Words'nTone

“He doesn’t like being tied down—of course he has other countries to attend to.  It’s quite all right.  He often drops in.  Only you mustn’t press him.  He’s wild, you know.  Not like a tame lion.” ~C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

For those who have browsed, googled, or intentionally clicked on to my site, you have noticed that over the past six months I have been making marginal notes (as it were) on the subject of the Gospel of Mark, the definition of evangelism, and the topic of social action. I have read and researched and discussed and thought and rethought and I am finally at the place I can write it all down…in a paper…and hopefully with some clarity. Although I had originally posited a working title for this paper months ago, I have settled—after all the study—on the title, “Wasted Evangelism” (Mark 4): The Task of Evangelism and Social Action Outcomes.

Now, amid the bill-paying I have to do this weekend, doing errands and playing taxi-driver for my teens, even cleaning my room and making sure I spend a little time paying attention to my wife, I will start writing. It is all in my head. Now I have to shake it out—in some thoughtful, albeit in a scholarly style; but, my goal is to make it understandable and somewhat clear, all with the indent on taking stab at developing the beginning of a new theory of evangelism that is based on a narrative definition of evangelism with biblical outcomes.

After reading and rereading the Gospels, especially Mark’s, I have concluded that our understanding and definition of evangelism is based on a mythic interpretation of the Gospel story. By mythic I mean, a story that reinforces our existence, helps us to explain ourselves and then protects against “outsiders” changing us; a story that helps us to be secure in our modern world. We need that kind of story--that kind of gospel story. Myth helps to define us so we feel protected, secure, meaningful despite what happens around us and to us. However, that does not seem to be the case as one reads the Gospel story (according to Mark in this case) with a view of what was in Mark’s mind, world, and culture—religiously and socially, as well as politically and economically. (For those afraid of such interpretive methods—get over it! We apply them ourselves naturally, using our own current socio-economic, constitutionally protected views of religion, politics, and citizenship. I just prefer to use Mark’s for the meaning of the text and ours in applying that meaning.

The Gospel of Mark was not written to help make secure, protect, or sustain an institutional church (and no, I am not emergent or even remotely emerging!). Reflecting the redemptive history of biblical revelation and a framework of God’s action and promises in history, Mark’s Gospel is about God’s kingdom invading public space, i.e., the world arena, and subverting the elemental powers of the world—whether those powers be spiritual/demonic, personal status and place, self-righteousness and guilt, or just plain ungodly personal actions and social structures. Although reflective of each other, the Gospel story in the Gospels is not Pauline or a Letter/Epistle-approach to revelation for the Church; it is story-revelation, a narrative and as such, evangelism should have a narrative-based definition from the text. I will try to offer that.

Equally, I believe our understanding of evangelism should also be outcome-based: we know evangelism is happening by the outcomes we believe should be the result of our proclamation and actions. In other words I believe we need an outcome-driven basis and definition of biblical evangelism.  I don’t find in the Gospel story that just changed lives (“personal conversions”) are the only outcomes relevant to the activity of gospel-narrative evangelism. The reading of Mark suggests that social, political, and economic outcomes related to peoples, systems, structures, and attitudes are fair game as potential outcomes that reflect the presence of the Kingdom and God’s righteousness.

I have reflected on these ideas in many posts and threads over the past few months. I suggest the miracles stories teach us about this subversive evangelism and how it is relevant to defining evangelism. Earlier, I suggested that there might not be a proof-texts for my view of evangelism and social action, but there is a sub-context to hear it in Mark’s narrative of the Gospel. And finally, I suggested that we need to rehear the Beelzubul controversy in Mark 3, for it sets up the reason for the Sower/seed/soil parable and explanation of parables in Mark 4. Understanding “the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit” is prelude to understanding the imagery of the sowing of the word/seed and why Jesus infers that parables are judgment (Mark 4:11-12), not necessarily blessing.

My hope to is to start a better conversation on the topic of evangelism and social action. I will attempt, as my last post said, to show you from the text. If I don’t post much, its because I am choosing to write the paper—because I have to have it done in time to present in November. But I am sure, tidbits of thoughts and quotes will find their way to this site. Thanks for your continued reading.

Not long ago I was reminded of something one of my favorite Christian authors, A.W. Tozer, once penned.  I think it is worth posting here for you as well:

“Any of it that is good is in the Word of God, and any that is not in the Word of God is not good. I am a Bible Christian and if an archangel with a wingspread as broad as a constellation shining like the sun were to come and offer me some new truth, I’d ask him for a reference. If he could not show me where it is found in the Bible, I would bow him out and say, ‘I’m awfully sorry, you don’t bring any references with you’.”

As I read this I was reminded of why I write my Rough Cuts (exegetical essays), along with my posts in the topic area called Gemera, and why I wrote my book on Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, namely, to model sticking to the text—the fight, the debate, the question is (or questions are) always over the text (the the opinions of the preacher, bible study leader, or anyone positing an interpretation of a biblical idea), and then very importantly, showing others how one gets one’s interpretation from the text.  As another Christian writer spoke of great interpretations of old, “If you cut me, may I bleed Bible.” Our opinions are based on a thousand points of input—some good, some poor.  So our opinions on a text need to be from the text.  So, most importantly, can I show you my interpretation is from the text.  In other words—and always—can you hear it in the text and can you see it in the text?

A wise man once observed, For those who do not believe in God, joy is peripheral and suffering is fundamental; but for the believer, suffering is peripheral and joy is fundamental.

One cannot escape the dueling experiences of suffering and joy any more than one can escape the necessity of breathing.  We regularly are prompted, through our own personal experience, to raise the question of pain and suffering.  Reconciling the existence of pain and suffering with our insatiable desire for joy and comfort is a burdensome task.  We even become more perplexed when we see someone in the midst of suffering and there is joy, confidence, even radiance, all despite the affliction.  It is mystery and, at times, confusing.

