaum.
Now what does it mean that His family “stood outside”. This entire story must be viewed within the “honor and shame” culture. As Craig S. Keener explains, it is likely here that the family of Jesus is seeking to protect their familial honor (Keener 2009, 370), seeing Jesus as putting that in danger. Thus, they would see shaming Jesus as a lesser bad than shaming the entire family.
“Relatives normally sought to conceal other relatives’ behavior that would shame the whole family, hence their concern in Mark 3:20–31 (cf. Malina 1993: 80).”
Jesus’ response is shocking to their culture and time, but we will cover that later. For now, we must focus on why Mark included this event the way He did, linking it to the shame of the Pharisees.
It is likely that Mark is seeking to comfort Christians of his own time, who were suffering from the rejection of their own family (Marcus 2008, 280).
“A more important factor, however, is probably the alienation of some Markan Christians from their own family members (see Best, “Mark III,” 317–18; Bauckham, Jude, 48–49); similarly, the accusation of Jesus’ madness corresponds to aspersions often cast against the sanity of early Christians (cf. the NOTE on “He has gone out of his mind” in 3:21). This explanation is supported by the way in which, in the overall narrative of the Gospel, the references to Jesus’ tension with his family in our passage and in 6:3 are bracketed between two references to disciples abandoning their families, 1:18–20 and 10:28–31. In the latter, Jesus lauds those who leave their families “for my sake and the gospel’s,” promising them that they will receive a new family “with persecutions”; the note of familial persecution here is further echoed in 13:12–13, where Jesus foretells that some of his disciples will be betrayed to death by their own relatives and “hated by all on account of my name.” These prophecies probably reflect experiences of familial alienation and persecution common among early Christians, and hence the picture in 3:31–35 of Jesus’ problems with his own family would likely produce a shock of recognition for some in the Markan community. It would also remind them of the eschatological aspect of their present situation, since apocalyptic texts portray alienation from family members as one of the end-time woes to be endured until God shortens the time and saves his people (13:13, 20; cf. e.g. Mic 7:6; Jub. 23:16; Matt 10:34–36//Luke 12:51–53; m. Soṭa 9:15). If even Jesus did not escape this eschatological trial, how much less can the Markan Christians expect to do so! Mark’s readers, then, may feel that the picture of familial alienation in 3:20–21 is uncomfortably close to the bone—but also comfortingly so, since the person slandered, Jesus, is the one whom they know to have been vindicated by God.”
We can see then that the Christians suffered shame and rejection from their own family. In this they could find comfort, that Jesus too suffered in this way, even rejection from men who would later believe in Him like His brother James, and his own mother, who had all too often been shown to have faith and act in honor. The family of Jesus were people, just like us. They acted within their culture, perhaps reacting to the rejection and Nazareth and seeking to project the family from yet more dishonor. Remember that they were a poor family from a small town that was not consequential, and here Jesus, their son and brother, was becoming famous for challenging all that they hold dear. He is already seen at odds with Synagogue leaders, Pharisees, and Scribes. This would have been very concerning for them, for all these groups would have been seen as far more powerful and also of great honor. It is as if your brother were going around picking fights with congress and famous celebrities, all while being a back town farmer. You would perhaps react with embarrassment and try to calm him down and keep him quiet. This is what they are doing here, all while trying to protect what little honor they had. Yet in the middle of this familial confrontation we see another conflict stirring, for the Scribes came down from Jerusalem to add their own attack on Jesus!
- He is possessed by Beelzebul
“And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and “by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.”
Mark 3:22 (ESV)
R. T. France points out that this is a fresh batch of assailants who have come down on a mission to attack Jesus directly (France 2002, 169). This is not a confrontation where they are seeking to limit shame, such as we have seen with the Pharisees at times. Indeed, this is aggressive and seems to be a more obvious attack. The leadership in Jerusalem is not pleased with the actions of Jesus so far and they have come to shut Him down. They do so by proposing that He is not casting out demons by the power of God, but instead by the power of Beelzebul. If this attack were to hold water, it would also bring into question all His miracles, for it would leave people wondering, is He doing these things by another power?
