Genesis 42:1-17

Jacob Sends Ten Sons to Egypt for Food

42:1 When Jacob learned that there was grain in Egypt, he said to his sons, "Why do you keep looking at one another? 2 I have heard," he said, "that there is grain in Egypt; go down and buy grain for us there, that we may live and not die." 3 So ten of Joseph's brothers went down to buy grain in Egypt. 4 But Jacob did not send Joseph's brother Benjamin with his brothers, for he feared that harm might come to him. 5 Thus the sons of Israel were among the other people who came to buy grain, for the famine had reached the land of Canaan.

6 Now Joseph was governor over the land; it was he who sold to all the people of the land. And Joseph's brothers came and bowed themselves before him with their faces to the ground. 7 When Joseph saw his brothers, he recognized them, but he treated them like strangers and spoke harshly to them. "Where do you come from?" he said. They said, "From the land of Canaan, to buy food." 8 Although Joseph had recognized his brothers, they did not recognize him. 9 Joseph also remembered the dreams that he had dreamed about them. He said to them, "You are spies; you have come to see the nakedness of the land!" 10 They said to him, "No, my lord; your servants have come to buy food. 11 We are all sons of one man; we are honest men; your servants have never been spies." 12 But he said to them, "No, you have come to see the nakedness of the land!" 13 They said, "We, your servants, are twelve brothers, the sons of a certain man in the land of Canaan; the youngest, however, is now with our father, and one is no more." 14 But Joseph said to them, "It is just as I have said to you; you are spies! 15 Here is how you shall be tested: as Pharaoh lives, you shall not leave this place unless your youngest brother comes here! 16 Let one of you go and bring your brother, while the rest of you remain in prison, in order that your words may be tested, whether there is truth in you; or else, as Pharaoh lives, surely you are spies." 17 And he put them all together in prison for three days. (Genesis 42:1-17, NRSV)

The following comments are based on those of February 19, 2008 (Tuesday in the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year Two), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from March 14, 2006 (Tuesday in the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year Two).

Yesterday’s reading closed with the report of the beginning of “the seven years of famine” that followed “the seven years of plenty” (Gen. 41:53-54) fulfilling Joseph’s interpretation of Pharaoh’s dreams (vv. 29-31). And we were told that “since the famine had spread over all the land, Joseph opened all the storehouses, and sold to the Egyptians, . . . Moreover, all the world came to Joseph in Egypt to buy grain, because the famine became severe throughout the world” (vv.56-57).

In today’s reading, as others throughout the world (41:57), Jacob looks to Egypt for food since the famine affects him as well. “When Jacob learned (XR4y0a6v1, wayyar’, lit. ‘saw’ AV/KJV, JPS 1917) that there was grain (rb,w,, šever, ‘corn’ AV/KJV, JPS) in Egypt, he said to his sons, ‘Why do you keep looking at one another?’ ” (42:1). Commenting on “saw” (JPS), Rabbi J. H. Hertz says, “He [i.e., Jacob] had probably seen the corn [JPS, for ‘grain’ NRSV] brought by caravans” (Pentateuch & Haftorahs, 2^nd ed., 24^th printing, 1981, on Gen. 42:1). On “why do ye look one upon another?” (JPS, AV/KJV, for “Why do you keep looking at one another?” NRSV, NJPS 1985, 1999), the Rabbi explains, “Paralysed by doubt and helplessness (Luzzatto)” (ibid.). Jacob proposes a plan. “ ‘I have heard,’ he said, ‘that there is grain in Egypt; go down and buy grain for us there, that we may live and not die’ ” (42:1-2). “So ten of Joseph’s brothers,” we are told, go “down to buy grain in Egypt” (v. 3). But Jacob keeps Benjamin with him at home in Canaan. for he“did not send Joseph's brother Benjamin with his brothers, for he feared that harm might come to him” (v. 4). “Once again,” says, Jon D. Levenson, “Jacob shows preference for a son of Rachel (cf. 37:3). As the events unfold, Benjamin, Joseph’s only full brother and the youngest of the brood, serves as Joseph’s alter ego” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Gen. 42:3-4). Ronald Hendel says, “Jacob’s preference for and overprotection of Benjamin suggest that the brothers would now be jealous of Benjamin, as they were of Joseph (37:4, 11)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Gen. 42:4) But the story moves on and the brothers join “all the world” in coming “to Joseph in Egypt to buy grain” (41:57). “Thus the sons of Israel were among the other people who came to buy grain, for the famine had reached the land of Canaan” (v. 5).

