Home Invasion — Saturday Sermons from the Sidelines

This text contains disturbing, violent, and triggering images and stories. Jesus’ family thinks he’s mentally ill. Religious bigwigs from headquarters in Jerusalem try to gaslight Jesus into silence. Jesus points to an “unforgiveable sin” which has caused Christians burdened with tender consciences no end of agony. Jesus rejects the rejection of his given family and describes the makeup of his chosen family.

This text should come with a content warning!

I haven’t yet mentioned that Jesus describes his mission as what we would call a “home invasion.” He declares, in cryptic imagery, “Rather, no one is able, when entering the house of the Strong One, to plunder thoroughly his property unless he first ties up the Strong One, and then he can plunder his house” (Mark 3:27).

It seems that Jesus describes his mission as breaking and entering, unlawful restraint, and grand theft. Is the Kingdom of God a criminal enterprise?

Let’s leave that question hanging for a bit and try to understand what Jesus says in this text. We’ll do that by working from the center to the margins and back again.

It’s clear that the “homeowner” in Jesus’ imagery is Satan – the Evil One who claims God’s good world for demonic ends. Jesus’ mission of forgiveness, life, and salvation is an invasion intended to release the cosmos, and each of us, from the oppression of Satan’s rule.

The scribes from Jerusalem may have gotten it all terribly wrong. Or, more likely, they are using a tried-and-true strategy to bring a rogue rabbi to heel. They don’t deny the reality and power of Jesus’ healings and exorcisms. Instead, they accuse Jesus of being an agent of Satan rather than an opponent.

This strategy could be taken from today’s headlines. Insurrectionists in the United States capitol were not white supremacists. No, they were anarchists, antifascists, lunatics prosecuting a false flag operation in order to destabilize the status quo. Overwhelming evidence to the contrary does not seem to undermine such conspiracy theories. Instead, that evidence is taken as proof that the rot goes to the core of the federal tree.

Jesus dismantles their gaslighting logic with surgical precision. If Satan is indeed casting out Satan, isn’t that proof that Satan’s rule is disintegrating? If there is a Civil War in Hell, how can that reign continue? Jesus’ healing and exorcisms are not evidence of his own demonic possession. They are proof that a new regime – the “Kingdom of God” – has begun.

A close reading indicates that Jesus is thinking about words from Isaiah 49, verses 24 and 25 (NRSV). The prophet speaks Good News to those in the bondage of Babylonian Exile. They are kidnap victims longing for release. What can be done about their condition? “Can the prey be taken from the mighty,” the prophet asks, “or the captives of a tyrant be rescued?”

“Yes!” the prophet declares. The LORD says, “Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken, and the prey of the tyrant be rescued; for I will contend with those who contend with you, and I will save your children.”

Jesus isn’t describing a home invasion. He’s mounting a hostage rescue.

And we, among others, are the hostages! Jesus comes to set free everyone in the story today – the crowd, his family, even those theological police sent from Jerusalem.

Some of us regularly confess that we are in bondage to sin and cannot free ourselves. I’m not sure how much we really believe on Monday what we confess on Sunday, but there it is. I rejoice that when I feel most restrained, when I am sure there’s no way out, when I see the walls closing in and the ropes tightening around my wrists, Jesus brings the Holy Spirit’s forgiving word from God to set me – and you – and the cosmos – free.

That’s the Good News of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. It’s good news for me. I hope it might be for you.

The closer we are to the center of this story, however, the harder it is for us to hear the good news. Because the closer we are to the center of this story, the more invested we are in the way things are. If you have stuff in the house, a hostage rescue might look a lot like a burglary. I think that’s how it looked to the religious authorities from Jerusalem.

Justice looks like theft to the powerful, the privileged, the positioned, and the propertied. Equity feels like loss to such folks. Jesus destabilized the status quo and upended the power structure. The people in charge saw the reality and responded as the powerful often do. They named the problem as the solution and the solution as the problem.

Martin Luther described this tactic as the “theology of glory.” In the theses for the Heidelberg Disputation in 1518, Luther wrote these words. “A theology of glory calls evil good and good evil. A theology of the cross calls the thing what it actually is” (Thesis 21). A theology of glory will say whatever is necessary to keep the powerful in power.

That includes calling the work of the Holy Spirit demonic. That’s what is going on in verses 28 through 30. This is not about some mysterious or general sort of “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.” This is not about experiencing doubt or even despair, as some theological traditions would have it. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit calls the liberating work of God a crime and regards the continuing bondage of the cosmos as the good work of God.

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is calling evil good and good evil – and doing it to stay in power.

This description does not even require a theological framework. Describing effective election systems as filled with fraud is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Describing legitimate questions at a traffic stop as criminal resistance is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Describing structural poverty as laziness is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Describing systemic racism as a mirage is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is, to use the technical language of Harry Frankfurt, “bullshit.”

It’s easy to get caught up in the power panic and be taken in. Jesus’ family members are worried about their clan’s honor and Jesus’ safety. Those are legitimate concerns, but they cannot be ultimate concerns. Jesus brings the Good News invasion into the very heart of Satan’s home. Neutrality is not going to be an option. We can be part of Jesus’ chosen family – or not.

It’s interesting to me that Jesus does not talk about “faith” as a mark of being in that family. Instead, he says in verse 35, “Whoever shall do the will of my Father – that one is my brother and my sister.” The will of his Father, as we can see in this reading, is the release of the hostages held captive to Satan and Satan’s allies.

I take a number of things from this reading.

First, watch for the theme of “invasion” in Mark’s gospel in the coming weeks. Today’s reading is a kind of mission statement for Jesus in Mark. He continues to enter the house of the Strong One and release the captives. Hold that in the background as you read and reflect on texts in the coming days.

