Contextual Analysis Bibly

Nearly every scholar who has commented on Mark 3:20-35 has in the very least mentioned the text's structure. When considering structure, it is important to first discuss the sixteen verses in question. While I, like the majority of writers, would argue that the story surrounding the unforgivable sin begins with verse 20 (of Mark 3) and ends with verse 35, some break the verses down in different ways. The most common variation is the removal of the family-related accounts. Austin Busch examines the story beginning with verse 22 and ending with verse 30.

Get quality help now

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

Proficient in: Christian

4.7 (235)

“ Amazing writer! I am really satisfied with her work. An excellent price as well. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

One may interpret this as being the idea of a conservative writer, trying to leave Jesus' family out of any sort of controversy. But most traditionalist authors group verses 20-35 as a complete story and Busch most certainly writes from a more contemporary perspective. The interpretation of the text's relevant verses does not seem to correlate with one's theological point of view. Steven Scott breaks down the passage in yet another way. He recognizes the possibility of grouping verses 20-35 together, but elects to leave out the last five verses, classifying the "Beelzebul controversy" as beginning with verse 20 and ending with verse 30. This includes the first part of the account relating to Jesus' family, but leaves out the conclusion.

He defends this idea by writing, "While this also takes place in the same location and at the same time as the Beelzebul controversy, and also continues the story of Jesus's family, the topic of these verses has nothing to do with the Beelzebul controversy.

Consequently, it was decided to treat this as separate unit." I would argue against this logic because first and foremost, verse 20 clearly ties in with verses 31-35. To separate them is to deny the connection made between these two (sets of) verses. Secondly, while Scott claims verses 31-35 do not relate to Beelzebul controversy, one could definitely argue that they are very much a part of the same story. Through the narrative criticism performed thus far, I believe the connection to be apparent. Jesus' family, like the scribes, are opponents to Jesus and his mission. In Mark 3:33-35, Jesus has already rejected the scribes and now does so with his family, claiming his followers are doing the work of God. Two groups (Jesus' followers and family member) are featured both at the beginning and at the end of the story. It becomes quite clear that this response by Jesus ties in with the Beelzebul controversy.

There are however, those who do not recognize such a well thought out order in Mark's structure. In John C. Meagher's Clumsy Construction in Mark's Gospel: A

Critique of Form and Redaktionsgeschichte, the author in question argues that Mark is in fact, very disordered and clumsy (as the title states). In his opinion, certain methodologies (redaction criticism in particular) give Mark's author too much credit in terms of the thought process involved in the Gospel's structure and narrative.

Nevertheless, his opinion remains that of the minority, and I would firmly claim that the structuring of Mark 3:20-35 is intentional. The structure of this passage causes scholars to make interesting connections between the two stories. Witherington notes that one may draw a parallel between the "house divided against itself" in verse 25 and Jesus' family that is opposed to one of their own. From a literary point of view, this statement made by Jesus would be a clear declaration that his family is against him, which furthers the family's connection to the scribes. In spite of this, one must remember the danger of narrative criticism: over interpreting. Not only is there a risk of misusing methodologies intended for modern works when examining ancient texts, but also when performing narrative criticism on any work, there remains the possibility of reading too far into a text.

Theological Analysis

Numerous writers have taken on the task of explaining the comment spoken by Jesus concerning the "unpardonable sin" blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in this research. From these writings have come countless false doctrines, insinuations, and suggested explanations as we have already seen in the past chapters of this research. It is the purpose of this research to explain in this chapter what "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" is not, what it actually is, and to offer comment concerning whether it still can be committed today.

What Blasphemy is and not

The Rejection of Christ and Salvation

One of the greatest theological thinkers in Christianity's history is Saint Augustine of Hippo. Augustine is debatably the most influential of all the Early Church Fathers. A prolific writer, in addition to his best known works such as City of God (Decivitate dei) and Confessions (Confessiones), he wrote hundreds of sermons, one of which, commonly known as Sermon LXXI, is entitled On The Blasphemy Against the Holy Ghost. Although, like the majority of early scholars, Augustine bases his study on Matthew, completely ignoring Mark, his thoughts on the subject are surprisingly revealing. He does not look at the verse about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit metaphorically, or implicitly. Rather, his understanding is quite literal, saying, "There is then without doubt some certain blasphemy and some word which if it be spoken against the Holy Ghost, shall not be forgiven."

Augustine's interpretation of the verse becomes figurative. He understands the Holy Spirit to be the saving power that removes sin from man's soul. Therefore, he claims the unforgivable sin is a man reaching death without acknowledging Christ and the Spirit's saving power, and therefore not obtaining forgiveness. The biggest problem with such an interpretation is that there is little to no methodology involved. Augustine was a very philosophical thinker and his biblical exegesis reflects this. He does not examine the text in an objective manner, but rather uses the verses to support the theological beliefs that have already been established in his mind. Nevertheless, the theory that dying without having obtained forgiveness through Christ and the Holy Spirit remains the foundation for the sin's interpretation for subsequent theologians since.

Peter Lombard, a 12th century theologian, and one of the most important Christian thinkers of the middle ages, agrees with Augustine that reaching death without asking forgiveness is the greatest of sins. However, he explains blasphemy against the Holy Spirit to be several possible sins that inhibit one from seeking forgiveness, which therefore makes it unattainable.

When considering the New Testament as a whole, one would surely see why the concept of a sin that cannot be forgiven is particularly perturbing. The entire message of the New Testament is that all sins are forgiven through Jesus Christ's salvific power. The existence of a sin that will not be forgiven seems contradictory to the Gospel message. Therefore, one may try to reconcile the two concepts by labeling the sin of Mark 3:29 as a refusal to accept Christ's saving power as seen in chapter II.

Calvin claims the sin is committed by those who "with evil intention, resist God's truth, although by its brightness they are so touched that they cannot claim ignorance. Such resistance alone constitutes this sin." In essence, a knowledge and understanding of "God's truth", coupled with a rejection of it, is unforgivable.

Another Protestant reformer, James Arminius, argues something quite similar to the ideas of Calvin. It becomes clear that salvation and forgiveness are linked closely to belief in Jesus Christ.

The sin against the Holy Ghost is the rejection and refusing of Jesus Christ through determined malice and hatred against Christ, who, through testifying of the Holy Spirit, has been assuredly acknowledged for the Son of God, (or, which is the same thing, the rejection and refusing of the acknowledged universal truth of the gospel,) against conscience and committed for this purpose that a sinner may fulfill and gratify his desire of the apparent good which is by no means necessary, and may reject Christ.

Prior to the start of this research, I personally believed that such a concept was theologically viable. Indeed, if the Holy Spirit causes the conviction to repent for one's sins, the refusal to do so would be blasphemy against the source of this conviction. Bruce claims that when reading Luke, a different context provides another point of view on the sin. When considering Luke 12:8-9 especially, the unforgivable sin is the refusal to accept Jesus Christ as the Son of God.