Annie Johnson Flint, a woman who lived most of her life in pain, has left such a testimony.  As a child, she was orphaned.  Later, embarrassing incontinence left her body frail.  She was weakened by cancer, and eventually, deformed by rheumatoid arthritis.  She was incapacitated for so long that she needed multiple pillows positioned around her body just to cushion the raw, bedridden sores.  And yet, the title of her autobiography was The Making of the Beautiful.

One of her best-known poems reads:

    He giveth more grace when the burdens grow greater,
    He sendeth more strength when the labors increase;
    To added affliction, He addeth His mercy,
    To multiplied trials His multiplied peace.

    When we have exhausted our store of endurance,
    When our strength has failed e’re the day is half done,
    When we reach the end of our hoarded resources
    Our Father’s full giving has only begun.

    His love has no limit, His grace has no measure,
    His power has no boundary known unto men;
    For out of His infinite riches in Jesus He giveth,
       and giveth, and giveth again.

For the most part, I will admit that suffering and pain will always remain somewhat unexplainable, but some will find the mysterious ability to raise above afflictions no matter how slight or severe.  No wonder the unbeliever is left in awe and bewilderment at such lives like Annie Vincent Flint, Joni Eareckson Tada, or men like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

Again, for the unbeliever, the peripheral issues of life occupy their attention, and the fundamental ones often go ignored.  However, for the Christian, the fundamental questions of life are answered (life, death, God, salvation, heaven, who am I, etc.) and it is acceptable, livable, to have the peripheral ones often left unanswered.  This is why the unbeliever has problems with pain and suffering in this world.  In fact, a hurting or suffering person will often turn a deaf ear toward any answers of “why” until they begin to recognize that God, the cross, faith, and salvation must become part of the answer.  Like the Psalmist, we must all cry, “Whom have I in heaven but Thee?  And besides Thee, I desire nothing on earth.  My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever” (Ps. 73).

© Chip M. Anderson (September 2008, rev )
    Words’nTone, Habits of the Mind

“Time has no divisions to mark its passage, there is never a thunderstorm or blare of trumpets to announce the beginning of a new month or year.  Even when a new century begins it is only we mortals who ring bells and fire off pistols”

“A man lives not only his personal life, as an individual, but also, consciously or unconsciously, the life of his epoch and his contemporaries” ~Thomas Mann, The Magic Mountain, 1924

Continued from yesterday’s post…

The connection to the first exodus and the “new exodus” (in this case the one promised in Isaiah) should be seen as a background to the Beelzubul-exorcism conflict between Jesus and the scribes.  In this brief set of posts I am considering why it is that Jesus refers to “the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit” rather than, say, the blasphemy of God or even of Himself.  The simple answer is that the Holy Spirit is the connection to the exodus motif found in the original exodus, in the promised Isaianic new exodus, and to Jesus as the Inaugurator of the new exodus (throughout Mark’s Gospel narrative).  Previously, I discussed the connection to Jesus as the “stronger one” who has “the Spirit” (cf. Mark 1:8, 10, 12 and Mark 3:27, 29-30).  Now I turn to exodus.

First, there is an interesting parallel to the “casting out” language and imagery in both the Exodus story and the exorcism ministry of Jesus.  The word ἐκβάλλω (or cast out) is used to describe what God plans to do to the inhabitants of the Promised Land and the exorcism activities of Jesus, as well as His commissioned-disciples.  We read in the original Exodus story:

“I [Yahweh] will drive them out [ἐκβάλλω, will cast them out] before you little by little, until you become fruitful and take possession of the land. I will fix your boundary from the Red Sea to the sea of the Philistines, and from the wilderness to the River Euphrates; for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you will drive them out [ἐκβάλλω] before you” (Exodus 23:30-31).

We also find this terminology in the bookend-texts describing the calling of the twelve: “and to have authority to cast out [ἐκβάλλω] the demons” (Mark 3:15; cf. 6:13).  Also, the use of ἐκβάλλω (or cast out) is in the Beelzubul narrative as well (cf. ἐξουσίαν ἐκβάλλειν τὰ δαιμόνια, Mark 3:22, 23).

Also, it is worth noting that there is, at least, a verbal/imagery connection between the former exodus imagery and the promise of growth/fruitfulness (αυξηθης, become fruitful, Ex 23:30) and the good-soil growth/fruitfulness in the parable of the Sower who sows (αὐξάνω growth/fruitful, Mark 4:8).  Although this point will be made at a later time, I have suggested that understanding the Beelzubul confrontation will shed light on why the parable of the sower/seed/soil and the Isaiah 6 referent are utilized by Jesus to explain the “mystery of the Kingdom of God” (Mark 4:11).

Furthermore there is an interesting connection to the Spirit and “unforgiveness” in the Exodus story, which also might explain the presence of the “Holy Spirit”in the Beelzubul narrative.  In Exodus 23, the angel of the Lord goes before them to guard them “along the way” (εν τη οδω, also used throughout Mark to indicate Jesus’ ministry and those who follow Him).  There is also a warning that the sons of Israel were to obey the voice of the angel and to not rebel against him, “for he will not pardon your transgression.” We read in Exodus:

“Behold, I am going to send an angel before you to guard you along the way and to bring you into the place which I have prepared. Be on your guard before him and obey his voice; do not be rebellious toward him, for he will not pardon your transgression, since My name is in him” (Exodus 23:20-21).

Additionally, in verse 33 of Exodus 23, we hear warnings against idolatry, which is the issue in the judicial referent to Isaiah 6, as well as the demonic-idolatry connection noted by most commentators in the Beelzubul narrative.  Here we read in Exodus:

“They shall not live in your land, because they will make you sin against Me; for if you serve their gods, it will surely be a snare to you” (23:33).