Second, expect to be released! Pray for it and look for openings. Whatever holds you in bondage to sin, death, and the devil is not part of God’s will for you, me, and the cosmos. Release may require relinquishing some pretty familiar props for our lives – stuff we hold and stories we believe. But the freedom is worth it.

Third, expect resistance. Whole human systems are built on the basis of Satan’s home economics. Those systems do not surrender without a fight. And they keep returning in new disguises. For example, every time we make antiracist progress, as Ibram X. Kendi observes, racism pushes back with a kind of equal and opposite progress. That’s part of the struggle, not a sign of failure.

Fourth, remember the crowds. I haven’t forgotten that outermost “ring” in the concentric circles of this text. The liberating work of Jesus is indeed Good News for many of us who live lives of quiet (and sometimes noisy) desperation.

The report from the crowds in verse twenty is often translated as “He has gone out of his mind.” That’s a fair translation, and it informs the response of Jesus’ family. But it can also mean, “He is astonishing!” I suspect that both sentiments were present in the crowds that followed Jesus – that some thought him mad, and others found him marvelous.

I find it far too easy to listen to the “mad” crowd and to ignore the “marvelous” crowd. But there at the margins, at the edges of respectability, on the boundaries of belief – there we can find conversation partners willing to hear something new and different. Life is always there at the boundaries. And we Christians need to spend as much time on the boundaries as we can, if we want to re-hear the Good News for ourselves.

Is the Kingdom of God a criminal enterprise? It is if you want things to stay the way they are. If, on the other hand, you know that “the time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God has drawn near” in Jesus, then the Kingdom of God is best news ever.

So, what do you think?

Text Study for Mark 3:20-35 (Pt. 4); 2 Pentecost B 2021

4. All in the Family

If one of Mark’s themes is the nature of discipleship in the Christian community, then his words about the disciples take on special importance. He has chosen the twelve previously. They are seated around him as he teaches. He points to them as his authentic family. That description intends to draw Mark’s first listeners, and us, into that intimate circle as partners in the family business.

Hurtado observes that even though the Twelve have been given privileged seats in the circle, they are not mentioned specifically in verses 31-35. Instead, the family circle is left open to Mark’s first listeners, and to us. “The Christian readers are to identify themselves with those who do God’s will,” he writes, “and so are to see themselves included among those given this special closeness to Jesus” (page 67).

Note Jesus’ words about the potential loss of one’s given family in Matthew 10:34-39 and Luke 12:49-53. Swanson reminds us that we should not underplay the power of this incident in Jesus’ life and ministry. “Honoring family is the first commandment in the second table of the Commandments,” he writes, “and it is the commandment that sets the context for all other faithful observance. When Jesus’ mother arrives,” Swanson notes, Jesus “ritually disowns her” (page 168).

Photo by August de Richelieu on Pexels.com

“In ritual and family terms,” Swanson continues, “it does not matter whether Jesus meant to raise the status of his followers to something like fictive family status. Even if such an action were altogether good,” he argues, “he still leaves his mother alone as she watches him turn away from her. The offense of this action,” he concludes, “is essential to the development of Mark’s story” (page 168).

“It is remarkable that this somewhat negative treatment of Jesus’ family survived,” Hurtado suggests, “in view of the veneration of the mother of Jesus and the general high respect for his family in later church tradition” (page 67). In fact, this description created discomfort among Christian scribes and copyists very early in the process of textual transmission.

The original reading in verse 21, translated in the NRSV as “his family,” is the Greek phrase “hoi par autou” which means “the ones from or of him.” Metzger notes that this could be translated either as his “friends” or his “family.” The context in verses 31-35 makes a strong case for translating the phrase as “his family.”

A group of manuscripts have the phrase “huper autou” which could mean something like “those on his side.” A few manuscripts found the original reading “so embarrassing,” according to Metzger that they transcribed it as “when the scribes and others had heard about him” (pages 81-82). Hurtado argues that this change was “designed to remove the idea that Jesus’ family or friends might have tried to seize him and might have thought him to be mad” (page 68).

“This text is almost programmatic for Mark (as it is for the other Gospel writers), who sees the good news creating a new household of those accepting Jesus’ proclamation and thus becoming loyal to the Father,” suggest Malina and Rohrbaugh (page 201). “It is a sharp move away from the Temple or the biological family as well as the social networks on which they depended,” they note.

“Loss of connection to the family meant the loss of these vital networks as well as loss of connection to the land,” Malina and Rohrbaugh continue. “But a surrogate family, what anthropologists call a fictive kin group, could serve the same functions as the family of origin, and thus the Christian community acting as a surrogate family is for Mark the locus of the good news. It transcends the normal categories of birth, class, race, gender, education, wealth, and power.” (pp. 201-202).

“Of course,” Hurtado argues, “this information about Jesus and his family was not preserved for curiosity’s sake but to demonstrate by Jesus’ example the cost of discipleship and – by Jesus’ words in 3:35 – its reward” (page 67).

“The Greek term here translated “restrain,” suggests strong and forceful action” according to Malina and Rohrbaugh. “Since all members of a family had to be constantly concerned lest the behavior of one member damage the honor of all, the comment about Jesus’ family seeking to retrieve him suggests their perception that the honor of the family was indeed threatened” (page 199).

It is also interesting that in that latter paragraph Jesus’ mother, brothers, and sisters, are mentioned. The mention of the sisters is contested in the manuscript evidence. However, a majority of the committee behind the authoritative Greek text are fairly certain that this mention was found in the earliest manuscripts and was deleted from later copies.

