Introduction
There are several ways to take this text this week and truly, I don’t think any are easy paths. The scene we’re inheriting today is so contextual. And yet, Mark seems to be making matter of fact generic claims. Truthfully, it’s a difficult story because it’s convoluted and messy…just like humanity. So, lets get into the messiness.
Context
If you want a recap through the end of chapter of Mark, look back at last week’s commentary. But last week, Jesus and the disciples had to flee Capernaum because the Pharisees were plotting to destroy Jesus with the Herodians (because Jesus healed on the sabbath).
And right before our pericope for this week, Jesus has amassed a great following from all over (“Judea, Jerusalem, Idumea, beyond the Jordan, and the region around Tyre and Sidon” – 3:8) as he travels throughout Galilee. He continues healing folks and exorcising and silencing demons. Ultimately, he selects the Twelve (in Mark it’s Simon Peter, James and John sons of Zebedee, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot – 3:16-19).
And that’s where our text picks up. Jesus returns home with the twelve. And with this we get three traditional segments that we often focus on for our preaching angle.
- Jesus rejected in his hometown
- Jealous scribes/religious leaders
- Family vs Chosen family
And then there are two more options that always feel difficult to take on
- Jesus being of God or Satan (and/or demonic possession being misdiagnosed for insanity) or
- Blaspheming against the Holy Spirit.
In such a short text there really are a number of ways to go that focus on these narrower topics. And truth be told, there are about a million folks who are better equipped to talk about these individual topics than me (especially chosen family and misdiagnosed mental health to delegitimize someone). And so, rather than breaking all of them down, I’m going to stay on the macro level.
But I do want to highlight some voices that share in ways that I can’t.
Brooke Scott: https://justiceunbound.org/mark-3/
Debie Thomas: https://www.journeywithjesus.net/essays/1805-a-house-divided
Now to some macro level stuff.
Big Picture
What most commentators LOVE to talk about with this pericope is that it is one of Mark’s intercalations (a sandwiched story for teaching). Sure, that’s true and it’s a neat writing style BUT, this is really (at least) a double decker sandwich. This story is more meaningful when we see that Jesus has just selected the twelve in the previous section. And he has specifically called the twelve to be “with him” (3:14). This is in contrast with the word that is translated as “family” in 3:21. In the Greek, οἱ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ is literally, “the ones beside him.” This is often seen as familial but could be more inclusive than just immediate family (also friends and other relatives). But even before we get to the intercalation, we’re already being connected to the passage before. And immediately, we are dealing with a larger theme of who is “in” and who is “out.”
Now, this does stray into chosen family territory, however, Mark is setting up a larger category. The twelve are “with him” and the others are “around” or ‘observing’ him. This section is not just about family but also about authority and understanding. Jesus has given authority to the twelve by calling them because they are coming to understand him and what he’s doing. His family is trying to κρατῆσαι (seize, arrest, restrain) him. The scribes who have come down Jerusalem are claiming that he is empowered by Beelzebul.
So, what Mark is creating and illustrating is an incredibly small and insular community/family. It is just the twelve (and eventually the women at the cross who will become sisters) that are Jesus’ family.
Why am I saying this? Because we want this to be an inclusive text. Jesus has been hanging out with sinners, tax collectors, demoniacs, those in need of healing. This is inclusive, right? But this is actually one of the most restrictive texts we get. And there’s not a whole lot of wiggle room because in chapter 4 Jesus introduces why he speaks in parables. And unlike some of the other Gospels – which suggest that parables for greater interpretation and comprehension – in Mark, Jesus says, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom, but for those outside, everything comes in parables; in order that ‘they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand; so that they may not turn again and be forgiven (4:11-12).’” Reminder for all of you for whom Mark is your favorite Gospel, this is the Gospel of “ransom for many” (10:45).