Beelzebul had several possible meanings; lord of the flies (implying among other things a demon that is connected to healings), lord of the dwelling (which would make the mention of the house make sense), with the latter being more likely (Stein 2008, 182; Herrmann 1999, 154). Either way the context makes it clear that Jesus associates this demon with Satan, thus, since He knows that it is Satan that rules over the kingdom of darkness.
However, there is something here to notice. This attack on Him by claiming that He uses the power of the enemy is contrary to what we have seen the Pharisees say about Him, when Nicodemus admitted that He had come from God (John 3:2). I believe it is likely that they did believe He was doing these things by the power of God, but their need to shut Him up was so strong that they were willing to make an accusation that had a remote chance of being accurate. Little did they know the cost, for in doing so, they would only find damnation!
Jesus responds with an excellent argument, quickly showing that their claim is false and entirely lacking in logic.
- A kingdom divided
“And he called them to him and said to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end.”
Mark 3:23–26 (ESV)
Once He had destroyed the argument, He escalates it in a sense. He goes on to show that not only is He not using the power of Satan, but He is stronger than Satan and able to overcome him.
- Bind the strong man
“But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. Then indeed he may plunder his house.”
Mark 3:27 (ESV)
The previous argument, that Jesus could not be a member of the kingdom of Satan while working to cast out demons leads logically into the next statement. Jesus could not cast out these demons unless he were stronger and had more power.
Powerful angels must rebuke the enemy by calling on Yahweh (Jude 1:9). This is why I do not say “I rebuke you” but “Yeshua rebuke you”; for it is not by my own authority that I rebuke spirits. I do not have authority, however, my God Jesus Christ does! It is of note that exorcists then and now must cast out demons using the authority and name of God, however, Jesus never did this. He spoke directly to the demons and cast them out with His own authority and power! This action alone shows that He was acting not as a man, but as Yahweh in the flesh. Only God is above the rebellious kingdom of darkness, therefore, the lack of divine entreatment when casting out a demon reveals His divinity. In other words, He does not have to use a divine name because His name is already divine.
Not only is His name divine, and He have the authority to bind members of the enemy rebellion, but He has the power to bind Satan. I had not considered this before, but when Jesus talks about binding the strong man, He is implying that He is stronger (Lane 1974, 143)! This is an allusion to the prophecy of Isaiah 49:24–26 where God promises to rescue Israel from the mighty (Shively 2018, 66).
“The parable of the strong man opposes the scribes’ viewpoint: Satan’s powerful reign is indeed coming to an end, not through internal division (3:23–26) but through the external attack of one more powerful (3:27). The setting of the parable is the strong man’s house (the world), in which Satan holds people as his own possessions until a stronger figure invades his domain. This language echoes Isaiah 49:24–26, in which the Strong One of Jacob rescues Israel from the “strong man,” or the mightiest warrior in Jewish tradition. As a result, the redeemed enter the restored city of Zion where the Lord again reigns as king (Isa 52:1–10). Whereas Isaiah presents God as the Strong One who rescues Israel from a human strong man, Mark presents the Spirit-filled Jesus as the stronger one who rescues God’s people from a cosmic strong man (see also Mark 1:7).”
Yet Jesus does not stop by defending Himself but instead goes on the attack. As King, Judge, and Messiah, Jesus has the right to make judgements, and in this disagreement He made a decision. He would not forgive those who blaspheme in this way.
- Blaspheme of the Holy Spirit
“Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”— for they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.”