Metzger himself, however, holds a dissenting opinion – that the shorter reading is to be preferred. “From a historical point of view,” he writes in a bracketed comment, “it is extremely unlikely that Jesus’ sisters would have joined publicly in seeking to check him in his ministry” (page 82).

This argument seems circular to me, however. Women were not generally part of such interactions, Metzger argues. Therefore, they should not be part of this one. Since they are not part of this one, it is clear they were not generally part of such interactions. Perhaps sticking to the mechanics of the text would have been the wiser course in this regard. Hurtado notes that Jesus’ sisters are clearly mentioned in Mark 6:1-3 in addition to four brothers.

We Protestants tend to read this directly as evidence that Jesus had full siblings. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, in maintaining dogmas about the Virgin Birth and Mary’s perpetual virginity, assert that these are half-siblings from Joseph’s previous marriage (which left Joseph a widower) or that these “siblings” were really Jesus’ cousins. Hurtado points out that the “cousin” argument reduces the power of this text, since cousins are not as close to us as siblings. Well, maybe (or maybe not).

Swanson cautions us against assuming that Jesus gets it all right here when it comes to his given family. “What if his family is right?” he wonders. “One of the things impetuous young people learn as they become adults is that their parents get smarter and smarter,” Swanson notes. “If you take the doctrine of the Incarnation seriously and hold that Jesus is fully and completely human,” he proposes, “then you ought to expect that his mother knows more than he thinks she does” (page 169).

I think this growth on the part of Jesus during his ministry is one of the subtexts in Mark’s gospel. I’m not inclined, for example, to give Jesus some kind of theological escape hatch in his difficult conversation with the Syro-Phoenician woman in Mark 7. She teaches him things he needs to learn on his journey just like the rest of us. I think this deepens our understanding and appreciation of the Incarnation, just as Swanson proposes.

It is also the case that this need not be an either/or binary – either Jesus or his mother is “right.” Swanson notes that each side of the equation must be considered. “So, what if she is correct in being concerned that he might be a danger to himself or others?” Jesus’ mother was clearly right in this matter. After all, the drama of the gospel puts her at the foot of his cross soon enough.

Swanson lists the evidence for such a parental worry – mostly abandoning Sabbath observance, taking up with disreputable characters, staying out all night, disrupting other’s families. “If the main result of his independent activity was to fracture the basic locus for faithful and productive life,” Swanson muses, “then his mother might well be concerned and find it to be her responsibility to tend to her child” (page 170).

“The integrity and truth of this scene depend on giving Jesus’ family the benefit of the doubt,” Swanson argues. “If they think Jesus may have lost his mind, truthful tellings of the story will contain evidence that could be read that way,” he notes (page 172).

Just because Jesus’ mother is right, however, doesn’t mean that Jesus is wrong. Swanson suggests that Jesus’ imagery conveys a couple of points. First, the battle is for the life and death of God’s people. This is not a mid-level theological debate. This is a war with Satan and his armies.

Second, this battle is for the soul of the cosmos – what Mark calls “the kingdom of God.” Jesus is fighting for all to have a place in the community. “No one will be shut out from the community feast because of a withered hand,” Swanson writes, referring to the previous context, “and no demons of any sort will harass the people” (page 171).

Tom Wright has a somewhat different view of the situation. He suggests that Jesus is relativizing the major institutions of Jewish piety, including Sabbath observance and family allegiance.

“Despite what pious Christian traditions have sometimes said about Mary, Jesus’ mother, at this stage at least she clearly didn’t have any idea what he was up to,” Wright declares, “She had brought the rest of the family down to Capernaum from Nazareth to find him and take him away, to stop him behaving in such an outrageous fashion, bringing dishonor to the family name. They thought he was mad (see verse 21)” (Kindle Location 867).

Well, there are families…and then there are families.

In our culture we continue to divinize “the family” and demonize “alternative” family systems and structures. That imposed and artificial hierarchy does violence to millions of people in numerous ways. While it may not be popular with some, we should note with clarity and conviction that Jesus does not allow us to blaspheme by using the family as a prop for our prejudices and a proxy for God.

That will be a shock to some and very good news to others.

References and Resources

Guijarro, Santiago. “The Politics of Exorcism: Jesus’ Reaction to Negative Labels in the Beelzebul Controversy.” https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/30239993/1999__Guijarro__Exorcism-Beelzebul.pdf?1353730298=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DThe_Politics_of_Exorcism_Jesus_Reaction.pdf&Expires=1622209905&Signature=ZVadoEoDb-kqMkfEwrdxjnnTeCLdTtkU0MwKpTCy4G3iEZGNcYSXFAZL033OpQBtWTr69blZOLxZ7wyOs4BY2TE7~QMjbhMb6uu9M~3NwS81Hj9cw2lOsOTrf8GilWS5CGAIclR9ntJHzpI39PohmVXeY3nNp~1TwkhxNif1-yPQjcM8cKbzTJpymVxvYGMyY4hMTOM4fkArz2qE7fEBaaSJit4QjhCBUB9-HBDd04-9JeU7dP57KYZYZQ8eUkVt5XH7jlgSDVbrOTdWf4MvVV04kaT-OoSdbqm-34EFO7JqSmNmq2ol-ur5PeVl2zpwyCbmJLEFzP4iSvTx82GGMw__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA

Holland, Drew S. “The Meaning of Exesthe in Mark 3:21.” The Journal of Inductive Biblical Studies 4/1:6-31 (Winter, 2017).

Hurtado, Larry. Mark (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series). Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Books, 1989.