Finally, there is a connection between the accompanying “Angel” of the Exodus story and the Spirit of God.  Plenty of extra-canonical material understood the Angel to be God’s Spirit (as well as the Cloud by Day and the pillar of fire by night in the deliverance out of Eygpt and throughout the wilderness journey).  Elsewhere in the Old Testament there was a connection made between the Angel of Exodus and God’s Spirit:

“‘As for the promise which I made you when you came out of Egypt, My Spirit is abiding in your midst; do not fear!’” (Haggai 2:5).

“‘You gave Your good Spirit to instruct them, your manna You did not withhold from their mouth, and You gave them water for their thirst’” (Nehemiah 9:20).

And we see a clear exodus motif and pattern in Isaiah 63 connecting the Exodus Angel and the Spirit:

  In all their affliction He was afflicted,
     And the angel of His presence saved them;
     In His love and in His mercy He redeemed them,
     And He lifted them and carried them all the days of old.
  But they rebelled
     And grieved His Holy Spirit;
     Therefore He turned Himself to become their enemy,
     He fought against them.
  Then His people remembered the days of old, of Moses
     Where is He who brought them up out of the sea
        with the shepherds of His flock?
     Where is He who put His Holy Spirit in the
        midst of them (vv 9-11).

Furthermore, we can also see there is a programmatic nuance, in both the original Exodus story and here in Isaiah, to offending the Spirit through rebelling against God’s words and actions as well.  This programmatic exodus motif is picked up in Mark’s Gospel and fully seen in the Beelzubul conflict, and as well offers insights to why Jesus picks the parable of the sower/soils/seed in Mark 4, along with the ultimate judicial unforgiveness in the explanation where Isaiah 6 is quoted (Mark 4:11-12).

In conclusion, all the connections are present in the Exodus motif—Spirit, rebellion against God’s word and action, idolatry, unforgiveness—which should offer a recognizable background to explain the “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit” in Mark 3.  Those leaders who are refusing God’s word, trading it for lesser wisdom, lesser words, anti-Yahweh traditions, and ungodly socio-economic (and religious) structures (which I am justified in bringing up because of the Isaiah 1-5 context), which are idolatry, and as well, who have not acknowledged the promised “new exodus” has come in Jesus the Messiah--these are objects of God’s ultimate, promised judicial punishment, which includes the impossibility of pardon (i.e., forgiveness).  This is what the “Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is.  (But, of course, what does that mean now, today...perhaps a post tomorrow on that.)

---

As I prepare my paper on Mark 4, Evangelism, and Social Action, I will post comments on how this understanding of the Beelubul prelude to the sower/seed/soils parable, and thus informs us on a narrative-definition of Evangelism that includes both word and deed.

There is so much to say in addition to what I have explained and observed in the previous thread, “Beelzubul, blaspheming the Spirit, and church leadership,” however a few more brief comments are warranted at this point. Plus, I strongly believe that a better understanding of the Beelzubul confrontation in Mark 3:22ff is necessary to have a clearer understanding of the Mark 4 parables, the Isaiah 6 referent in the “explanation” of the parables, and, as well, a more biblical view of evangelism. So here we go…

There is a set up happening here in Mark’s narrative. I am not the only one who see this; many commentators are now recognizing it as well. Mark is crafting his narrative around a “new exodus” theme. More accurately, undergirding Mark’s view of the Gosopel, which should help to form our view of evangelism, is the promised new exodus that has messianic and global implications. There is a good cause to believe that the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is related to rejecting the redemptive era that had come in Christ (in Messiah), which would unhinge the leadership’s traditions, places of power, destroy the temple (Mark 13:ff)—i.e., the place that gave them economic and social power and control over the people—and would bring the promises of extending God’s rule and reign over the whole earth (i.e., the dreaded inclusion of the nasty goiim,” the gentiles).

I mentioned in the previous thread on Mark 3:22ff that God was fulfilling His judicial punishment of hardening (i.e., the ultimate judgment of unforgiveness as indicated in the Isaiah 6 judgment) as a result of the unbelief and idolatry of the leadership of Israel. Idolatry in this case being their alignment with gentile/Roman influences and religious pride that caused them to trade away listening to God’s wisdom and Word (i.e., believing Jesus’ word and deeds), which parallels the accusations made by Yahweh in Isaiah 1-5.

There are some parallels worth noting between the original Exodus and the promised Isaianic Exodus, and in particular Isaiah 63, which draw together God’s action and the Holy Spirit. For one should at least ask, why blasphemy of the “Holy Spirit” and not blasphemy of God or His Messiah? I have already exposed the relatively shallow interpretations typical of this passage in Mark. (I will not repeat them here—reread the previous thread). Yet, there is a dynamic, redemptive reason for the “Holy Spirit” showing up in Mark 3, along with the ultimate judicial punishment of rejecting God’s work of Christ.

First there is a link between Mark 1 and Mark 3 in that Jesus is the “stronger one” who comes to plunder the prince of demon’s “house” and the mention of the Holy Spirit. Immediately after the “heading” in Mark 1:1 and then the Old Testament composite referent (vv 2-3), Jesus is referred to by John the Baptist as the “mighty one” (ὁ ἰσχυρότερός, stronger one). Then John mentions that this stronger one has a special relationship with God’s Holy Spirit: “He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit” (1:8). Then in vv 10-13, we hear of the Spirit coming upon Jesus and beginning the “new exodus.”

“Immediately coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens opening, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon Him; and a voice came out of the heavens: ‘You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased.’ Immediately the Spirit impelled Him to go out into the wilderness. And He was in the wilderness forty days being tempted by Satan; and He was with the wild beasts, and the angels were ministering to Him.”

Then move to Mark 3:22ff and we hear in the Beelzubul confrontation between Jesus and the scribes from Jerusalem that Jesus is the “stronger man” who binds strongman Satan (τοῦ ἰσχυροῦ) (cf. Mark 3:22-27). Thus, there is a narrative reason (as well as a redemptive historical reason) for the Holy Spirit to be the object of unforgiveable blasphemy.