But what’s weird is this inclusion/exclusion is in some conflict with verse 28 and 29 of today’s text. David Schnasa Jacobsen writes,
“The rhetorical strategy is not guilt inducement, but paradox. The first statement in v. 28 is a blanket one that is startling in its scope; all will be forgiven the sins of humanity, even blasphemy! Using eschatological statements, Jesus announces the divine fire sale on mercy. The first word is cosmic-wide forgiveness. The second part of the statement, v. 29 needs to be read therefore in relation to the first. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is not a matter of casuistry, but paradoxical refusal and loss. It is not that Jesus teaches scrupulosity here, but rather points out that misnaming of the divine in mercy (that is, falsely calling it demonic) is paradoxically the only thing that can exclude someone from the blanket promise of v. 28. Why would anyone do so? Only because their point of view has become so stilted that they cannot see God’s liberative mercy when it stares them in the face.”[1]
Okay. Okay. So, I take my critique of Mark exclusion back… a little. But Jacobsen’s explanation doesn’t absolve the harshness of this text so far.
Jesus’ immediate family and the religious leaders are already blaspheming against the Holy Spirit here in chapter 3. Now Jacobsen argues that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is misinterpreting mercy and the movement of God’s kingdom as demonic. And yet where’s the line of demarcation?
Later we hear that Peter, and the disciples will stand in Jesus’ way at moments when he is heading toward the cross (“Get behind me, Satan” – 8:33). Judas will betray him so that he can be handed over. Peter and the disciples will run away and deny him. The high priest and council will accuse Jesus of blasphemy and condemn him to death (by sending him to Pilate). The women at the tomb will run away after being told to share the Good News of Jesus’ resurrection. Are these examples of blaspheming? What is the acceptable amount of pushback against Jesus and the coming kingdom of God before it is blaspheming against the Holy Spirit?
So here’s where I’m going with this. We’re getting set up. I guarantee you every single one of us could come up with a hierarchy of which of the above is the worst offense and what should be forgiven and what shouldn’t. We want to draw our lines. We want to pick our sides. We want to decide who’s in or out.
And a text like this gives us almost enough fodder to officially draw those lines. It’s the leaders who abuse their power, right? It’s families that don’t understand their child and exile them, right? It’s close friends who betray us in our moments of need or in moments of vulnerability, right? It’s those who are jealous and participate in character assassinations, right? It’s those who are silent in the face of danger (quietism), right?
Mark has set us up. And he’s going to continue to do it throughout the entire Gospel. But at the end of this, not a single character will be without some failure, and we will remember that we all fall short of the glory of God. In our sinfulness and in need of the grace of God, we will all stand together (including Mary the mother James – who is the Mary the mother of Jesus – 15:40 and 16:1 – the family is not written off).
Preaching Possibilities
*Again, check some of the other resources for some of the individual topic ideas.
The Cautionary Tale
Mark feels like a rebellion/revolutionary text at first. Jesus is casting out demons AND he’s casting down those in authority. He’s drawing lines in the sand. He’s breaking the rules. It feels perfect for an election year when we want to hate those who we don’t like.
But the brilliance of this whole narrative, is at the end, no one is the hero. No one but Jesus, anyway. Because when we allow one group or person to be written off, then we can write anyone off. If we can’t count on the religious authorities and Jesus’ family, we can count on the people he’s healed. If we can’t count on the crowd, then we can count on the twelve. If we can’t count on the twelve, we can count on the women at the tomb. If we can’t count on the women, we can count on…Jesus.
We want to be able to write people off. We want to be able to diagnose the worst sins and offenses. We want to control the movement of the Holy Spirit and kingdom of God and have it align with our perspectives. But the truth is, when we do that, about 99.99% of the time, we get it very wrong. And ultimately we become the ones who begin creating rules/policies/restrictions that leave people out of the community of God (even though we thought we were working for inclusion).
[1] David Schnasa Jacobsen, Mark of Fortress Biblical Preaching Commentaries, (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2014), 64.
Micah Krey 
Leave a comment