In Egypt, the brothers come before Joseph and fulfill his dreams (37:7, 9). “Now Joseph was governor over the land; it was he who sold to all the people of the land. And Joseph's brothers came and bowed themselves before him with their faces to the ground” (42:6). According to Rabbi J. H. Hertz, Joseph “superintended the sales, and foreign purchasers would be brought to him to be interrogated” (Pentateuch & Haftorahs, 2^nd ed., 24^th printing, 1981, on Gen. 42:6). “When Joseph saw his brothers,” says the narrator, “he recognized them (Mr27K9y0av1, wayyakkirēm), but he treated them like strangers (Mh,ylex3 rKen1t4y09v1, wayyithnakkēr ’ ^alêhem) and spoke harshly to them” (v. 7a). Hendel calls attention to the play on words here: “Joseph recognized them, but treated them like strangers (which uses the same Hebrew root as recognized, a wordplay that highlights the themes of recognition and deception that have colored the story throughout” (op. cit., on vv. 6-9). The Hebrew verb in question is used here in the hifil and hitpael conjugations as indicated above (cf. William L. Holladay, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon, 1971, 10^th corrected impression, 1988, s.v. rkn, nkr). Joseph knows very well the answer to his next question, but he asks anyway: “Where do you come from?” and as expected, they answer, “From the land of Canaan, to buy food.” (v. 7b). According to Rabbi Hertz,

The brother who had been shamefully and pitilessly sold into slavery now had his opportunity for revenge. The greatness of Joseph lies in the fact that for all time he showed men a better way. He tests his brethren, holding his own natural feelings in check until convinced of their filial piety to their father, their love for Benjamin, and their sincere contrition for their crime towards him. Then he forgives them freely, fully, and lovingly” (op. cit., on v. 7)

But that will emerge as the story continues. Using the same verb for “recognize” again twice (rkn, n-k-r, hifil conj.), the narrator tells us that, “Although Joseph had recognized his brothers, they did not recognize him” (v. 8). And Joseph remembers “the dreams that he had dreamed about them,” but rather than make himself known to them at this point, he treats them like strangers, even accusing them of spying. “You are spies,” he says; “you have come to see the nakedness of the land” (v. 9). “To see the land in its nakedness,” says Levenson (citing the NJPS), “recalls the episode in ch. 39, in which Joseph is unfairly accused (and convicted) of a sexual crime” (on v. 9, with ref. to his earlier explanation, “ ‘To uncover the nakedness’ of a man means to have sexual relations with his wife [e.g. Lev. 20:11],” op. cit., in comment on Gen. 9:22-24). Hendel says, “Joseph asserts his power over his brothers and threatens death, perhaps ironically alluding to his own tragic journey to spy on them (37:14). This accusation elicits a claim of innocence, but Joseph knows the truth: they have never been spies but they are not honest men (v. 11)” (op. cit., on vv. 9-11).

The brothers object and deny the charge. “They said to him, ‘No, my lord; your servants have come to buy food. We are all sons of one man; we are honest men; your servants have never been spies’ ” (v. 11). Of this response, Levenson says , “The first clause is truer than the brothers recognize; the second remains to be established; only the third is straightforward fact” (on v. 11). Of the words, “We are all sons of one man” (v. 11), Rabbi Hertz says this is “a sufficient answer to the charge of being spies, for no man would risk the lives of ten sons in so dangerous an undertaking” (op. cit., on Gen. 42:11).