In the next post, I will return to the original Exodus to highlight some of the parallels, as well as the connection to the “new exodus” in Isaiah in Marks Beelzubul narrative.

*Warning--this is a hard read, with even a harder interpretation to wrap one’s mind around, especially if you are a minister and/or leader of a church.

---

The past four posts in this thread outlined what I consider is a more reasonable and contextual answer to why Jesus says,

“Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin” (Mark 3:28-29).

Most preachers, even some good commentators, avoid the harsh reality of these words and have attempted to make them less than what Jesus said.  The typical understanding is that the “scribes from Jerusalem” accused Jesus of being possessed (demonized) by Beelzubul and attributed His ability to work miracles to the ruler or prince of demons, Satan himself.  A true observation of the text, however, this, many say, is attributing what is of God to be of the devil, which is the Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.  The text, however, does not say this—we can try to infer it, suggest it, say that’s what Jesus meant, but we cannot say that is what the text actually says.

I would press hard here.  If this “interpretation” be the case, then there must be a special class of Christians who are so in-tune with God to be able to always discern when something is of God and something is of the devil (outside the obvious, of course), so they can tell the common people in the pew what God’s will is at every turn and in every moment.  Just another reason to stay away from such prideful application that maintains the elitist demarcation, the status, power, and place between Church leadership and everyone else.

It seems that most preachers just make it simple by explaining that rejecting Jesus as Messiah is the unforgiveable sin.  This just makes these powerful words in Mark and Jesus’ first Marken parable about “receiving” or “rejecting” Jesus as one’s personal Lord and Savior.  Although true, that not receiving Christ and/or rejecting His offer of salvation does place one in an unforgivable state of being, but after one is dead.  This, too, doesn’t do justice to the impact of the parable given in vv 23-27 and the particular occasion where Jesus and the scribes clash.

Furthermore, as I mentioned above in the first post, some broaden the words of this text to include anything that’s related to simply disobeying what the Spirit prompts us to do.  I fail to see this as a possibility for three reasons: 1) Again, it is not in the text at all; 2) such an interpretation does not take into consideration the nature of spiritual growth, that is, learning to obey, learning to hear the Spirit, i.e., sanctification; and 3) such an interpretation can be a means to guilt people into doing what the leaders think God’s will is for “your life” (which runs counter to Jesus’ constant confrontation with Jewish leaders who were constantly manipulating the people).

In the above posts I made a few brief observations:

1) Why Jesus says “parables,” plural, in Mark 4—he obviously used parables routinely as a means of explaining the Gospel and the Kingdom (for there is the reference in Mark 3:23).  This means something programmatic is happening here that will be repeated throughout Mark’s narrative.

2) The Mark 3 text’s role in addressing the leadership of Israel—for it seems reasonable that Jesus is addressing an issue with the leadership of Israel (e.g. note “their hardness of heart,” cf. 3:5).

3) The text’s parallel to the Isaiah 6 reference in Mark 4—there are obvious parallels, similarities between the Beelzubul-blaspheming the Holy Spirit text and the Mark 4 Isaiah 6 OT referent.  This means both narratives are needed to interpret each other.

Whatever Jesus is doing in this confrontation-narrative with the scribes is programmatic, namely that this episode and the accompanying parable is part of Jesus’ on-going ministry of the Gospel of the Kingdom.  That is, the preaching and demonstration of the inauguration of the Gospel of the Kingdom.  As Mark 1:2-3 indicates, this ministry of the Kingdom is a fulfillment of OT expectations concerning God’s rule and reign over the realms of mankind.

Second, the Beelzubul narrative prepares us for Mark 4, namely the sower/seed/soil parable and Jesus’ use of Isaiah 6 to explain the meaning of His parables.

Third, Jesus is addressing the leadership.  They have traded away God’s Word through Jesus for their idolatrous traditions and alignment with Roman authorities (i.e., Caesar).  Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is related to their rebellion toward God (cf. Isaiah 63:10).  They are the fulfillment of the OT judgments on God’s rebellious leadership (cf. Isa 1-6; Malachi 2-3).  The words of Jesus from Isaiah 6 in Mark 4 are most likely related to the fact that at least some of the Jerusalem leadership will receive the judicial punishment/curse God had promised to those who have rebelled against God.

I am suggesting that not just anyone can blasphemy the Holy Spirit.  But, leadership sure can.  No wonder preachers and pastors, in their preaching and pulpit rhetoric, shift the objects of this judgment from this to away from themselves to those whom they are preaching to.  I am saying that this judgment is saved for the leadership of the faith community who refuse God’s wisdom and word.  The parables were given as a form of judgment upon those who manipulate God and His people in order to maintain their status and power, yet refuse to recognize and understand the meaning of God’s rule and reign.  It will take the parables of mark 4 (and the remaining flow of thought in the Marken narrative) to expose just what is lacking in the judged leadership of the community of faith.

The judgment rendered in Mark 3:29—“whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”—is not about the ultimate rejection of Jesus as Savior in this text, but more about the refusal of the community of faith’s leadership to refuse the implications and meaning of the presence of God’s Kingdom, through which Jesus (the “stronger man”) has come to plunder the kingdoms of this world (i.e., the kingdom of the prince of demons).  Strangely, this text is affirming of realized eschatology (i.e., the Kingdom has come and is presently active in this world—you your community, municipality, county, State, country) and a caution, a warning to Church leaders that our attachment to this world and its patterns of idolatry are contrary to God’s Kingdom.

Harsh words indeed—but words towards a surprising group of people (leaders) who, not surprisingly, use this text to guilt people into obedience.  Be warned.

