Mark 3:30-4:2| Session 14 | Mark Rightly Divided
A downloadable outline is available here: https://humble-sidecar-837.notion.site/Mark-3-30-35-Session-14-Mark-Rightly-Divided-61900573240249dcb3c69ef815f9a841?pvs=4
Mark 3:30-35 | Jesus’ Family
Verse 30 -
Mark 3:30 could be understood to explain why his family came in verse 31, rather than as an explanation for Jesus' preceding comments about the unforgivable sin. Grammatically, "hoti" ("because") is a causal conjunction that explains why something occurred, but what it explains depends on context.
In the context of Mark 3:20-35, we have two intertwined narrative strands: one involves the religious authorities accusing Jesus of being empowered by Beelzebub, and the family of Jesus showing up in verses 31-35.
Verse 21 says that, “when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.” Could it be that His friends sent for His family, who arrived in verse 31, and that verse 30 makes a segue into this arrival?
Thus, it would be plausible, though perhaps less traditional, to read the causal conjunction "hoti" ("because") in verse 30 as linking the arrival of Jesus' family in verse 31 back to the concern in verse 21 that he is out of his mind. Could it be that even His family was concerned that Jesus might be demon possessed, and that the accusation of the Scribes (”He hath Beelzebub” - v. 22) was true?
This less traditional approach connects verse 30 with verse 31, making the causal “because” foundational to the arrival of the family.
While this approach is less accepted than using verse 30 as a conclusion to verses 22-29, I would argue that it makes more sense for two reasons. First, the reader already has enough information in verses 22-29 to understand why the Scribes are asking their question and why Jesus is responding. There is no need for an explanation, making the verse superfluous. Second, the arrival of the family needs an explanation and seems out of place in the thematic nature of Mark’s Gospel. A discerning reader would question why this family matter is suddenly inserted into the story. Mark provides an answer by explaining that they came because of what people were saying.
Verses 31-32 -
It seems that the crowd size was so large that even his mother and brothers couldn't get to Jesus. Instead, they sent word that they were there. The absence of the father is usually interpreted as meaning that Joseph had passed away by this time. While the text does not explicitly state this, it is a reasonable assumption. We are uncertain about the exact number of brothers he had, but we know of James and Jude.
Verse 33 -
The question about the identity of his mother and brothers is almost impossible to take in any manner other than a rebuke and rebuff. Jesus appears to be rejecting their concern that he may have an “unclean spirit” (v. 30). It seems it would take the full-measure of hermeneutical gymnastics to make this into a positive statement.
We can understand the rebuffing of His brothers, but what about His mother? I suspect that Catholic theology has deified Mary to such an extent that it is almost impossible for the average person to think that she would ever be concerned that maybe Jesus needed to tone down and pull back. Jesus would rebuke even His mother rather than retreat. The Catholic Church's Marian dogmas, like the Immaculate Conception and Assumption, could present a barrier for some in reading this text without preconceptions, and those preconceptions filter into most Christian theology even outside of Catholicism.
Verses 34-35 -
Jesus shifts from His literal mother and brothers to the crowd around Him and makes a metaphor of mother and brothers. He says that the doers of God's will are His family. He adds "sisters," not necessarily because He has any, but because of the crowd, which no doubt included many women of the age of His siblings.
Note that under the dispensation of the Law, Jesus testified that the route to become His "family" was works. This is to be expected in the absence of the Dispensation of the grace of God (Eph. 3:2), which would not begin until the time of Paul.
Mark 4:1-2 | Introduction To The Parables
Verse 1 -
The seaside was a common place for Jesus to teach when there were large crowds. This is at least the third occurrence in Mark (see 2:13 and 3:7). On this occasion, the crowd was so large that Jesus sat in a ship while the multitude sat on the seashore, creating a makeshift amphitheater.
Verse 2 -
With the possible exception of Luke 5:36, this is the first time that Jesus taught in parables. The English word is directly transfered from Greek, παραβολή [parabole]. The literal meaning, by etymology, is to “throw down next to.” That is, a parable “throws down” pointing out the first truth by comparison to the second.
Jesus is well-known for His parables, and many of them are almost universally known, at least in Western civilization. However, many may not be aware that Jesus did not begin to teach in parables until He started to be continually hounded by enemies. Parables were meant to conceal truth from those who would not hear it. They were also a means to allow Jesus to proclaim His doctrine to those who wanted to hear it while in the presence of those who wanted to kill Him for it.
The KJV translation uses the word "doctrine" to refer to Jesus' teaching. This word comes from the Greek term διδαχή [didache], which refers to a philosophy or worldview, encompassing the principles taught by a certain individual or group. Mark first uses this term in 1:27, where the crowd hears Jesus and asks, "what new doctrine is this?”
The nature of parables suggests that this marks a turning point in Jesus' ministry, from being accepted as the Messiah to being contested as the Messiah. Up until now, Jesus had been accepted by the masses, as Mark consistently portrays. However, he now faces opposition from the Jewish political and religious leaders. From this point, Jesus’ public teaching ministry will often be concealed in parables.
