False Familiarity and True Family: Mark 3:20-35

Download the mp3 here

You have heard it said that familiarity breeds contempt. I read a story this week that illustrated that fact pretty well. If you know anything of the history of some countries in West and Southern Africa, you know that diamonds were once found in abundance in those places. The story I read was written by a preacher, so immediately we wonder if he’s telling the truth or just preaching. He tells of a traveler in Africa who came upon a group of boys playing a game that looked like some version of marbles. Upon closer inspection, the traveler observed that these boys were playing marbles with diamonds. They did not understand the value of the objects which were, in their hands, nothing more than playthings. There is, in this story, both an understandable naïve innocence and a tragic irony. What was considered of great value in other parts of the world was so common to them that they misunderstood it’s significance. Familiarity, for those boys, bred contempt.[1]

In the passage from which we read today, we see this played out before our very eyes. Here we find those who, from an entirely human and earthly perspective, are the closest to Jesus, showing their familiarity to breed contempt for Him. And we find here a great contrast between false familiarity and true family.

I remind you that this passage is laid out like a sandwich. This is a literary devise known technically as intercalation, and it is characteristic of Mark’s gospel. It is found approximately ten times in this short book of the Bible. These sandwiches serve to create suspense, which in turn captures the interest of the audience, as well as providing commentary. The two stories which are woven together illuminate and explain one another by means of comparison or contrast. If a sandwich is an appropriate simile for this kind of writing, then the bread is found in the verses we read just a moment ago, and the filling is found in verses 22-30, which we examined last week. Mark interrupts this story about the family of Jesus by interjecting the account of the scribes coming from Jerusalem and accusing Jesus of being in league with Satan. There, we read of that pronouncement of the unforgivable and eternal sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. We examined that last week. By interjecting that account into the midst of this one, Mark creates suspense – we want to find out how this looming confrontation between Jesus and His family will play out. And the two stories dovetail together to make a common point. We will try to shed some light on that point as we examine these outer brackets of the narrative today.

As we read verses 20-21, we find ourselves faced with

I. The Irony of False Familiarty (vv20-21)

This is the first encounter we have of the family of Jesus in Mark’s Gospel. Verse 31 explains that these are His mother, whom we know is Mary, and His brothers, whom we discover elsewhere in the New Testament include brothers named James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas. We also find mention in Matthew 13:56 of His sisters. Though some translations include “sisters” in verse 31, the most reliable Greek manuscripts do not. Joseph is not mentioned in this passage—in fact, he is never mentioned anywhere in the Gospels after the scene in the Temple when Jesus was twelve years old except for a passing reference in John 6—leading some to assume that at this point he had died.

Word has circulated throughout the region concerning Jesus, and some 25 miles away in Nazareth, the family heard. Let’s consider their information, their accusation, and their intervention.

A. The information they received.

His own people heard. Heard what? Mark does not tell us what they heard, but the context is full of clues as to what they might have heard. They might have heard that He had encountered some strong opposition from the scribes, the Pharisees, and the Herodians, Israel’s religious and political leaders. They might have heard that enormous crowds were gathering around Him everywhere He went, to such an extent that He could not even eat a meal. They might have heard that He had returned to a fixed location from His journeys into outlying areas. They might have heard that He had gathered unto Himself a ragtag group of associates consisting of at least four fishermen, a tax-collector, and a nationalistic zealot. They might have heard that He has been out making radical claims about Himself and performing amazing signs and wonders. It might have been any of these or some combination of them that they heard.

When you are faced with a problem that has arisen because of some rumor or report you have heard concerning another person, you must take that information in the context of what they already know to be true of the individual. What did Jesus’ family already know about Him? Take His mother for instance. Let’s not forget that she had received an announcement from an angelic messenger that she would conceive a child in her state of being a virgin, and that this child would be “great and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end” (Luke 1:32-33). And she had believed that report. She had been told by shepherds that they had seen a vision of angels who had announced that the Savior had been born, and was lying in a manger wrapped in cloths. And the Bible tells us that she had “treasured all these things, pondering them in her heart” (Luke 2:19). Though this was the context of information she knew to be true of Him, still she failed to understand Jesus fully.