---

I fully recognize the need to continue these thoughts by understanding Mark 4 in light of my observations of Mark 3:22ff.  That’s why I am writing a paper on Mark 4 (and Evangelism and Social Action).  I hope that this paper will further explain these thoughts and offer some implications to the meaning of the texts.  Stay tuned…

In the previous posts on this thread I have sketched out another way of understanding the Beelzubul controversy face-off between Jesus and the scribes from Jerusalem (3:22ff), as well as the harsh words of Jesus regarding blaspheming the Holy Spirit (3:28-29).  Three things have been noted: 1) Jesus uses a parable to address the scribe’s false accusations; 2) Jesus is actually applying His parable-response to leadership; and 3) the Beelzubul confrontation and narrative provide a transition to the Mark 4 programmatic parables and the Isaiah 6 referent given to explain why Jesus utilizes parables in the first place.  Mark 3:22ff prepares the listener to hear the parable of the Sower who sows and the hermeneutical tool found in the Isaiah 6 referent offered by Jesus.

We read in Mark 4:11-12:

“And He was saying to them, ‘To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables, so that WHILE SEEING, THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE, AND WHILE HEARING, THEY MAY HEAR AND NOT UNDERSTAND, OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT RETURN AND BE FORGIVEN’” (Mark 4:11-12).

3) The text’s parallel to the Isaiah 6 reference in Mark 4

Rikki Watts, in his work on the use of Isaiah in Mark (Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark), points out that there are strong parallels between the Beelzubul narrative and the Mark 4 context of the Isaiah 6 referent.

1. There is a contrast between outsiders and insiders (3:21, 31ff/4:10f)
2. There is a ‘kingdom’ focus (3:24/4:11)
3. There is warning of unforgiveness (3:29/4:12c)

Many commentators, including preachers, have shied away from the harshness of Jesus’ use of Isaiah 6, mostly because the text implies repentance is fruitless in that the object (i.e., those who cannot hear the Word of the Kingdom) cannot respond and thus cannot be forgiven.  That’s hard to preach, for sure.  However, the Beelzubul narrative informs us that, in all likelihood, it is the leadership of Israel who are the objects of the curse (i.e., the judgment of Isaiah 6).  As the leadership in Isaiah 1-5 has be indicted on the charge that they have not heeded God’s Word and have followed the anti-Yahweh nations in governing the nation of Israel, so the leadership of Jesus’ day has come to ultimate judgment: they have been turned over to their idolatry and, thus have become like idols which cannot hear (cf. Paul in Romans 1:18ff).

The “softening” of the judgment in the Isaiah referent, the result of the impossibility of unforgiveness, can be seen in two ways: Some just change the text to be causal—one cannot be forgiven, because one cannot hear, and once they hear, then Isa 6 doesn’t apply and they can be forgive; and second, the popular way is usually facilitated by the typical preacher in that, since the parable is about poor soil, all one has to do is become better soil, a good soil so you can hear the word and thus Isa 6 doesn’t apply and you can be forgiven.  Neither of these “softenings” are in the text, however.  The referent from Isaiah is resultant in nature (ἵνα) in that they cannot see and hear and, thus, cannot be forgiven since they have become as idols (cf. the OT Isaiah 6 context).

The judgment of Mark 4:11-12 is the result of what was parable in Mark 3:22ff.  The leadership, as a result of not recognizing the authority of Jesus, the Kingdom He is ushering in, and refusing His word of the Gospel of the Kingdom, comes under the idol-judgment of Isaiah 6.

---

In the next and last post, I will attempt to pull the observations I have made in the previous three posts (1, 2, 3) together and make some conclusions regarding both the Beelzubul-blasphemy of the Holy Spirit narrative and its implications on the parable of the sower/seed/soil in Mark 4.

The Beelzubul story in Mark 3 helps to explain, at least in part, the importance and meaning of the sower/soil/seed parables and, as well, helps to explain the interpretative Isaiah 6 referent Jesus offers as a hermenutical tool to understand the parables (which will be another thread in days to come).  This story is strategically placed at the end of the confrontation stories in Mark 1-3 and just prior to the Mark 4 parables.

Although I have been over the years very suspicious of the popular interpretations of the Mark 3 confrontation story, it was only recently (literally after 28 years of studying Scripture) that I noticed the importance of the Mark 3 “Jesus vs. scribes” confrontation to help with understanding the material in Mark 4.  To refresh the Mark 3 narrative, we read:

“The scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, ‘He is possessed by Beelzebul,’ and ‘He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons.’ And He called them to Himself and began speaking to them in parables, ‘How can Satan cast out Satan?  If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. If Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but he is finished!  But no one can enter the strong man’s house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong man, and then he will plunder his house.  Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin’—because they were saying, ‘He has an unclean spirit’” (Mark 3:22-30).

In the last post I noted “in parables” in the text (cf. 4:2; 10-, 11, 13, 30, 33, 34), pointing out that Jesus’ speaking “in parables” was programmatic and that the Mark 4 sower/soil/seed parable, although highlighting the parable-interpreative-model, was not Jesus’ first parable.  The first in the narrative, although certainly not the first Jesus historically gave, is in Mark 3:22-30.  Now I turn to an important, but overlooked, aspect of narrative/parable itself.

2) The text of Mark 3 itself and its role in addressing the leadership of Israel

There is no doubt Mark intends for us to hear the Mark 3 Beelzubul narrative as a confrontation with the leadership from Jerusalem, for the story begins, “The scribes who came down from Jerusalem.” Scribes and their confrontations with Jesus have been part of the Marken narrative since the start of His ministry: 1:22; 2:6; 2:16, with a climax in 3:22.  This continues afterward as well throughout Mark—7:1, 7:5; 8:31; 9:11, 14; 10:33; 11:18, 27; 12:13, 28, 32, 35-38; 14:1, 43, 53; 15:1, 31.).  Not only do we see the confrontation with scribes (who are the instructional-tradition keepers and lawyers of the Israelite world), but the religious temple-social-order-keeper Pharisees as well (2:16, 18, 24; 3:6.  The significant here in the Mark 3 narrative is that we have, for the the first time in a confrontation narrative, Mark indicating that those who pose the confrontations are “from Jerusalem” (3:22).  The story is Jesus’ parabolic response to the accusation that his exorcisms are through Satan, a questioning of His real authority and a rejection of the presence of the Kingdom of God through Jesus and His word.

