tradition, the family assumes responsibility for the disciplining of a wayward or deviant son, even if he is already grown up. Moreover, this is done to protect the family’s honor. All this means Jesus’ teaching, deeds, and claims must have been quite shocking to his peers.
The scene changes with v. 22, and some scribes from Jerusalem accuse Jesus of being possessed by Beelzeboul. The meaning of this term is uncertain although “lord of the house” or “lord of the heavenly abode” seems most cogent. In any case, in so charging Jesus the scribes tacitly agree that Jesus’ ministry has been characterized by extraordinarily authoritative exorcisms, since the alleged power behind his work is attributed to no less a figure than the prince of demons.
Jesus responds in “parables” (v. 23). This is the first time the Greek parabolē is used in Mark’s Gospel. The concept takes after the Hebrew māšāl, which means basically “dark saying,” in contrast to the Greek which speaks of a comparison. Nevertheless, their semantic domains do overlap. Given that the story is set in Palestine, it is best to understanding it according to the Semitic way. Being inherently loose in semantic boundaries, the term may refer to pithy sayings or even extended narratives in which some comparison is made and an encrypted message given. So we must avoid prejudging the meaning of Jesus’ message based merely on some definition of what a parable should be. How Jesus uses it to convey his message in a particular text should be the main guide to interpretation.
The parables make two comparisons, using the images of kingdom122 and house (vv. 24–27). Their purpose is to show the logic of the accusation to be absurd. If there is civil war or internecine division, a kingdom or a household cannot stand. What Jesus hopes to convey is that his exorcisms indicate an invasion of Satan’s kingdom and not an internal revolt.
The formula “Amen I say to you” (v. 28) appears to be unique to Jesus. The word “amen” is Hebraic in origin and has as its root meaning “truth” or “trustworthiness.” It is also used in Jewish liturgy as an affirmative response, or at the end of a doxology (Deut 27:15–26; 1 Chron 16:36). The LXX translates the Hebrew ’āmēn as genoito, which means “let it be,” and thus many understand the Hebrew term to mean “so be it.”123 In the context of Jesus’ sayings, it means a solemn truth is being given, somewhat akin to “Thus says the Lord.”124 Jesus’ usage is unique in that the term is used to preface a saying and not to conclude it. Some scholars have also regarded it as carrying important christological freight.125
The scribal charge of blasphemy in 2:7 now rebounds to them (3:29–30). In the Markan context the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit means an outright rejection of Jesus’ ministry. This may be derived from the fact that his ministry derives its power from the Holy Spirit, and its feature is the exorcism of unclean spirits. Furthermore, the forgiveness of sins is often linked to the work of the Spirit in the eschaton (see excursus on “Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit”).
The words “will never,” standing as a counterpart to “eternal sin” (v. 29), are a translation of the Greek eis ton aiōna, which is in turn derived from the Hebrew lĕ‘ôlām. This Hebrew phrase refers to the age to come, which may be associated with the consummation of history (i.e., the eschaton). Through the work of the Spirit in Jesus, the eschaton has proleptically invaded the present age, without ending it. Hence, by rejecting Jesus’ ministry by assigning his exorcistic work to Satan, the scribes stand in danger of committing an eschatological or eternal sin.
The scene reverts back to the first story in v. 31, with the depiction of the arrival of Jesus’ family. There is something interesting about the composition of this family contingent, because the responsibility for reining in or bringing home a wayward adult male member of the family usually rests with males: either the father or the elder brother. In Jesus’ case, the mother comes along with his brothers, suggesting that Joseph is probably dead or ill. This also suggests that Jesus is the eldest son.126 If Jesus had an older brother, the mother need not be present. But if Jesus is the eldest brother, the mother has to be responsible if Joseph is not around, since younger brothers do not have the authority to rein him in. Their coming along must be for the reason that if the situation becomes ugly, they can then help their mother.
Mark locates the family contingent “outside.” This may be coded language to refer not just to a physical position but also to a theological position (i.e., although they might be Jesus’ physical kin, they were not truly his family).
Jesus asks about kinship (v. 33) and his reply to his own question is astonishing (vv. 34–35). The family bond was regarded as almost sacred in the first century Palestinian context, because of the fifth commandment (Exod 20:12). Thus for Jesus to speak of his real family as comprising those who obey God, and not those who are related to him by blood, serves to relativize the importance of such blood ties. Of course, Jews would accept that God’s claims supersede those of family. However, to claim that those who obey God are Jesus’ mother, brother, and sister goes beyond this in some ways in that a new type of kinship is envisaged. Such a concept dovetails with the story of 3:13–19, which connotes the idea of Jesus’ creating the new people of God, through the calling of the Twelve.
Interestingly, the answer of Jesus does not contain the all-important word “father.” There may be two possible explanations for this. It may be that Jesus is adapting his answer to the situation. Joseph is not there and so there is no need to mention who his father is. Alternatively, Jesus may be thinking of his special relationship with God who is known to him as Abba.127 This may also allude to the virgin birth of Jesus. Of course, both explanations need not be regarded as being mutually exclusive.
Fusing the Horizons: Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit
The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit has intrigued many people. Modern readers, anxious to know whether they or their close relatives have committed it, often ask what Jesus is referring to exactly. Not surprisingly, many theories have been propounded throughout the history of the Church to explain it.
We present here the biblical perspective, assuming that the OT forms a continuum with the NT. It may surprise many that what is being referred to is actually clear but what is unclear is the logic that is at work. The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is committed when opponents of Jesus ascribe his exorcisms to the work of Beelzeboul. This is so because the Holy Spirit is the power behind Jesus’ distinctive exorcisms. But why should this blasphemy be regarded as an eternal sin without the possibility of forgiveness? Using the OT as a resource, we see that in the prophetic promises, God’s end-time restoration of Israel involves also the forgiveness of her sins (Isa 40:2; 43:25; 44:22; Jer 31:34; 33:8; Ezek 36:33), as it was sin that brought about her exile in the first place. The end-time restoration is to be achieved by the powerful work of the eschatological Spirit, who is also the agent of cleansing, revelation and regeneration (Isa 32:14–20; 59:15–21; Ezek 36:24–36; 37:1–14; 39:21–29). Without his work, restoration could not occur and Israel would be regarded as being still in her sins. Although the Spirit is not said expressly to bring about forgiveness of sins, we can infer this from his work of cleansing, restoring and regenerating: these aspects sum up God’s definitive return to his people to repair the broken covenantal relationship once and for all.
This restoration, Jesus claims, is taking place in his ministry as the eschatological Spirit moves mightily through him to bring about the collapse of Satan’s kingdom. Once this logic is appreciated, it can be seen that when the work of the Spirit is rejected, there can be no way of entering this eschatological kingdom of God. In brief, the rejection of the Spirit’s work is a rejection of God’s program of restoration and redemption. Eschatological overtures when maliciously slandered — and so resisted — can only result in an eschatological (eternal) destiny. The opponents of Jesus have thus painted themselves into a corner. If the only cure is rejected, how else can they be cured?128
From the Markan perspective, it also appears that the work of the Spirit in relation to the irruption of the kingdom is expressed significantly in exorcism. Mark has