Whether it was the mundane daily tasks of motherhood, the feedings and the cleanings and all the rest, that caused her to lose sight of the true nature of who Jesus was, or her own preconceived notions of what all this meant for her and the rest of the world, it was not long before she began to develop misunderstandings. When Jesus was at the Temple at age 12 and went missing from the family, she tried to rebuke Him saying, “Son, why have you treated us this way? Behold, Your father and I have been looking anxiously for You.” But Jesus knew who He was, even if she failed to comprehend it fully. He said to her in that moment, “Did you not know that I had to be in My Father’s house?” And the Scriptures say, “But they did not understand the statement which He had made to them” (Luke 2:48-50). Again, at the wedding of Cana at Galilee, though Mary had great faith in the abilities of her Son, she still failed to understand His nature or His mission. When she told Jesus that they had run out of wine, He said to her, “Woman, what does that have to do with us? My hour has not yet come” (John 2:4).

Now on top of all this comes this new report of His activity in and around Capernaum.[2] What would they do with the information they received? Notice …

B. The accusation they suggested.

“He has lost His senses.” He’s flipped His lid; He’s gone berserk. The Greek word used here is the source of our English word “ecstasy.” Euripides used the term to describe someone who was “deranged in his mind with a sudden madness.”[3] So one Greek scholar says the sense here is that “he is a fanatic, he has lost his grasp on himself and concrete reality.”[4] In spite of all they know to be true of Jesus, the dots just don’t connect.

This is where the two stories of the sandwich come together. The information is out there for all to see. But how and why He does what He does is subject to multiple interpretations. The scribes say it is because He is possessed by an evil spirit, Beelzebul, Satan himself. The family doesn’t want to go that far, but suggest He is insane. The two accusations are not that far removed in antiquity. Most cases of mental illness in those days was attributed to demonic activity, so though they were perhaps more benevolent in their wording, they were still in danger of committing the same error as the scribes. Both offer mistaken speculations about His nature and His work, neither of which had any inkling of truth. They are like those described by C. S. Lewis who refuse to acknowledge Jesus for who He claimed to be. Lewis said, “A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell.”[5] This is exactly how His contemporaries who misunderstood Him labeled Him: lunatic or demoniac.

I would imagine that today within the sound of my voice are those who have been so passionately devoted to Christ that others have labeled them as fanatics and lunatics as well. Also, I imagine that there are likely some who, for fear of such labels, have hesitated to pursue Christ with wholehearted exuberance. Why is it that people committed passionately to Christ are always quick to be labeled as fanatics? We do not accuse scientists committed to their theories of insanity. We call them misunderstood geniuses. We don’t accuse soldiers who abandon all caution and concern for their own well-being for the cause of their country fools. We call them heroes. Explorers and adventurers go off and face unspeakable danger to satisfy whatever drive they possess to go where no man has gone before, and we call them brave and courageous. A man can be consumed with passion for his business ventures and professional success that we call him an entrepreneur and seek his advice. But let a man become passionate in his devotion and service to Jesus Christ, and he will be dismissed with all sorts of labels, even by his own family. Let us throw aside the fear of this and embrace the reality that even Jesus faced this opposition, but it did not divert Him from His mission or undermine His confidence in God’s sovereign plan for Him. If He is a fool, then let us join Him in His folly with all abandon and count it a joy to be labeled with Him!

Jesus’ family and His most ardent opponents had all the right information, yet they made the wrong accusations. And in the case of His family, this drove them to action.

C. The intervention they attempted.

Because they feared He had lost His mind, Jesus’ mother and brothers set out from Nazareth to Capernaum to take custody of Him. The wording here implies that they were willing to take Him by force and against His will if need be. It is the same word used in Chapter 6 when Mark describes Herod’s arrest of John the Baptist, and it is used 6 times in Chapters 12 and 14 to describe the arrest of Jesus. Only here in Mark 3 it is used of His family to say that they are going to seize Him. Now, why are they going to do this? We have to be careful when we try to determine someone’s motives. It isn’t explicitly stated here, but if we assume the best of them, then we may surmise that they are concerned for Jesus’ own well-being. If they have determined that He has truly lost His senses, perhaps they fear that He will continue to neglect His own personal care, or encounter harsh opposition from the authorities, and they want to protect Him from that. This is certainly a possibility.