In the next post, where I will offer some insight on the parallel between the Beelzubul narrative and the Isaiah 6 referent, I will note that the context of Isaiah 6 must include the “judgment” language and oracles in Isaiah chapters 1 through 5.  This is important for understanding the meaning of the judgment contained in both Mark 4 and the use of Isaiah 6 as an interpreative tool for parables.  However, it is suffice to say here that we cannot overlook that in Isaiah 1-5 we obviously have language and imagery that indicates God’s judgment against Israel’s leadership and in particular the Jerusalem leadership.  Furthermore, throughout Isaiah 1-5 we see a link—and a dynamic association—between Israelite leadership (religious and political) and the socio-economic idolatry taking place as a result of turning away from Yahweh and His word.

The language of the Beelzubul parable also points to leadership as its object:  we have the trio “if” lines indicating “kingdom,” “house,” and “Satan” himself, all suggesting leadership and the social relationships that allow leadership to form, exist, and retain power.

1. “If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand” (v 24).
2. “If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand” (v 25).
3. “If Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but he is finished!” (v 26).

Juxtaposed to the “power” indicated in the “if” statements with see that Jesus is also identified as the “strong one” who comes to bind Satan “in his house/kingdom.” Furthermore, the Beelzebul controversy focuses the issues that have already been developed in the preceding narratives (1:16-3:19) as to the nature and identity of Jesus’ authoritative ministry, in particular, as it relates to his exorcisms (cf. 1:32) and the presence of the Kingdom.  We have noted elsewhere that the calling of “the twelve” (cf. 3:13-19; 6:7-13) as well highlights both activities of preaching and having authority over the demonic world as indicators of the presence of the Kingdom of God--a duplication of the kingdom ministry modeled by Jesus.  And in the first “authority” story in Mark, we hear,

“They were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as the scribes” (1:22)

And then, immediately, we hear that the presence of the Kingdom of God is also indicated by the ministry of exorcism.

“Just then there was a man in their synagogue with an unclean spirit; and he cried out, saying, ‘What business do we have with each other, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are--the Holy One of God!’ And Jesus rebuked him, saying, ‘Be quiet, and come out of him!’ Throwing him into convulsions, the unclean spirit cried out with a loud voice and came out of him. They were all amazed, so that they debated among themselves, saying, ‘What is this? A new teaching with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey Him’” (1:23-27).

All these observations leave little doubt that Jesus is addressing the leadership in the Beelzubul narrative and that His intended object for this parable is the authorities in the very heart of Israel, Jerusalem.

Additionally, it has been shown in recent socio-histircal and religious study, as well as commentaries on Mark, that there is a link between Israel’s imitation of the nations (which offers no surprise that the heart of Isaiah 1-5 is the controversy God has with Israelite leadership) and the issue of idolatry and demon-possession.  In fact demon-possession is a sign of idolatry.  And, as in Isaiah—and really, most of the prophets—idols and idolatry point to the power of the nations and its misuse of status and wealth.

The Beelzubul confrontation and the resulting parable prepares us for the Mark 4 parables and the use of Isaiah 6 as an interpretative referent for understanding the presence of the Kingdom in the ministry of Jesus—and the eventual duplicated ministry of the disciples.  The beelzubul narrative/parable points us in the direction of the importance of leadership and their role in God’s economy, i.e., the extention of the Kingdom into all the realms of this world.  This will be important as we seek to apply the Mark 4 parables and the Isaiah 6 referent to the ministry of the community of faith--and, as well to my theory of evangelism, that is, a biblical theology of wasted evangelism.

---

In the following post, I will offer a parallel between the Beelzubul narrative/parable and the parable of the Sower who sows and the Isaiah 6 explanation.  Read the other posts in this thread ... 1, 2, 3.

“Without some kind of ‘meta-narrative’ to discipline private consciousness, meaning inevitably dies, ‘the triumph of wild and unregulated interpretation’ is assured, ‘stable meanings’ disintegrate, Frederick Bauerschmidt notes, and the strong ‘assert their will to power without regard to such eternal values as truth, goodness, unity, and beauty.’ Universal narratives about the meaning of life are ‘shattered into micro-narratives of race, class, and gender’” ~David F. Wells, Above All Earthly Pow’rs: Christ in a Postmodern World, 2005

1) Why Jesus says “parables,” plural, in Mark 3 and 4

Yesterday I began a series of postings on what some consider a difficult passage in the Gospels to understand, namely Jesus’ words that one who blasphemes the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven of such blasphemy (Mark 3:29).  Some simply equate blasphemy of the Holy Spirit with rejecting or not receiving Jesus as Lord and Savior, since it is through the Holy Spirit one comes to Christ and it is the Holy Spirit that “testifies” of who Jesus is.  Thus, the ultimate sin, and ultimately totally unforgiveable.  But I have heard lesser “revelation” of the Holy Spirit as reasons for someone standing in the position of unforgvieness.  I have heard the range—from “if you are prompted by the Spirit to obey God and don’t, you are blaspheming the Holy Spirit” to “if the Holy Spirit is calling you to fully surrender to Jesus, and you resist, you are in danger of not being forgiven.” Although I agree with the idea we should surrender fully and should learn to obey Christ, as well as it is the Holy Spirit’s job (i.e., ministry) to work in us toward these goals, however, sanctification of one’s life is not—I repeat, is not—the context nor the implication of this very important, but hard to understand text.  Furthermore, this text is not about hell (the result of unforgiveness) or eternal punishment.  This later observation is one reaons I never bought into the popular understanding of what it means to blasphemy the Holy Spirit.

