Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Mark

[Kata Plasma]

NRSV Mark 3

19 Then he went home; 20 and the crowd came together again, so that they could not even eat. 21 When his family heard it, they went out to restrain him, for people were saying, “He has gone out of his mind.” 22 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, “He has Beelzebul, and by the ruler of the demons he casts out demons.”

The NRSV text interprets the text to mean "people" were saying Jesus was insane, though the word "people" is not in the text. Is this a valid reading?

Other translations leave the subject ambiguous:

NIV Mark 3:21:

When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”

NET Mark 3:21

When his family heard this they went out to restrain him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”

21 καὶ ἀκούσαντες οἱ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐξῆλθον κρατῆσαι αὐτόν ἔλεγον γὰρ ὅτι ἐξέστη

So who is the subject of ἔλεγον? The family, or someone else?

[jimwalton]

Mark 3.21 just has a colloquial expression, "καὶ…οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ." It is literally translated, "Those from beside him." It could indicate friends, associates, or family, or possibly even the disciples, just on its surface. It is natural in the context, however, given the definition of v. 31, to view them as Jesus's mother and brothers.

ἐξῆλθον κρατῆσαι αὐτόν. They went to get possession of him; to take hold of him; to seize, even forcibly. It seems that Jesus's family is not there to rally around him as followers at this time, but to remove Him from the situation. We don't their motive because the text doesn't say. Did they think he was in some kind of danger? Was he embarrassing the family's honor? We don't know.

What they said was, "ἐξέστη." Literally "out of standing; out of being established." More colloquially, "thrown out of position; displaced." Some interpret this to mean they thought he was out of his mind—deranged—but the term doesn't necessarily go that far. They could mean that his teaching was reckless enough to cause trouble for the family or for the region politically. What makes more sense to me is Jesus was so focused, and charismatic, with an untempered enthusiasm for his work, with a challenging, radical message on top of it all, that his family feared for their honor and His safety. There was no "balanced message" or pacing Himself; Jesus was all in. Some wanted to make him king, while others accused Him of treason. Herod thought he was the ghost of John the Baptist, and the scribes accused Him of demonic possession. People are prone to demonize those with whom they disagree. Jesus challenged and confronted the status quo, and pushed the envelope by claiming to be God. This absence of prudence, in the minds of his mother and brothers, was misplace and reckless. This same charge was brought against Paul (Acts 26.24; 2 Cor. 5.13).

Certainly Mary didn't believe Jesus was deranged or in the power of Beelzebub. She was probably being the mama, trying to protect her boy and take care of Him. Jesus's brother, on the other hand, didn't yet believe in His deity, and they were probably embarrassed by Him (Jn. 7.5).

A text like this gives credibility to the Gospels. It's not the sort of thing the church would want in there if they were making up the story. It puts Jesus, Mary, and His family all in a dubious light. As such, this text lends credence to the historicity of the account.

[Kata Plasma]

It seems translators by in large prefer to interpret existemi in terms of insanity. And we know insanity was a charge levelled against Jesus (John 10:20). If that's the case then shouldn't we conclude that Jesus' mother and siblings thought him out of his mind?

Insanity and demon-possession were related concepts in the ancient world so it makes sense his family thought him insane (3:20) while the Pharisees thought him possessed (3:21). These are parallel misconceptions.

[jimwalton]

> It seems translators by in large prefer to interpret existemi in terms of insanity.

So you want to go by translators rather than by the Greek or by the sense of the text? I think the strength of the argument is in the latter two rather than the former.

Besides, I'm not sure which translations you're looking at, but a quick survey of the main academic translations yielded a result somewhat differently than you are claiming.

KJV, ASV, RSV: "He is beside himself."
NIV, ESV, CSB: "He is out of his mind."
NASB: "He has lost his senses."