Mark 3:28-30 (ESV)
Guilty of eternal sin, this is a phrase which strikes fear into many Christians. As those who find salvation in forgiveness, the idea of not being forgiven is terrifying. Yet all to often the context is overlooked. The Scribes are not disagreeing on theology, they are not only attacking Jesus, they are also insulting the Holy Spirit. For it is by the power of the Holy Spirit that Jesus is able to do such miracles and works. Therefore, when they attack His great works such as casting out demons, they are also attacking the Holy Spirit. This is explained well by Joel Marcus and I wanted to present it here so as to not cause fear or doubt. He explains that many struggle with this fear and the fact that they desire to not commit it may often demonstrate that they have not (Marcus 2008, 284).
“But what more precisely is for Mark the unpardonable sin, the blasphemy against the Spirit? This question and its existential counterpart, “Have I committed it?,” have tortured sensitive Christians down through the ages; we need only recall the case of John Bunyan, who in his anguish confessed to an elderly fellow Christian “that I was afraid that I had sinned the sin against the Holy Ghost; and he told me, he thought so too” (Grace Abounding, §181). Pastors who counsel such troubled souls that, if they are worried about having blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, they probably have not done so, have good biblical grounds for their position. In the Markan context blasphemy against the Spirit means the sort of total, malignant opposition to Jesus that twists all the evidence of his life-giving power into evidence that he is demonically possessed (see 3:22, 30); those guilty of such blasphemy would not be overly concerned about having committed it. This charge that Jesus is demon-possessed is “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” because, in Mark’s view, the true source of Jesus’ exorcistic and miracle working power is not an unclean spirit but the Holy Spirit, the power of God’s new age. To misconstrue this liberative divine action as a deed of the Devil is to demonstrate such a complete identification of the self with the forces of destruction, such a total opposition to the forces of life, that no future possibility of rescue remains. Putting our passage together with 2:6–10, it may be said that in Mark’s view all blasphemies will be forgiven to humans, “the sons of men”—except the blasphemy of saying that the forgiver, the Son of Man, stands on the wrong side of the divine/demonic divide. Ironically, therefore, it is actually Jesus’ enemies, who accuse him of demonic collusion, who are permanently wedded to Satan; as sometimes happens in courtroom dramas, the plaintiffs turn out to be guilty of the charge they themselves have leveled at the defendant.”
Let us not walk in fear or torment, but instead turn our hearts to God in love! Yes, we should be careful with our words, but this should not cause us to lose track of the source and greatness of our salvation! Jesus Christ is the author of our faith and He will see it through to the end, and so we must not walk in fear but in faith!
“Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.”
Hebrews 12:1-2 (ESV)
After all this Mark returns to the original issue, one of shame from family. Jesus family has come to confront Him and let everyone know that they are doing so. Yet Jesus response will be even more shocking than His response to the Scribes.
- Who are my mother and brothers?
“And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, seeking you.” And he answered them, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” And looking about at those who sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.”
Mark 3:31-35 (ESV)
Remember that the context of the Markan sandwich was to show that Jesus, just like many other Christians, suffered shame and separation from His family. Now this hits home, because we see that Jesus begins to transform the idea of family to that of natural family to that of a family of faith. He proclaims that it is not His natural family that is His “family” but those who do the will of God, that is, His followers! This statement by Jesus would have severely shocking in His culture and time. This would be like an American pastor standing up during the fourth of July and stating that he had denounced his US citizenship! This was utterly shocking and counter cultural. Yet it was not a statement that was shocking in order to just be shocking. Jesus is reaching out to His followers of all time, showing them that even if they suffer shame and rejection by their family or their society, they still have a family. Elizabeth E. Shively has a great summary of His words and actions (Shively 2018, 67).
“The second set of episodes (3:20–21, 31–35) contrasts Jesus’s blood family with his newly created “family” (3:20–21, 31–35). Jesus’s kin attempt to pull him from his preaching and exorcising, claiming that he is out of his mind. As they call to Jesus from outside the house where he sits with his followers, he symbolically creates a new family.