Bruce Malina; Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels Kindle Edition.

Griggs, Linda Mackie. “Gaslighting Jesus.” https://relationalrealities.com/2018/06/10/gaslighting-jesus/.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the New Testament. New York: United Bible Societies, 1971.

Swanson, Richard W. Provoking the Gospel of Mark: A Storyteller’s Commentary, Year B. Cleveland, OH.: The Pilgrim Press, 2005.

Tisby, Jemar. How to Fight Racism. Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

Wright, N. T. Mark for Everyone (The New Testament for Everyone). Westminster John Knox Press. Kindle Edition.

Text Study for Mark 3:20-35 (Pt. 3); 2 Pentecost B 2021

3. The Unforgivable Sin

“And the scribes, the ones who came from Jerusalem, said, ‘He has Beelzebul,’ and ‘He is casting out the demons by means of the ruler of the demons.’” Some members of the crowd may have speculated that Jesus was mentally unstable. The representatives of the Jerusalem establishment say that he is possessed by and in league with the Demonic.

The gaslighting is raised to the level of an existential threat. Sorcery is punishable by death according to regulation and practice in the Hebrew scriptures. If the authorities can make the charges stick, Jesus will leave the encounter with at least a fatally damaged reputation. If things get serious enough, Jesus may leave the encounter on a slab.

As noted earlier, the authorities were engaged in what can be called “deviance labelling.” Malina and Rohrbaugh offer this description. “Most serious of all were accusations of sorcery, that is, being possessed by and having the power of “the prince of demons,” Beelzebul (Mark 3:22). Such labels not only marked one as deviant (outside accepted norms or states) but,” they continue, “once acquired, could be nearly impossible to shake” (page 200).

I suspect that many of us recognize this strategy for dealing with inconvenient truths in our lives. The problem is not “us,” we may say. “It’s you.” The one or ones upsetting the social applecart are blamed for the upset. An old adage in athletics notes that it’s always the second punch that draws the penalty. If I can keep the focus on your strong reaction to my bad behavior, then I can keep the spotlight of my own history of misdeeds.

This is the strategy in numerous current conflict situations. Protestors in our city have engaged in what I would view as unproductive strategies recently in calling attention to the poor performance of our local police. That has created yet another opening for authorities to focus on the protest rather than on the history of bad behavior which is the subject of the protest. In Palestine and Israel, the Israeli strategy is always to focus on the most recent attacks by “terrorists” in order to distract from the colonizing land confiscation that has prompted the violent responses.

If the problem is “us” rather than “you,” then we have to look at ourselves and change. It’s far easier in the short run to demonize the opposition than to engage in repentance and repair on our part. Demonization makes punishing and destroying the other far more palatable. We can describe the Other as cunning and greedy vermin, bloodthirsty savages, black beasts, rapists and thieves, or disease-carrying foreigners. This demonization results in segregation, separation, ghettos, concentration camps, enslavement, lynchings, removals, erasures, and genocide.

How does Jesus respond to the charges? First, he does not respond in kind. He seeks to dismantle the tortured logic which undergirds the charges uttered. Beelzebul is not much of an adversary if this is the best the ruler of demons can do. If the charges are correct, then the regime of the Evil one is hopelessly divided. The House of Demons will not stand. Civil War in Hell is no way to conquer on earth. If this is the state of things, then Satan’s end (telos) has come.

Of course, that is not what is going on, as Jesus notes in verse 27. “The Stronger One has arrived, and the Strong One finds his house being burgled” Hurtado write. “Jesus’ healings, and particularly his exorcisms, are signs that God’s kingdom is indeed arriving, the kingdom in which people who have been held captive will at last be set free.” (Kindle Location 830).

“The outrage here is that in assessing the unexpected behavior of Jesus, given his social status, his opponents attribute it to an unclean spirit rather than to a holy spirit,” Malina and Rohrbaugh note. “What God is doing they attribute to evil. To speak outrageously and insult God by claiming that God’s activity is the result of unclean spirits cannot be forgiven” (Page 200).

“If the label could be made to stick, implying that Jesus was an evil deceiver in the guise of good,” write Malina and Rohrbaugh, “his credibility with his audience would have been irreparably damaged. Jesus’ response was to underscore the ludicrous quality of the accusation in itself and to enlist the regional loyalties of his audience. By accusing his accusers, Jerusalemites,” they conclude, “of ‘blaspheming against the Holy Spirit (3:29), Jesus accused them of denying the power of God present in Jesus’ activities” (page 201).

Perhaps Jesus’ argument and his conclusion were resisted by the authorities. He continues with his description of the “eternal sin” in verses 28-30. “The idea of an unforgivable sin has haunted the minds of sensitive people in all Christian centuries,” Hurtado observes, “but all such anxiety is misdirected” (page 66). He notes that the sin Jesus describes is rejecting his message by calling it Satanic. This is the specific “sin” to which the text refers.

Hurtado notes that this sin entails despising the very forgiveness which troubled sinners seek. “So,” he suggests, “the very anxiety lest one may have done something that cuts one off from Christ’s forgiveness is, ironically, evidence that one believes Christ to be sent from God, and thus proof that one cannot have committed the sin warned against here” (page 66).

“From Mark’s point of view,” Hurtado notes, “the irony is that Jesus’ critics committed the very sin for which Jesus was unjustly condemned” (page 69). “It isn’t that God gets specially angry with one sin in particular,” Tom Wright suggests. “It’s rather that if you decide firmly that the doctor who is offering to perform a life-saving operation on you is in fact a sadistic murderer, you will never give your consent to the operation.” (Kindle Location 835).