I think I've already given my case, but I'll dive deeper. The actual Greek word ἐξίστημι is a compound word composed of ἐξ meaning "out of; out from" (we use it in English like exoskeleton or exanimated [outside of life] or even excerpt, pulled out from), and ίστημι, which means "to stand; to establish; to set or place; to confirm; to offer resistance, to stand firm; to exist." Put together, their primary meaning is 1. change, displace, and then drive out of one's senses, confuse, amaze, astound. 2. to become separated from something (in our literature only of spiritual and mental balance): a. lose one's mind, be out of one's senses. b. be amazed or astonished (by difficult to understand situations); utterly beside oneself with wonder.

Which of these is it? Only the context will tell us.

We know that Jesus's mother had a respectful, honoring perspective of Jesus (Lk. 2.16-19, and especially 33 & 38; 2.49-51; Jn. 2.5). It's simply untenable that Mary thinks Jesus is insane.

We know that Jesus's brothers did not believe in him (Jn. 7.5). We can presume they were hostile to his Messianic messages. We see them speaking to him sarcastically in Jn. 7.3, but it's about the only picture we get of them, so it's hard to tell what all they thought.

So back to Mark 3.21. At this point in his public ministry, Jesus has changed the water into wine (something his mother knew, but we can't say that his brothers did). His mother and brothers accompanied him to Capernaum (Jn. 2.12) and then presumably also to Jerusalem where he overturned the tables in the temple courts (Jn. 2.13ff.). Then he does some healing. Is it same to assume his brothers thought he was a deranged lunatic? I don't think so. They knew he had done miracles (Jn. 7.3). They were going to go to Passover together (Jn. 7.8), but he stayed behind for a short while (vv. 8-10).

To me it makes more sense, as I said, they thought he was just nonsense, like, "Whatever, Jesus." Radical, reckless, and potentially dangerous. We have to catch the flow of where Mark is going with all of this.

Crowds are following Jesus everywhere (Mk. 2.1-2, 13; 3.7-10, 20), but opposition against him is growing also (2.7, 18, 24; 3.6). He is healing people by the hundreds (or thousands), but the leadership is not pleased. Then he calls 12 disciples to be with him, as any prominent rabbi would do. This leads up to the Beelzebub section and the text we're looking at.

OK, now onto some Markan stylistic observations. One of the most distinctive features of Mark's writing is a literary device known as intercalation: the sandwiching of one event between the beginning and end of another. The events are related to the same theme and serve to interpret each other. Here's the sandwich: Jesus chooses a faith family (3.13-19), the Beelzebub text, and then Jesus is rejected by his birth family (3.31-34). The intercalation of the "house of Satan divided against itself (3.25) with the "house of Jesus divided against itself" (3.31) is Mark's point. Jesus repudiates and rebukes Satan's house divided against itself, he walks away from his own house divided against itself, and he says he will create a new house that is *not* divided (his disciples, 3.13-18 and 3.34-35, sandwiching the whole text).

The religious leaders are trying to defame him, as are his brothers. Both are mistaken about who Jesus is, an important thesis of Mark's through the whole book. Mark wants us to know who Jesus really is: The Son of God (Mk. 1.1; 15.39), but neither of these groups has a clue. Both groups are intent on discrediting him and therefore silencing him.

Since the technique is intercalation, it's possible that Mark is combining both accounts into an accusation of "Your mission is of Satan. Satan is driving you to do what you are doing and saying."

I don't think they're accusing him of derangement, but rather of sorcery. They are aware of his miracle-working and need to knock him down a few pegs in the eyes of the people. His power was evident, so they need to make people think it's illegitimate.

That's why I don't think either accusation is about insanity. Both groups are worried about the danger of Jesus's teachings. The first brings fear of dishonor to the family, the second brings fear of losing cultural power and possibly of military intervention by Rome, which means they lose their cultural power.

You'll notice they don't accuse him of demon possession, but of using the power of Satan to drive them out. It's an important distinction. Neither his brothers nor the teachers of the law consider him demon possessed. The teachers say, "ἔχει Βεεζεβοὺλ." He "has Beelzebul," meaning he's in collusion. (Oh no, call Robert Mueller and Nancy Pelosi!) They are accusing him of being in league with Satan, not of being possessed by him.