We also have cultural reality to reckon with as well. What we find when we survey the value systems of the world through all of history is that different cultures wrestle with different priorities. For us in the West, the issue is “guilt and innocence,” or perhaps we could say, “right and wrong.” However, in some cultures, for instance among certain tribal peoples in African, Asian, and South American cultures, the issue of “fear and power” is more important than “right and wrong.” This is why the occult and spiritism, with their witch doctors and voodoo-style rituals, thrive among the peoples of those cultures. But in the Middle-East and certain other Asian cultures, the weightiest matter is that of “honor and shame.” And in these cultures of honor and shame, what a person does speaks not only of him as an individual, but also bears on the reputation of the family. And to bring shame upon one’s family is near unpardonable in those cultures. This was the culture in which Jesus lived, and so it very well may be the case that, perhaps in addition to their concern for His own welfare, His family sought to protect their own honor by removing Jesus from the spotlight of attention. Why can’t He just give up this nonsense of teeming crowds, spectacular cures, questionable company, and just return to Nazareth to take over Joseph’s carpentry business, you know, settle down, start a family and live an ordinary life? Whatever their motive, they came to take Him back, even if it meant dragging Him against His will and put an end to the spectacle He was creating.

The two stories in this passage of Mark, this sandwich, weave together at this very point as well. Though their intentions may have been very good and respectable, in contrast to those of the scribes from Jerusalem, both of these groups were guilty of seeking to divert Jesus from His divine mission, and as such, both parties are guilty of the same sin. They both misunderstand Him, and they both are engaged in an effort to stop Him in the tracks of fulfilling His purpose. Peter, one of the inner circle of Jesus’ disciples, will learn later in Mark 8 that to attempt to do so is Satanic. When Peter objected to Jesus’ statement about going to the cross, Jesus said to him very bluntly, “Get behind Me Satan; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.”[6]

So here is the irony of false familiarity. Though they received perhaps accurate information, they jumped to the wrong conclusions, made false accusations, and took dangerous actions. Mark’s first-century readers would perhaps be encouraged by this, for many of them experienced this first-hand when their zeal for Christ caused them to be ostracized from their families, labeled as fanatics, and perhaps were the objects of harsh persecution from their loved ones. In our own day this continues for many of us as well. And we can take comfort in knowing that even our Lord Jesus Christ was not exempt from it.

But from dealing with the irony of false familiarity, Jesus moves on to speak about …

II. The Intimacy of True Family (vv31-35)

I am committed to preaching through books of the Bible, passage by passage in context. Sometimes it is amazing when we turn to a passage and fight it fitting exactly where we find ourselves in our own lives and surrounding circumstances. For instance, last Christmas (2005) when we drew near to Christmas, preaching through Philippians, we found ourselves at that great incarnation passage of Philippians 2:5-11. Without any contrived effort on my part, just a few months later, we were upon Easter and turning to Philippians 3:10. That is wonderful when it works that way. And then there are times when, humanly speaking, I am glad we don’t open to a certain passage on a certain day. Case in point: I thank God I am dealing with this text today, and not on May 13, for this is hardly what you want to hear when you come to church on Mother’s Day.

When Jesus speaks of the intimacy of true family here, we might wish He had given us four foundations for fantastic family feelings, but He didn’t. If you come to this passage looking for how to make your own home-life happier and more secure, you won’t find it. But if you come looking for God’s grander purpose for the family, you will find good news in what He has to say.[7] He offers a contrast, a controversy, and a comfort.

A. The Contrast of True Family (vv31-32)

When Jesus’ family arrives, things are not as we might expect. There are no tearful exchanges of greeting. In fact, we do not read that they ever even saw or spoke to each other. He knew why they had come and what they intended to do. He knows everything. And so He remained in the house about the business of the Kingdom with those whom He had called while they remained outside calling for Him. And herein is the contrast. While we might expect one’s house to feature family on the inside, and crowds on the outside, here it is the opposite. His mother and brothers are standing outside, while a crowd of people, who to them are perfect strangers, are seated inside. His mother and brothers are calling for Him over the crowd, and sending word through intermediaries, but those on the inside speak to Him directly and pass their message on, “Behold Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You.”

This contrasting scenario reminds us that in the family of God, there are only two kinds of people: those sitting inside at Jesus’ feet and those standing on the outside with false assumptions about Him.[8]

B. The Controversy of True Family (vv33-34)

Now correct me if I am wrong here, but doesn’t it appear that Jesus has given His own family the brush-off? It does appear that way. And if He is God Incarnate, is He not the same God who gave the fifth commandment to honor one’s mother and father? Indeed, He is. But does this statement not fly in the face of that commandment? Not necessarily.