The scribes “are guilty of an unforgivable sin because they mistake the Holy Spirit for Satan,” Meda Stamper writes. “They recognize that Jesus must be drawing on great power to perform exorcisms but fatally misidentify its source because he does not behave as they expect a righteous person to behave, which is to say, most of all, that he is not one of them” she continues. “He associates with the wrong people, breaks Sabbath laws, and blasphemes by forgiving sins, and so they commit the greatest blasphemy of all.”

I am not persuaded that this is a “mistake” on the part of the Jerusalem authorities. I would suggest, rather, that it is a calculated effort to label Jesus as a deviant and subject him to policing, punishment, and ultimately, death. I would suggest that the real blasphemy is using the Divine to underwrite one’s own power, position, privilege, and property – knowing that this strategy must be rooted in falsehood (as Jesus so ably points out).

The authorities use demonization as a psychological, cultural, and political prop to support their place in the system. They try to use God as a means to their ends. If they can make the case that God is “on their side,” then they can have their way with Jesus and maintain the status quo. This is the real blasphemy – to use God for our purposes rather than to be used by God for Divine purposes.

Let us remember in advance one of the central moments in Mark’s gospel. Peter rebukes Jesus in Mark 8, and Jesus calls Peter “Satan.” Jesus declares that Peter’s mind is on human things rather than Divine things. Peter sees Jesus as a means to his ends and thus blasphemes. This may be a precise description of the actions of Judas as well, of course.

“This passage is in fact a powerful witness to the remarkable things Jesus was doing,” Tom Wright suggests. “The early church certainly didn’t make up the story about people saying he was mad, or in league with the devil.” That wouldn’t have been the wisest public relations move if there were a choice about including this story.

“Equally,” Wright continues, “people only say that kind of thing when the stakes are raised, when something is happening for which there is no other explanation – in this case, when a power is at work to heal people who themselves seem to be in the grip of demonic forces” (Kindle Location, 813).

I can’t help but think about the ways in which moderate white Christians responded to Dr. King when he engaged in disruptive tactics. Perhaps this is a Sunday to refer to that response as contained in their letter to him as he sat in a Birmingham jail.

How do we hijack God for our own goals and purposes? An obvious example, at least in historical retrospect, is the use of Christian and Hebrew scriptures to underwrite the Doctrine of Discovery, the American system of enslavement, the removal and erasure of Indigenous peoples, and the evangelization (colonization) of the global East and South by the (Christian) North and West. Blaspheming the Holy Spirit means demonizing the Other and sacralizing ourselves.

Therefore, white supremacy is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. It can be repented, perhaps, in this life. But first it must be named in our white churches and acknowledged for what it is.

The result of demonization is scapegoating. Inconvenient truths are suppressed. Shame and guilt are off-loaded on to the Other. I never stole anyone’s land, we say. I never owned slaves, we say. I never excluded and interned Asian people, we say. I deserve what I have, and I will fight to the death to keep it, we say. The result of blasphemy is violence. The Other will bear the punishment we deserve.

Part of the irony in Mark’s gospel is that this is precisely what Jesus does. He absorbs the charges of blasphemy leveled against him. He challenges the powers of empire and cultural supremacy that crucify him. He rejects the systems of power, position, privilege, and property that resist repentance, repair, and reform. In the midst of all the bad news, we proclaim the Good News of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Meda Stamper notes that Jesus’ triumph over the demonic is a sign of the final triumph to come. “Jesus’ stealthy binding of the powers of evil ultimately undermines Satan so completely,” she writes in her workingpreacher.org commentary, “that even when he appears to have succeeded in destroying Jesus in the crucifixion, the very destruction of the Son issues not in defeat but in the mysterious victory of God.”

Therefore, we (especially white American Christians) must always examine ourselves on the charge of blasphemy. It is the theological crime most likely to be on our spiritual rap sheet as a community of faith. We have used God to suppress our inconvenient truths for five centuries, and we continue to do so now. I would suggest chapter five of Jemar Tisby’s How to Fight Racism as useful guide in this self-examination, if a congregation is serious about the truth of the Gospel.

References and Resources

Holland, Drew S. “The Meaning of Exesthe in Mark 3:21.” The Journal of Inductive Biblical Studies 4/1:6-31 (Winter, 2017).

Hurtado, Larry. Mark (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series). Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Books, 1989.

Bruce Malina; Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels Kindle Edition.

Griggs, Linda Mackie. “Gaslighting Jesus.” https://relationalrealities.com/2018/06/10/gaslighting-jesus/.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the New Testament. New York: United Bible Societies, 1971.

Swanson, Richard W. Provoking the Gospel of Mark: A Storyteller’s Commentary, Year B. Cleveland, OH.: The Pilgrim Press, 2005.

Tisby, Jemar. How to Fight Racism. Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

Wright, N. T. Mark for Everyone (The New Testament for Everyone). Westminster John Knox Press. Kindle Edition.

Text Study for Mark 3:20-35 (Pt. 2); 2 Pentecost B 2021

2. The Structural Sandwich

Our gospel lection is the first of several examples in Mark’s Gospel of placing one story “inside” another (see Mark 5:21-42; 6:7-32; 11:12-25; for examples). We will continue to watch for that technique in upcoming readings. “When Mark ‘sandwiches’ stories in this manner,” Hurtado writes, “it seems that he presents the two stories as related in some way; and this is probably the case here” (page 64).

Hurtado suggests that in this sandwich we find three groups: Jesus’ family who worry that he is “beside himself” and needs to be taken in hand; the scribes “who accuse Jesus of being a sorcerer in league with Satan” (page 64); and those who do God’s will and constitute Jesus’ true “family.” Hurtado notes that this third group, though not named directly, is likely made up of Jesus’ newly minted disciples. As we will see below, there is really a fourth and significant group – the “crowd.”