But Joseph insists, repeating himself: “But he said to them, ‘No, you have come to see the nakedness of the land!’ ” (v. 12). According to Rabbi Hertz, the repetition “throws them off their guard, and they seek to disarm his suspicions by volunteering information about their father and youngest brother, of which Joseph at once takes advantage” (op. cit., on v. 12). And the brothers repeat themselves with elaboration in their own defense. “They said, ‘We, your servants, are twelve brothers, the sons of a certain man in the land of Canaan; the youngest, however, is now with our father, and one is no more’ ” (v. 13). Of the expression “one is not” (JPS for “one is no more” NRSV), the Rabbi says this “refers of course to Joseph. They did not say that he was dead, because they did not really know what became of him” (ibid., on v. 13). Hendel comments on “one is no more” (NRSV): “The truth of this statement is both less and more than the brothers know, since they know that they are culpable (a guilt that will haunt them in vv. 21-22) and since Joseph is in fact standing before them” (op. cit on vv. 12-13).

But Joseph repeats his spying charge again. He “said to them, ‘It is just as I have said to you; you are spies!’ ” (v. 14). And he puts them to the test. “Here is how you shall be tested,” he says; “as Pharaoh lives, you shall not leave this place unless your youngest brother comes here!”(v. 15). “Their story is improbable,” says Rabbi Hertz. “it must be verified. Let them bring Benjamin down to Egypt. In this way, Joseph would test their loyalty to their youngest brother. Did they also hate Benjamin as they had hated him? He delicately refrains from cross-questioning them about the brother who ‘is not’ ” (op. cit., on v. 15). The words “as Pharaoh liveth [‘lives’ NRSV],” he adds, are “a form of oath, or strong asseveration. The oath by the life of the king is found in an Egyptian inscription of the twentieth pre-Christian century” (ibid.). We are reminded of the Hebrew oath, “as the LORD lives” (cf. 1 Sam. 26:10; 1 Kgs. 2:24). “Let one of you go,” says Joseph, “and bring your brother, while the rest of you remain in prison, in order that your words may be tested, whether there is truth in you; or else, as Pharaoh lives, surely you are spies” (v. 16). Joseph will reverse himself and keep only one, Simeon, while the others return for Benjamin (vv. 19-20)–but that comes in tomorrow’s reading. For the present, Joseph emphasizes his point, for “he put them all together in prison for three days” (v. 17). According to Levenson, “Joseph reenacts his brothers’ mistreatment of him, only with them now as the victims–and with a dose of mercy altogether missing in ch. 37 (with the exception of Reuben’s botched attempt to rescue him)” (op. cit., on Gen. 42:1-38). “Having lied to their father about Joseph’s fate (37:31-33),” adds Levenson, “the brothers now find themselves unable to convince Pharaoh’s vizier of the truth” (on vv. 13-14). “They must now persuade the old man [Jacob] to give up his [i.e. Joseph’s] stand in [i.e. Benjamin] (cf. 44:20) in the interest of life itself” (ibid., on vv. 15-17). According to David M. Carr, “Though Joseph claims to be ‘testing’ whether his brothers are spies, he actually seems to be ‘testing’ whether they will betray his full brother and father’s favorite (v. 4), Benjamin, the way they once betrayed him (see chs. 43-44)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Gen. 42:15-17).

1 Corinthians 5:1-8

Sexual Immorality Defiles the Church

5:1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father's wife. 2 And you are arrogant! Should you not rather have mourned, so that he who has done this would have been removed from among you?

3 For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present I have already pronounced judgment 4 in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 you are to hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

6 Your boasting is not a good thing. Do you not know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? 7 Clean out the old yeast so that you may be a new batch, as you really are unleavened. For our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore, let us celebrate the festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. (1 Corinthians 5:1-8, NRSV)

The following comments are based on those of September 22, 2009 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to September 21,, Year One), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from earlier, from February 19, 2008 (Tuesday in the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year Two), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from September 25, 2007 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to September 21, Year One), when comments were combined from September 20, 2005 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to September 21, Year One), and from March 14, 2006 (Tuesday in the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year Two), when comments were repeated from the Tuesday portion of an email sent March 7, 2004 for the week of the Second Sunday in Lent).