Before I move into the context—the flow of thought up to this point and what is happening in the text—I’d like to highlight one important, even programmatic point often missed when encountering this text.  However, before I start, let me give my rough cut understanding of the text:

The Beelzebul-exorcism-blaspheming the Holy Spirit parable in Mark 3 is a full confrontation with the Jerusalem leadership, who stand under God’s judgment for idolatry, which ultimately is demonstrated in the rejection of Jesus, who is the fulfillment of Old Testament expectations (i.e., promises).

The difficulty, once this is understood, is in how it applies to the church today.

But first, note that in verse 23, Mark tells us, “And He called them to Himself and began speaking to them in parables [παραβολαῖς].” This is so often missed, especially since we are so often told over and over that the first time Jesus uses a parable, it is the parable of the Sower who sows (Mark 4:2ff; Matthew 13:3ff; cf. Luke 8:4ff).  We are conditioned, so to speak, to think that the parable of the Sower and the soils is the first parable Jesus utters, since it is the “one” we need to understand to understand all the parables.  But here we have it, an indication that Jesus had been teaching in parables already.

Second, note that there is a parallel being made between Mark 3:23 and Mark 4:2: “in parables” (ἐν παραβολαῖς).  Mark wants us to know this is a methodology of Jesus; this is how Jesus regularly explains Himself and His ministry of the Gospel of the Kingdom to others.

This observation is significant at two levels: 1) The method of Jesus revealing Himself and the Kingdom is programmatic (which I hope becomes clearer as we explain the next two points), and 2) there is an obvious parallel between the parable of Mark 3:22ff and the Isaiah 6 referent being made “of all parables” in Mark 4:11ff.

It is also important to see the connection between the Old Testament and the New in the use of parables.  Whereas in Rabbinic literature and the writings of Qumran (i.e., Jewish extracanonical material) parables were used to clarify and interpret Old Testament texts, as well as, to explain meaning, often hidden, in an Old Testament stories and how they apply to the readers/listeners of that day.  But not so in both the Old Testament and in the New.  Parables were a form of judgment, or at least the explanation of why judgment from God was happening or about to happen.  It is interesting that the Old Testament background of Isaiah and Ezekiel (from the parable of the mustard seed forthcoming at the end of chapter 4) have judgment-parables in their own context (Isaiah 5; Ezekiel 17; Ezekiel 31).

We use parables or think Jesus used parables to interpret the Christian life—much in the way the Rabbis used them to help Jews understand their traditions.  We use and understand parables as a way of solidifying our self-understanding.  We read most parables in the New Testament mythically, as if they are there to explain our place in the world, to help us know God better, and to help us feel better about our relationship to the world around us, to each other, and to God.  However, this is not how parables are used or why they are used by Jesus (for the most part, and in particular, not how they are used in Mark 3-4).

Jesus came announcing that the kingdom of the Gospel of God had arrived (Mark 1:14ff) and throughout His teaching ministry he utilized parables to confront the powers of His day—both the demonic, the spiritual/religious, and the socio-economic powers—just as God, through the prophets, did in the Old Testament.  We will look more closely at the parable in Mark 3 and its context in order to draw out its meaning, and hopefully offer an explanation of the comment about blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

---

Read the other posts in this thread ... 1, 2, 3.

The scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and “He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons.” And He called them to Himself and began speaking to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan?  If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. If Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but he is finished!  But no one can enter the strong man’s house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong man, and then he will plunder his house.  Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”—because they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit” (Mark 3:22-30).

A funny thing happened on the way to understanding the Sower who sows parables in Mark 4—I reread the Beelzebul-exorcism-blaspheming the Holy Spirit parable in Mark 3.  Personally I have never struggled with the difficult and harsh “so that” passage in Mark 4:11-12, where Jesus explains why some hearts are hardened to the Gospel—in otherwise, why there are poor, unresponsive soils (that can’t hear the Word of the Gospel and response).  Jesus quotes from Isaiah 6, where at what appears to be where God commissions Isaiah to render judgment upon idolatrous Israel, and I take it, in particular, Israel’s leadership for leading the community of Israel into idolatry.  After Jesus gives the Sower who sows parable of six soils (three poor and three good), He appeals to the crowd, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear” (v 9), an obvious reference to the idolatry conflicts in Ezekiel.  Afterward, when His close followers and the twelve were alone with Jesus, they “began asking him about the parables.” He replies to them:

And He was saying to them, “To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables” (v 11).

In order to begin their own listen and application to the “parables” of Jesus, Jesus explains to his close followers and disciples why he gives them direct teaching (i.e., the forthright teaching on the mystery of the kingdom of God) and why He gives outsiders parables only:

“so that WHILE SEEING, THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE, AND WHILE HEARING, THEY MAY HEAR AND NOT UNDERSTAND, OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT RETURN AND BE FORGIVEN” (v 12).

That “so that” (ἵνα) is so bothersome to many, so much so that even good, learned commentators weaken the ἵνα to means “because” or “on account of” rather than its very straight forward us of “in order to.” Or, on a more popular level, we get more caught up with the “interpretation” that follows than on why an interpretation is needed in the first place.  Perhaps, we, too, are a little nervous over the implications of the Isaiah 6 “harsh” reference than we’d like to admit.  Nonetheless, in order to better understand both the Sower who sows parable (and other parables as well, too), I believe we get a clue with the Beelzebul-exorcism-blaspheming the Holy Spirit parable in chapter 3.