It’s not clear where this drama plays out. Mark’s Greek is rather generic in verse 20 – Jesus “went into a house.” This may be his adult home in Capernaum. It could be his childhood home in Nazareth, although that seems unlikely since his family members “come out” in order to take him in hand. It could simply be an unidentified, generic, house in the unnamed, generic village in which this all takes place.

Before we move on too quickly here, let’s pay attention to the whole text. One of my complaints about the NRSV, especially in the Christian scriptures, is the tendency to overinterpret in some translations. That overdetermining of a text then tends to obscure meanings which are only apparent with a lighter interpretive touch. The translation of “house” in verse 20 as “home” is, in my view, an example of that overdetermining tendency.

That translation reflects the translation of Mark 2:1. The NRSV renders that verse as “When he returned to Capernaum after some days, it was reported that he was at home.” The Greek text is something more like, “And entering again into Capernaum some days later, it was heard that he is (was) in the house.” Again, it’s not clear if this house belongs to Jesus, that is, whether it is his “home.” It may be, but that translation makes it harder to hear the point that Mark is trying to make in chapter 3.

I am convinced that the translation in both Mark 2:1 and 3:20 should be “house.” Jesus entered a house – but perhaps not just any house. In a few verses we will hear the parable of “The Binding of the Strong Man.” That “strong man” is Satan, and Jesus is the “stronger one” who enters Satan’s house, ties up Satan, and then plunders Satan’s property. Mark wants us to see that in these controversies reported in chapter 3, Jesus has already entered Satan’s house and is releasing the hostages – even if that means dishonoring family and defaming the establishment.

In addition, we should remember that soon Jesus will enter God’s “house” in Jerusalem – the Temple. He will take charge of that house and in fact “plunder” it. More than that, he will describe that “house” as a den of robbers. When Jesus invades the Temple during Holy Week, he is robbing the robbers. Thus, the parable sets the stage for knowing that Satan has invaded and taken captive the very house of God! Jesus comes to release God’s people from that bondage and restore them to liberty.

That being said, I don’t want to entirely abandon the sense of “home” in this reading. As we will see further below, John isn’t the only one who can exploit the multiple meanings of words for theological purposes. Drew Holland reminds us that the “household” theme is a big deal in Mark’s gospel. It’s not so much that Jesus has an independent home in Capernaum as it is that Jesus establishes a new “household” of faith. That is, in fact, the punchline at the end of this reading.

Holland notes that Jesus invades and dismantles the “household” of Satan that holds the world and its people hostage. Exorcisms are signs of that invasion and triumph. He reminds us that the image of “household” is a politically charged idea in the ancient Greco-Roman world. “The real irony in Mark 3:20-30,” Holland writes, is that Jesus’ amazing miracles are not just displacing the minds of the crowd, but the very foundation of Satan’s household and the social institutions of the ancient world” (page 27).

Meda Stamper offers an even more sophisticated analysis of the structural sandwich in her workingpreacher.org commentary. She notes that the text has a chiastic structure – that is, it works from the edges to the center and out to the edges again in three concentric circles. Here is her analysis:

–verse 20 Crowd

–verse 21 Family

–verse 22 Scribes (Jesus is casting out demons by the ruler of the demons)

–verses 23-27 The parables of Satan’s end

–verses 28-30 Scribes guilty of unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (because –they have said that Jesus has an unclean spirit)

–verse 31f Family

–verse 32f Crowd

We should note that this analysis assumes the disciples as the audience for this exchange. There is some ambiguity in verses 20-21 about whether the reference is to Jesus’ family or to the disciples. The reference in verses 31f., however, is clearly to the family. That’s not an ambiguity that will make a difference in the end for our interpretation.

In the center of the sandwich is the battle with Satan. The scribes coming from Jerusalem are closest to that center and most deeply entrenched on the wrong side. Jesus’ family are not as close but still not on the side of the Kingdom of God. The crowd are furthest out but still, perhaps, “in the house.” That’s important to keep in mind as we go along. The “crowd” is on the margin in this structure and may be mixed in its assessment of Jesus.

Why the sandwich? What is the point(s) Mark is making? “The interruption of this story with the accusation by some teachers of the law,” Hurtado writes, “seems designed to show that the attitude of Jesus’ family, however understandable in one sense, is to be seen as a response like that of these critics” (page 65).

I can’t help but think about some of the responses from my own family, friends, teachers, and mentors when I announced that I was headed off to seminary. I even kept that information from some family members for a while because I was worried that they might seek to have me committed to an institution for the mentally unstable. That was much more of a commentary on my own wonderings than on the potential responses of my family members, but I was in no condition to make that separation at the time.

As we noted above, labelling “deviant” behavior is often a way to maintain a relatively comfortable status quo. When I switched (pretty abruptly) from heading to graduate school in philosophy to attending a Lutheran seminary, some of my instructors wondered about my mental stability. In fact, they should have wondered about that stability much sooner in the conversation but didn’t. What they experienced as deviant behavior was one of the few sane decisions I was making at that time. But I digress.

“What is being contested is the meaning of Jesus’ power and works,” Hurtado notes. “The reality of the miracles is not denied, but the charge that they are devilish negates them as signs of God’s kingly power” (page 65). In fact, Stamper notes that the word for “restrain” in our text is the same verb used to describe Jesus’ arrest in Mark 14. That seems highly significant (and not very flattering to the family).