Throughout the Gospels, Jesus says much about honoring one’s family. He rebukes the Pharisees for designating their wealth as Corban, or “consecrated to God,” rather than helping their fathers and mothers in their times of need. Even at the cross, where our Lord only spoke seven phrases, one of them was to commit His mother into the care of John. It is obvious that Jesus upholds the commandment to honor one’s parents. But here, His attitude and His words are strikingly controversial as He says, “Who are My mother and brothers?” And then looking around at this ragamuffin bunch sitting around Him, He says, “Behold, My mother and My brothers!”

It is not that family is unimportant to Jesus. But, He understood from birth that His family was more inclusive than those who were related to Him by blood. His Father was God, and no mere human could lay claim to Him on the basis of genetics. And this controversial statement stands as a warning to us who would assume membership in the true family of Jesus on the basis of familiarity. You may have been raised in a Christian home, attended church, been baptized, confirmed, become a church member, and contributed financially to the church, but these are not the basis of entry into the intimacy of true family. God is in the business of adopting sons and daughters. And if your mother or father was a son or daughter of God, that doesn’t make you His grandchild. You cannot become part of His family by proxy; you can only do so personally. There is no claim of culture, heritage or genetics in this family. If you think that is controversial for us; how much more so for Jesus who said this of His own mother and brothers?

Jesus goes on now to speak finally of …

C. The Comfort of True Family (v35)

Rather than closing off access to this true family of God, Jesus flings the door open wide with a wonderful “whoever.” “Whoever does the will of God, He is my brother and sister and mother.” It is not that family relationships are unimportant, but rather that a higher priority must be placed on devotion to God. All other allegiances, including to our own earthly families, take a backseat to this higher purpose of sitting at Jesus’ feet and doing the will of God. Anyone who is willing to make that the highest priority of life is welcomed into the intimacy of true family. This family is open to all persons, regardless of their ethnicity, their social class, or their gender. It is even open to Jesus’ mother and His brothers. But like everyone else, they must recognize Him for who He really is, and understand His mission to save us from sin, and submit to God by faith in Christ personally. We are fortunate to have the rest of the New Testament, for in it we find Mary numbered among the believers in the early church, and we find James as a leader in the Jerusalem congregation, even penning the epistle of the New Testament that bears his name. And it is widely agreed that Jesus’ brother Judas is the author of our New Testament book of Jude. So at least these three found their way beyond their biological relationship to Jesus into the spiritual one which opens the door to the true family of God.

How comforting must these words be to that first century Christian who lost his or her family because of their loyalty to Jesus. Here they have the promise of Christ Himself that they are not orphans, but have become a part of an even greater family whose bonds are forged by commitment to God through Christ, and which are stronger than any earthly or genetic ties. Still today, one’s commitment to do the will of God may force him or her to make that wrenching choice between their biological family and their faith in God. And when they choose God over all earthly relationship, they find that God has put them in the loving care of new brothers and sisters, new mothers, and yes, even a new Father in heaven.

Perhaps you find yourself without a home or family to call your own: an orphan, a widow, a victim of abandonment, a single parent, whatever the case may be. Look around at those seated around you today. Perhaps here in this crowd are those who will become for you a mother, a brother, a sister, as you come into the family of our Father God. Who are your mother, your brothers, your sisters? If you belong to Christ, then they are those who likewise have been adopted into the family of faith. And in place of our broken relationships, our ostracism, our persecution, we will find the intimacy of true family in the Church of Jesus Christ as we sit at His feet and devote ourselves to doing the Father’s will.

God makes this opportunity available to us all if we will recognize that we are separated from Him because of our sins, and see Christ as the answer, His death taking our punishment, His life affording us a righteousness we can never earn on our own. And if we turn from our sin and embrace Him as Lord and Savior by faith, we enter this true family forever.

---

[1] Vance Havner, Playing Marbles With Diamonds (Grand Rapids, Baker: 1985), 19.

[2] Alan Cole, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961), 82.

[3] Ceslas Spicq (Translated & Edited by James D. Ernest), Theological Lexicon of the New Testament (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1994), 2:24.

[4] Ibid, 2:28.

[5] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, Chapter 3, final paragraph. (Because this book is available in so many editions, I have opted to cite it this way to make it easier for the reader to locate).

[6] James R. Edwards, The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 126.

[7] David E. Garland, The NIV Application Commentary: Mark (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 139, 140.

[8] Edwards, 125.