Paul deals with a case of immorality at Corinth and recommends excommunication for the offending person. “It is actually reported,” he says, “that there is sexual immorality (porneiva, porneia) among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father's wife” (1 Cor. 5:1). According to Victor Paul Furnish, “Sexual immorality translates a term sometimes rendered fornication, as in 6:13, 18; Gal. 5:19; 1 Thess. 4:3.” And he adds that his “father’s wife” is “an idiom referring to one’s stepmother” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on 1 Cor. 5:1). According to Richard A. Horsley, “Both Roman and Jewish law (Deut. 22:20; 27:20; Lev. 18:7-8) forbade marriage between a man and his stepmother. “Is the man’s action,” asks Horsley, “connected with the Corinthian principle cited in 6:12 and 12:23?” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on 1 Cor. 5:1). As for Roman law, compare the following:

Neither can I marry her who has aforetime been my mother-in-law or step-mother, or daughter-in-law or step-daughter. I say ‘aforetime’; for if the marriage which has created the affinity still subsist, I cannot take her to wife for this other reason,–that neither can the same woman have two husbands, nor can the same man have two wives.” (The Institutes of Gaius and Rules of Ulpian, ed. and tr. James Muirhead, Edinburgh, 1880, 24-25, cited by Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, trans. James W. Leitch, ed. George W. MacRae, 1975, p. 96, n. 29)

Paul continues by rebuking the Corinthians: “And you are arrogant! Should you not rather have mourned, so that he who has done this would have been removed from among you?” (v. 2). In principle, though at a distance, in his own mind Paul seems to have already removed the offender from the Christian community. “For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present I have already pronounced judgment in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing” (vv. 3, 4a). But, as Horsley notes, “Paul wants to proceed in conjunction with the community” (on v. 4). Paul continues with instruction: “When you are assembled, and my spirit is present with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord” (vv. 4b, 5). Paul’s “spirit is present,” says Horsley, “in the same sense as Jesus would be present in cases of community discipline (see Mt. 18:15-20), while the power of our Lord Jesus is the ultimately empowering authority of the judicial procedure of expulsion” (ibid.). According to Furnish, “the flesh [is] either a literal reference to the immoral man’s physical body or a figurative reference to his evil desires. It is thus difficult to know what Paul expects will result from the punishment he is recommending” (op. cit., on v. 5).

If the effect of Paul’s instruction is difficult to know, his concern for morality is clear. He compares what he instructs the Corinthians to do to the preparations a strictly observant Jew would make for Passover. “Your boasting is not a good thing,” he says, and asks, “Do you not know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough?” (v. 6). Of the term “yeast” here, Furnish says it is “a metaphor for evil (see 5:8), as in Mt. 16:6, 11-12; Mk. 8:15; Lk. 12:1; see also Gal. 5:9” (on v. 6). Paul instructs the Corinthians to “clean out the old yeast,” that is, to get rid of the evil within the community, “so that you may be a new batch, as you really are unleavened” (v. 7a). Continuing the metaphor, Paul says, “our paschal [i.e., ‘passover’] lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed” (v. 7b). C. S. C. Williams says, “The converts’ complacency was misplaced. They claimed spiritual gifts but they forgot that a little infection could make the whole body corrupt, a little leaven permeating the whole life of the Church. A strict Jew made a careful search before every Passover for the least particle of leaven in his dwelling and with relief he cast it out before the Paschal rites began. Christ is our Paschal lamb” (Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, 1962, on 1 Cor. 5). Paul appeals for the same diligence in ridding the church of immorality.

Paul concludes with an exhortation to celebrate the Passover as Christians, duly prepared by the cleaning out of the “yeast”: “Therefore, let us celebrate the festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (v. 8). “Only unleavened bread, a symbol of purity,” says Furnish, “was to be eaten during Passover; see Ex. 12:8, 15-20” (op. cit., on v. 8).

Mark 3:19b-35

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." 23 And he called them to him, and spoke to them in parables, "How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but his end has come. 27 But no one can enter a strong man's house and plunder his property without first tying up the strong man; then indeed the house can be plundered.