Hurtado wonders if the image of the “stronger man” who plunders Satan’s house is an allusion to the language of Isaiah 49:24-25. Those in exile are described as the “prey” of the mighty and the “captives” of tyrants. The LORD promises to rescue those who are such prey and captives.

If the connection is actual, then Jesus is not describing himself as a thief but rather as a rescuer who releases hostages from their bondage. “If the allusion suggested is valid,” Hurtado argues, “then the plundering of Satan is also to be understood as a sign that the future rule of God promised in the prophets is being exhibited already” (pages 65-66).

That seems to be precisely what John the Baptist says about Jesus as well, that he is the “stronger one” who is coming. “When Jesus now speaks about tying up the strong man and plundering his house,” Tom Wright argues, “we are meant to understand that Jesus is now acting as the Stronger One, who has won an initial victory over the enemy (the temptation after the baptism) and is now able to make inroads into his territory” (Kindle Location 817).

How do people respond to this incursion? The closer to the center of the system, the less positive (and more aligned with Satan) is the response. The religious authorities react with rigid rejection and libelous labeling. The family focuses on social reputation and seeks to restrain Jesus, perhaps physically. The “crowd” reports on Jesus’ behavior.

But as Drew Holland notes, the word for “beside himself” in 3:21 has several meanings. It can also mean that the crowd finds him exciting and even amazing. You can read the extended analysis Holland brings to the text if you have the determination to dig. In short, the word may indicate that the crowd has a “split” assessment – some think he’s mad, while others think he’s astonishing.

How often is it that the people on the edge of the system see Jesus as he truly is? How often do those of us at the center of the power structure (with the most to lose by upsetting the status quo) regard Jesus as a wild and crazy threat? How often do we gaslight, persecute, punish, and ostracize those who see Jesus as he truly is rather than to sit with their destabilizing witness? How often do we reject the Good News of Jesus Christ because it comes from “unauthorized” sources?

References and Resources

Holland, Drew S. “The Meaning of Exesthe in Mark 3:21.” The Journal of Inductive Biblical Studies 4/1:6-31 (Winter, 2017).

Hurtado, Larry. Mark (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series). Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Books, 1989.

Bruce Malina; Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels Kindle Edition.

Griggs, Linda Mackie. “Gaslighting Jesus.” https://relationalrealities.com/2018/06/10/gaslighting-jesus/.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the New Testament. New York: United Bible Societies, 1971.

Swanson, Richard W. Provoking the Gospel of Mark: A Storyteller’s Commentary, Year B. Cleveland, OH.: The Pilgrim Press, 2005.

Wright, N. T. Mark for Everyone (The New Testament for Everyone). Westminster John Knox Press. Kindle Edition.

Text Study for Mark 3:20-35; 2 Pentecost B 2021

Gospel Reading: Mark 3:20-25

1. Gaslighting Jesus

As we bid the Gospel of John a fond farewell for now, we return to the Gospel of Mark. We move from the deliberative discourses of the Fourth Gospel to the structural sandwiches of the Second (aka First) Gospel. In John, Jesus discusses everything in minute, but cryptic, detail. In Mark, discussion is minimized, and secrets are multiplied. In short, the contrast in style between the gospel writers could not be much greater. We’re to be forgiven if it takes a week or two to adjust.

It should be clear that this reading contains far too much to tackle as a whole. The structural sandwich combines Jesus’ fraught relationship with his family (verses 21, 31-35) and the Beelzebul controversy with some scribes who come down from Jerusalem (verses 22-30) Part of the middle of the sandwich includes the mention of the “unforgivable sin” which has caused tender consciences no end of misery over the centuries.

We read this text about halfway between Mother’s Day and Father’s Day, so it raises anxieties about Jesus and family relationships. We have just left Mental Health Awareness month in May, so the worry on the part of the family that Jesus is mentally ill may be more salient.

The “parable” which Jesus speaks about the house divided has its most famous application in a speech by Abraham Lincoln just prior to the American Civil War. The gaslighting by both the family and the scribes may touch all sorts of nerves for some people in our pews (and many of them will actually be there).

Jesus’ self-description is interesting here as well. He portrays himself as a thief who ties up the homeowner and plunders the household goods. The homeowner is Satan. Jesus’ move from his “given” family to his “chosen” family may sound familiar to many people and is not a ringing endorsement for the “Leave It to Beaver” values of the previous century.

In the midst of this, we must resist the temptation to become once again “second-article unitarians” who forget that the Holy Spirit (mentioned in verse 29) breathes into us, works through us, and lives among us. I know that I have often been guilty of treating the Spirit like a groundhog who comes out on Pentecost, sees her shadow, and only returns to our pulpits for baptisms and confirmations.

Maybe John’s Gospel wasn’t so bad after all. But thank you, Holy Spirit, for the imperfect instrument of a lectionary (of whatever sort) that refuses to let us off the hook. So, let’s dive in.

First, I want to review the plot and the place of our text in that plot. Mark 1:1-20 is the “prologue” to Mark’s gospel. It’s not the same kind of literature as John’s prologue, but it has a similar function. We get the purpose of Mark’s gospel, the conflict that drives the narrative, and most of the main players in the drama. Mark 1:21-3:25 contains a series of controversies and conflicts, some on sabbaths and in synagogues, some out on the road.

The climax of this section is Jesus’ appointing of his new “family” of disciples and his clear notice that the real conflict is with “the strong man,” Satan. The call of the twelve happens in Mark 3:7-19 as does the cry of the demons, identifying Jesus as the “Son of God.” Crowds are so numerous and demanding at this point that Jesus has to retreat to boats offshore to keep from being accosted or trampled.