Typically, the Beelzebul-exorcism-blaspheming the Holy Spirit parable is also taken as very harsh and, thus a softening is often offered to explain it as well.  Some just simply take this very difficult passage and say, “Those who refuse Jesus as Messiah and Lord, which is only revealed by the Holy Spirit who testifies of Jesus, will find there is no possibility of forgiveness for them.” I find this—and always have—rather simplistic and obvious.  Of course those who ultimately reject Jesus will have no forgiveness, for as Paul wrote in Romans 6:23, “For the wages of sin is death.” I have also heard the Mark 3 passage preached to get people to change who they are—you know, “You better not refuse the Holy Spirit because then there is no forgiveness for you!” Well, if they repent and turn to Jesus, of course they were not the objects of that parable in the first place.

So what does the Beelzebul-exorcism-blaspheming the Holy Spirit parable means, how does it help in understanding Jesus’ appeal to Isaiah 6, and how does that help us understand why Jesus gave parables?  Over the next three posts (more if I need it, of course), I will seek to highlight a plausible understanding of Mark 3:22f.:

1) Why Jesus says “parables,” plural, in Mark 3 and 4

2) The text of Mark 3 itself and its role in addressing the leadership of Israel

3) The texts parallel to the Isaiah 6 reference in Mark 4

I will suggest that the exorcism and blaspheming of the Holy Spirit allows for the harsh judgment in Mark 4 and why it is important for leaders of the church to be mindful of the claims of the presence of the Kingdom of God.  (Okay, maybe I’ll need more that 3 more posts.)

---

Read the other posts in this thread ... 1, 2, 3.

“And He sat down opposite the treasury, and began observing how the people were putting money into the treasury; and many rich people were putting in large sums.  A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which amount to a cent.  Calling His disciples to Him, He said to them, ‘Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the contributors to the treasury; for they all put in out of their surplus, but she, out of her poverty, put in all she owned, all she had to live on’” (Mark 12:41-44).

I am on my way to drafting my paper for the up-coming Evangelical Theological Society meeting in November.  I have somewhat concluded my research (although that never really happens, you know) and have just about typed out all my references and notes.  What has amazed me over the course of studying Mark 4 and the seed-sower-growing-mustard bush parables is the connected to the rest of the Marken material, and in particular the climactic widow vs scribes narrative in chapter 12 just before the disclosure of the destruction of the temple in chapter 13.  I have, as most who drop or google by to read, produced a paper in 2006 for the same society’s annual meeting.  The conference topic at that time was right up my vocational alley: “Christianity in the Public Square.” Although I had developed the paper through the exegesis of Mark 12, I was struck by the popular interpretation that most have of this passage.  And as I have made my way through Mark 4, I have noticed that what questions we bring to the text often seems to determine how we read it as well.

In Mark 12 and the “widow” text, most seem to understand Jesus to be illustrating, through the widow, how we are supposedto be more committed to “giving” money to the church.  In fact, the “widow” text is often used to provoke more giving or at least more guilt in order to provoke us to give more—and usually give more of to the church budget, not the poor.  Pastors and preachers are more utilitarian in their approach to interpreting the sacred text than they are given to biblical theological considerations or simply good exegesis.  Nothing at all in this text suggests that is how Jesus intends this story to be applied.  Nothing.  Zeor.  Nada.  Not a hint.  In fact, both times the same story is used by Mark and Luke (chapter 21), it immediately precedes the passage on the destruction of the temple.  The widow is offering all she had to a system that 1) was corrupt, 2) religiously flawed and would ultimately reject and kill the Messiah, 3) offers little protection, civically, to the vulnerable (like the widow), and 4), most notably in the text, that system and place would soon be destroyed.  I have found that such an approach has been applied to Mark 4 and the sower parable—in this case, making application related to church growth (“our church” by the way!) and the commitment needed to evangelize and get people in our doors.  Re-reading Mark 4 like re-reading Mark 12 forced me to end up on Mark 13.

“As He was going out of the temple, one of His disciples said to Him, ‘Teacher, behold what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Do you see these great buildings?  Not one stone will be left upon another which will not be torn down’” (Mark 13:1-2).

Contextually, the “you should give sacrificially to the church” or “you should commit more time to the church” appeals are not in the text—in fact I find such a rationale for turns the text (both texts) on its head.  The “widow” text screams out—she isn’t supposed to be giving, she shouldn’t have to.  The widow’s life would soon be dismantled for the system she supports with her sacrificial offering will soon be destroyed.

As I have read the Marken 4 parables and realized more of the background inherent in them from Old Testament text, I have not be able to avoid “the poor” and that means forms of application foreign to most preachers of these texts.  The “widow” text should mold the local congregation.  The story bridges the section where Messiah Jesus answers a series of questions which point out (1) how wrong the keepers of the system are and (2) the destruction of the temple with Jesus’ teaching on faithful obedience.  The story of the widow is meant to move the local church toward a faithful, obedient, believing community, molded by the aims of the Gospel, not the sustaining of a new religious system that utilizes earthly structures to maintain itself.  This seems appropriate to Mark 4 as well, really.

The question for the church (and by this I mean the local expression of the church, i.e., the church community within a municipality) is not, how much are we to give to the church system, but what are we making the vulnerable among us pay for?  What system are we supporting, and does that system take advantage of the poor and place undo burdens on them?  Hearing these questions arise from this story places the church within the public square and if answered biblically, offers God’s voice in that public square.  Hearing this text in its own setting moves us to different application, less on how we pay for church and more on who we are in the public square.

---

Here’s the links to my 2006 paper on Mark 12 and the “widow vs Scribe” text… “the paper” and the audio.

“…discontinuous change is much more disturbing and difficult.  Unlike the continuous form, it creates a situation that requires something different from and more potent than the normal habits and skills that were so useful during a stable period of continuous change.  Congregations do not do well with this unexpected, dramatic change; they need entirely different skills and capacities from those that have servee them well in the past” ~Alan J. Roxburgh and Fred Romanuk, The Missional Leader: Equipping Your Church to Reach a Changing World, 2006