28 "Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven for their sins and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"- 30 for they had said, "He has an unclean spirit."

The True Kindred of Jesus (Mt 12.46-50; Lk 8.19-21)

31 Then his mother and his brothers came; and standing outside, they sent to him and called him. 32 A crowd was sitting around him; and they said to him, "Your mother and your brothers and sisters are outside, asking for you." 33 And he replied, "Who are my mother and my brothers?" 34 And looking at those who sat around him, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! 35 Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother." (Mark 3:19b-35, NRSV)

The following comments are based on those of July 18, 2009 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 13, Year One), when comments were repeated with adaptation from January 20, 2009 (Tuesday in the week of the Second Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One), when comments were repeated from August 3, 2008 (the Sunday closest to August 3, Year Two), when the reading was Mark 3:20-30, and comments were repeated from February 19, 2008 (Tuesday in the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year Two), when comments on Mark 3:19b-35 were repeated from July 21, 2007 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 13, Year One), when they were repeated from January 16, 2007 (Tuesday in the week of the Second Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One); on the latter date, they were combined with revision and supplement from January 18, 2005 (Tuesday in the week of the Second Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One), comments which were repeated on March 14, 2006 (Tuesday in the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year Two), and on July 16, 2005 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 13, Year One).

Parallel passages to this reading in Mark are presented in a separate file, Jesus and Beelzebul. For recent comments on Matthew 12:22-32, see the Archive for October 19, 2009 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 23, Year One). For recent comments on Luke 11:14-23, see the Archive for May 30, 2009 (Saturday in the week of the Seventh Sunday of Easter, Year One).

One index of the sudden burst of activity at the beginning of Jesus ministry–in Mark’s account–may be the concern of his family (Mk. 3:21). “His family (perhaps his mother and his brothers, v. 31) were concerned both for his safety, amidst the intense emotions rising round him, and his sanity” (Elwyn E. Tilden and Bruce M. Metzger, NOAB, 2^nd ed., 1994, on Mk. 3:21). But “the Pharisees attribute his acts to demonic power.” Tilden and Metzger add that Beelzebul, a pagan god [cf. 2 Kgs. 1:2] is “identified here with Satan” (ibid., on v. 22).

Events are happening swiftly in Mark, chapter 3, for two groups of leaders, the Pharisees and Herodians, have conspired to destroy Jesus (Mk.3:6), Jesus is thronged and plied with multiple requests for healing (vv. 7-8), he withdraws in a boat (vv. 9-13), he goes “up the mountain” and appoints the twelve apostles (vv. 13-19a). Even when he went home (v. 19b), “the crowd came together again, so that they could not even eat (v. 20). Is it any wonder that his family was concerned? Or that they sought to restrain him (v. 21)? The words “people were saying” (v. 21) are ambiguous. The word “people” (NRSV) translates the impersonal third person plural verb ending of “were saying” ( e[legon, elegon); others translate as “they were saying” (KJV, NIV, NASB), which seems to mean that Jesus’ own family were saying, “He has gone out of his mind” (v. 21). We know that “not even his brothers believed in him” (Jn. 7:5), but to take the word “they” as a reference to Jesus’ family (including Mary?) who were saying “He has gone out of his mind” seems incredibly harsh! Of course, “the scribes who came down from Jerusalem” went much further in saying, “He has Beelzebul, and by the ruler of the demons he casts out demons” (v. 22; cf. Mt. 12:24; 9:34; Lk. 11:15; Jn. 10:20). It is they whom Jesus implies have blasphemed the Holy Spirit (Mk. 3:28; cf. Mt. 12:31a; Lk. 12:10a).