Mark interlocks these sets of episodes by intercalating (that is, inserting) Jesus’s conflict with scribes into his conflict with family. While these groups are not alike in every way, they correspond in their efforts to subvert Jesus’s assault against Satan’s kingdom. Jesus distances himself from both his blood and religious families and instead creates a new family, not determined by blood or by religion but by doing God’s will (3:35). The context suggests that doing God’s will involves joining Jesus’s kingdom mission to battle satanic power. Moreover, the placement of Mark 3:22–30 depicts the movement from one kingdom to another: Jesus liberates people from the domain in which Satan is lord (3:27) and places people in a new domain in which he is Lord (3:31–35).
Later, Jesus envisions his followers living and working faithfully as members of his new household after his death and until his return (13:32–37). The owner or “lord of the house” is the crucified and risen Jesus for whom his people wait (contrast 3:27). Jesus portrays those of his new household continuing to engage in the conflict against satanic power, now empowered by the Holy Spirit—resisting, testifying, suffering, and dying (13:9–13)—until he returns as the Son of Man.”
We are family! We should love our family of course, but we must also remember that we as fellow believers are family. All too often in the church this is forgotten and horrible sins are done by Christians against Christians. This is not only against His will, but it treats with harm those who Jesus died for! Consider how great the value of a person that Jesus was willing to lay down His life to save them. Yet we often forget this and treat those around us without care or concern, or perhaps during a disagreement we speak to or about our spiritual family with hatred or unkindness. When we are tempted to do this we must remember that Jesus said that they are our family.
Summary
We cans see that Jesus has faced His greatest challenge yet; attack and shame from family. Yet this attack is further escalated by the Scribes as they come “looking for blood”, attacking Him and trying to cast doubt on His miracles and exorcisms. Jesus responds by explaining that if Satan is attacking Satan then His house is divided and His kingdom will fail. He further emphasizes that He, not Satan, is the true strong man and that He has bound Satan. Yet against those who have sinned against the Holy Spirit by saying that His power is of Satan He explains that He will not forgive them. They will suffer damnation. Lastly, dealing with familial shame and confrontation, He flips the script and explains that His true family is those who obey and follow God.
Life Application
Yet how does this all apply to our life? We must seek first to see any sin or mistakes in ourselves. This is expressed well by David E. Garland when he explains that we must first look at ourselves (Garland 1996, 141-142).
“The danger is that we will see this serious sin only in others—our deadly opponents—and not in ourselves. Slandering those who belong to Jesus poses as much danger as confusing Jesus with Satan. Church history is riddled with those who labeled their theological disputants as blasphemers and proceeded to excoriate, excommunicate, or execute them. If one describes one’s enemies as inherently evil or subhuman in some way, it makes it easier to justify doing away with them. When one characterizes an enemy as demonic, one can rationalize doing whatever one wants to eliminate that devil, no matter how devilish it might be.
The slander of Jesus by the teachers of the law reveals the extreme danger of labeling him. They may have been sincere in their denunciation of him and the power by which he worked. They may have been frightened by the new wine that was bursting their old wineskins. Someone has said that hell hath no fury like a coreligionist who feels betrayed. Vicious criticism of others in religious circles stems from a variety of motives: sincere distress over something radically new, genuine alarm over what is perceived to be heresy, a desire to reassure that we belong to the good guys by branding others as the bad guys, or a craven dread of losing power. The teachers of the law were seeking to protect the law, their tradition, and their stake in it. They may have firmly believed that God and Scripture were on their side. They were dead wrong, however, and their view was deadly to themselves and others.”
I am not suggesting that we walk around fearing that we have committed an unforgiveable sin, but that when we consider sin we look to ourselves. Let us not talk in judgement of others but in mercy, and let us walk humbly before our God, fearing Him, and love Him with a whole heart!
Questions to Consider
How do we act when we are attacked by those we love?
Do we ever attack our spiritual family? If so, have we forgotten that they are indeed our family?
Connections
Matthew 12:24-32, 46-50
Luke 8:19-21, 11:14-28, 12:10
Outline
Jesus cannot eat at home because of the crowd.