“It seems that the defeat of evil spirits was for Mark the representative deed,” Larry Hurtado writes, “showing the authority of Jesus and the nature of the kingdom of God in action” (page 62). In an age when many of us find the imagery of demon possession to be off-putting at best, this is a significant challenge for preachers. How do we talk about one of the big themes in Mark without appearing to renounce reason and to accuse sufferers of being in league with the Devil?

Perhaps we can begin with the psycho-social dynamics of this text. Jesus’ behavior in performing signs, transgressing Sabbath laws, and reinterpreting traditional texts, has produced a predictable response. Some of the local people were saying that he was mentally unbalanced (if that’s the right translation of the term – see later posts). Religious authorities from Jerusalem who were policing his behavior accused him of sorcery and/or demon-possession.

Jesus’ family wants to take him in hand and restrain his reputation-damaging antics. The crowds want a more manageable status quo. The authorities want to sustain their power and keep at bay any threats from the Roman occupying forces. All three groups resort to a means of psychological and social control that we might describe as “gaslighting.”

Gaslighting is the practice of manipulating someone into questioning their own sanity rather than challenging the behavior of the manipulator. This is psychological abuse and social control. It hasn’t really occurred to me until now that this text may well be a triggering experience for people who have experienced such abuse and control in the past.

It’s not the first time I’m late to the awareness game. I suspect that hearing this story could re-traumatize someone with that experience. It makes me wonder if the public reading of this text should come with a content warning.

Rev. Linda Mackie Griggs explores this dimension of the text in a fine homily available online. “We have an undercurrent of worry” in this text, Griggs writes. “Jesus’ family is worried that he is about to make them the target of condemnation of the religious authorities. The religious authorities are worried a) that he will bring down the wrath of the Roman authorities, and b) that he is attacking their own authority and credibility. This,” she observes, “is a tight spot for everyone.”

Griggs’ description of the vise-like pressure applied to Jesus by this combination of family and authorities is helpful.

“It is a strategy of renaming what cannot otherwise be controlled. Renaming or labeling can be an act of uncreation—of dismantling someone’s core identity by distorting it. It is a strategy of sowing doubt in the community. The strategy of Jesus’ family and the Scribes is that if they label Jesus, he becomes that label in the eyes of others. He becomes Lunatic. Possessed. And when, in the eyes of others, he becomes Lunatic—when he becomes Possessed, he becomes less than human. And thus, easier to marginalize and control.”

Why was it necessary, from the perspective of the crowd, the family, and the authorities, to marginalize and control Jesus? From the crowd’s perspective, he didn’t fit acceptable categories and stereotypes. And it seemed that Jesus’ power over demonic forces made him scary and unpredictable. From the family’s perspective, he was drawing unwanted attention to himself (and thus, to them), and they didn’t want the risk. From the authorities’ perspective, he was connecting exorcism with a new regime, the Kingdom of God. He was destabilizing the political accommodation that kept the Romans from reacting with violence.

In fact, social scientists suggest that “demonic possession” was a first-century way to manage and accommodate the incredible stresses and tensions of life under Roman occupation. Guijarro points out that this reality was a sort of pressure-release valve in that setting. Attributing the chaos and disruption people experienced to supernatural forces allowed for a kind of homeostasis that maintained order. If disruptors could be labelled and marginalized as crazy, possessed, and evil, then no one had to think about changing the structures of society.

It’s no stretch at all to connect these dynamics to events and behaviors in local congregations and broad denominations. How do we react when someone brings new and disorienting ideas, information, actions, and visions? “That’s just crazy talk!” is more than a comedian’s cliché. It’s a way to push disruptors to the margins. If that doesn’t work, then we begin to attribute far more sinister energies and motives to Others. I was astounded at the number of times in congregational conflicts that people on one side would refer to people on the other side as possessed, demonic, or evil.

Guijarro offers this summary of Jesus’ response to the gaslighting.

“The responses of Jesus to the accusation of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebul reveal that he never accepted this interpretation. He fought against it in every possible way and unveiled the real meaning and purpose of his exorcisms. Coherent with his culture’s perspective on nature, which included non-visible, person-like beings to explain certain effects, Jesus explained that he was possessed by the Spirit of God and that in his dealings with those possessed by demons he was engaged in a cosmic war against Satan. Victory over Satan was the sign of the dawning of God’s rule. The sign of the coming of God’s reign was the restoration to society of those who were at the margins. Jesus called them to be part of a new family together with him and his followers, and this was highly disruptive.”

Griggs puts it more succinctly and in interpersonal terms. “Jesus’ blunt words have turned the strategy of uncreating on its head. He has taken aim at a fundamental Jewish institution—the nuclear and extended family—and he renames it and extends it even further–drawing the circle wider, not more tightly. In response to others’ efforts to uncreate him,” she concludes, “he refuses to be gaslighted, instead opening his arms in an embrace of the crowd and declaring the presence of the Kingdom; Here, THIS is my family. God’s family. The family created by the power of Love.”

Well, that’s a rollicking start to a wild and woolly text, eh?

References and Resources

Hurtado, Larry. Mark (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series). Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Books, 1989.

Bruce Malina; Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels Kindle Edition.

Griggs, Linda Mackie. “Gaslighting Jesus.” https://relationalrealities.com/2018/06/10/gaslighting-jesus/.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the New Testament. New York: United Bible Societies, 1971.

Swanson, Richard W. Provoking the Gospel of Mark: A Storyteller’s Commentary, Year B. Cleveland, OH.: The Pilgrim Press, 2005.

Wright, N. T. Mark for Everyone (The New Testament for Everyone). Westminster John Knox Press. Kindle Edition.