Jesus, says Mark, “called them”–presumably the scribes just mentioned–“to him and spoke to them in parables” (Mk. 3:23a). His response fits their challenge, and in the following chapter Jesus will explain that “parables “ are “for those outside” (4:11). Richard A. Horsley defines “parables” here as “extended metaphors or analogies; cf. 4:2, 33” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Mk. 3:23). “How can Satan cast out Satan?” asks Jesus (Mk. 3:23b). “If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand” (Mk. 3:24; cf. Mt. 12:25b; Lk. 11:17b). And with the analogy changed from “kingdom” to “household,” he adds, “And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand” (Mk. 3:25; cf. Mt. 12:25c; Lk. 11:17c). The “kingdom” or “household” implied by the accusation of the scribes would be that of Satan. And Jesus drives the point home. “And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but his end has come” (Mk. 3:26; cf. Mt. 12:26; Lk. 11:18a). Jesus’ conclusion, contrary to the accusation, implicit in Mark, is stated by Matthew and Luke. “But if is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come to you” (Mt. 12:28; cf. Lk. 11:20, with “finger of God,” for “Spirit of God”). Luke’s “finger of God” is likely original, with Matthew’s “Spirit of God” as explanation. The expression comes from Exodus 18:19. When Aaron was able to strike the dust of the earth with his staff so that it became gnats (Exod. 18:16-17) but the magicians of Egypt could not (v. 18), they said, “This is the finger of God!” (v. 19a). “Finger stands for God’s power,” says Marion Lloyd Soards (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Lk. 11:20).

The analogy of the household returns. “But no one can enter a strong man's house and plunder his property without first tying up the strong man; then indeed the house can be plundered” (Mk. 3:27; cf. Mt. 12:29; Lk. 11:21-22). C. Clifton Black, revised by Adela Yarbro Collins, compares Isaiah 49:24-25 (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Mk. 3:27): “Can the prey be taken from the mighty, / or the captives of a tyrant be rescued? / But thus says the LORD: / Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken, / and the prey of the tyrant be rescued; / for I will contend with those who contend with you, / and I will save your children” (Is. 49:24-25, NRSV).

“Truly I tell you,” says Jesus, “people will be forgiven for their sins and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin” (Mk. 3:28-29; cf. Mt. 12:31-32; Lk. 12:10). This comment is applied by Mark to the scribes addressed here by Jesus, explaining, “for they had said, ‘He has an unclean spirit’ ” (Mk. 3:30). According to Black and Collins, “To link the Holy Spirit (see 1:8, 10, 12) or the Spirit’s agent (3:30; Lk. 11:20) with demons is to be guilty of an eternal sin (cf. 1 Jn. 5:16)” (ibid., on v. 29). The brief reference here to what has been called the “unpardonable sin” (vv. 28-30) raises a serious issue–blaspheming the Holy Spirit, the agent of grace (cf. Rom. 8:9-11)–but I should think that anyone who is at all concerned about it has surely not crossed that line!

The visit of Jesus’ family, that is, his flesh and blood relatives, provides an opportunity for him to redefine the family of God. Jesus’ “mother and his brothers came; and standing outside, they sent to him and called him” (Mk. 3:31; cf. Mt. 12:46; Lk. 8:19). When the crowd informs Jesus of their presence (Mk. 3:32; cf. Mt. 12:47; Lk. 8:20), he asks, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” (Mk. 3:33; cf. Mt. 12:48). And he answers his own question. “And looking at those who sat around him, he said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother” (Mk. 3:34-35; cf. Mk. 12:49-50; Lk. 8:21). According to Horsley, this is “not necessarily an attack on his [i.e., Jesus’] family (but see [Mk. 3:] 21), but rather an indication that within the Jesus-movement and its communities, those who do the will of God are Jesus’ and each others’ brother and sister and mother” (op. cit., on vv. 31-35). As we have suggested (above), verse 21 is not necessarily an attack on Jesus’ family. In any event, I see no reason at all to see any disrespect for Mary or for Jesus’ brothers in this remark (vv. 33-35), but as we are reminded by R. McL. Wilson (Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, 1962, sec. 699 f, p. 803, on Mk. 3:31-35), “The point . . . lies in the saying in vv. 34-35, that the ties of common obedience to God take precedence over those of kinship. As on the mission field today, this must have had a very real relevance for members of the early Church.” So when Jesus redefines his “family,” its not a matter of disrespecting Mary (cf. Jn. 19:26-27), but the new definition includes us as part of Jesus’ family!

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net