His family believed He was crazy.
The scribes from Jerusalem accused Jesus of being possessed by Beelzebul.
Jesus responds to honor attack, how can Satan cast out Satan?
Jesus explains that He has bound the strong man (Satan).
Jesus will forgive all sins except blaspheme of the Holy Spirit.
When Jesus family comes to Him, He explains that His mother and brothers are those who do the will of God.
References-
William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974), 137.
Joel Marcus, Mark 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 27, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 271.
Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009), 370.
Joel Marcus, Mark 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 27, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 280.
R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 2002), 169.
“BAAL ZEBUB בעל זבוב
I. The name Baal Zebub occurs only four times in the OT (2 Kgs 1:2, 3, 6, 16). In 2 Kgs 1 an accident of Ahaziah, the king of Israel, and his consulting the oracle of the god Baal Zebub of Ekron is described. For etymological reasons, Baal Zebub must be considered a Semitic god; he is taken over by the Philistine Ekronites and incorporated into their local cult. Zebub is the collective noun for ‘flies’, also attested in Ugaritic (W. H. VAN SOLDT, UF 21 [1989] 369–373: dbb), Akkadian (zubbu), post-biblical Hebrew, Jewish Aramaic (דיבבא), Syriac (debbaba) and in other Semitic languages.
II. On the basis zebub, ‘flies’, the name of the god was interpreted as ‘Lord of the flies’; it was assumed that he was a god who could cause or cure diseases.”
W. Herrmann, “Baal Zebub,” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst (Leiden; Boston; Köln; Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Brill; Eerdmans, 1999), 154.
“The first charge continually leveled (began to say, ἔλεγον, elegon; an inceptive imperfect) against Jesus by the scribes accuses him of being possessed by Beelzebul (cf. Matt. 10:25). (Cf. 3:30; 5:15; 7:25; 9:17, where “to have” an unclean spirit/demon means “to be possessed” by the unclean spirit/demon.) The derivation of the name “Beelzebul” (found only here and in Matt. 10:25; 12:24/Luke 11:15; Matt. 12:27/Luke 11:18–19 in the NT) is debated. The possibilities most often mentioned are “lord of the dwelling,” “lord of the dung,” and “lord of the flies” (J. Lewis, ABD 1:638–40). In light of the reference to plundering the “house” of Beelzebul in Mark 3:27 and the reference to “house” in Matt. 10:25, “lord of the dwelling” appears to be the more likely meaning. Whatever the origin of the term, however, for the readers of Mark it was simply another name for Satan (3:23).2 The second charge directed against Jesus accuses him of casting out demons by the prince of demons. Here is tacit acknowledgment that Jesus did in fact exorcise demons (cf. b. Sanh. 43a, where the charge of sorcery raised against Jesus likewise acknowledges his miracle-working activity but attributes this to sorcery [Meier 1991: 96]; also Justin Martyr, Dial. 69; Origen, Cels. 1.6).3 The expression “ruler of the demons” serves as a synonym for Beelzebul, as Matt. 12:24 and Luke 11:15 indicate (cf. also T. Sol. 3.5).4 A similar hierarchal understanding of the demonic world is witnessed to in T. Sol. 2.9; 3.5–6; 6.1–4; 1QS 3.20–26.”
Robert H. Stein, Mark, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 182.
William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974), 143.
Elizabeth E. Shively, “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and Mark 3:7–35: Apocalyptic and the Kingdom,” in Reading Mark in Context: Jesus and Second Temple Judaism, ed. Ben C. Blackwell, John K. Goodrich, and Jason Maston (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2018), 66.
Joel Marcus, Mark 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 27, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 284.
Elizabeth E. Shively, “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and Mark 3:7–35: Apocalyptic and the Kingdom,” in Reading Mark in Context: Jesus and Second Temple Judaism, ed. Ben C. Blackwell, John K. Goodrich, and Jason Maston (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2018), 67.
David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 141–142.
