No, the story of the Good Samaritan is not meant to bless taking the gospel into the way of the Gentiles

 

 

 

 

 

For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

-- Mark 3:35 

Things for which Jesus said there is no forgiveness and for which dying on the cross would have been therefore beside the point

 

The religious ideas in the following stand in sharp contrast to the idea that Jesus gave his life as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45), which is the idea which won thanks to Paul's "other gospel" (I Corinthians 15:3 "Christ died for our sins"): 

Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.

-- Mark 3:28ff.

But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

-- Matthew 6:15

Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. 

-- Matthew 12:31f.

And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

-- Matthew 18:34f. 

But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses. 

-- Mark 11:26

And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.  

-- Luke 12:10

The everlasting trinity of horribles: The fire, the damnation, and the destruction

Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire (πῦρ). 

-- Matthew 18:8

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:  

-- Matthew 25:41

But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation (κρίσις): 

-- Mark 3:29

Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction (ὄλεθρος) from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

-- II Timothy 1:9

Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment (κρίμα).

-- Hebrews 6:2

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

-- Jude 1:7

 

 

Mary the mother of Jesus attempted a family intervention

 

A plot for His assassination was secretly on foot. And at this juncture the incident of my text, which we owe to Mark alone of the Evangelists, occurs. Christ’s friends, apparently the members of His own family--sad to say, as would appear from the context, including His mother--came with a kindly design to rescue their misguided kinsman from danger, and laying hands upon Him, to carry Him off to some safe restraint in Nazareth, where He might indulge His delusions without doing any harm to Himself. They wish to excuse His eccentricities on the ground that He is not quite responsible--scarcely Himself; and so to blunt the point of the more hostile explanation of the Pharisees that He is in league with Beelzebub.

Conceive of that! The Incarnate Wisdom shielded by friends from the accusation that He is a demoniac by the apology that He is a lunatic! . . . 

There is nothing that commonplace men hate like anything fresh and original. 

-- Alexander Maclaren (1826-1910), Exposition on Mark 3:21

At Christmas thoughts do not naturally turn to Mary's crazy, problem child of the Gospel of Mark

Bart Ehrman, December 2014, here:

Mark does not narrate an account of Jesus’ birth. Mark never says a word about Jesus’ mother being a virgin. Mark does not presuppose that Jesus had an unusual birth of any kind. And in Mark (you don’t find this story in Matthew and Luke!!), Jesus’ mother does not seem to know that he is a divinely born son of God. On the contrary, she thinks he has gone out of his mind. Mark not only lacks a virgin birth story; it seems to presuppose that they [sic] never could have been a virgin birth. Or Mary would understand who Jesus is. But she does not.

It’s no wonder that when Matthew and Luke took over so many of the stories of Mark, they decided, both of them, *not* to take over Mark 3:20-21. They had completely different view of Jesus’ mother and his birth.

The Spirit threw Jesus out into the desert to be tempted of the devil just like Jesus threw devils out of people, according to St. Mark

The unfortunate association was cleaned up by Matthew and by Luke, who "cast out" the offending term in relation to the Spirit in favor of "non-compulsive" language more appropriate to the "holy" Spirit of developed Christian theology, who "leads" rather than drives (Matthew 4:1; Luke 4:1). John's Gospel knows nothing at all of this incident, but does preserve the appropriate idea of "casting out" evil in John 12:31 (of the prince of this world).

And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness. -- Mark 1:12

(Καὶ εὐθὺς τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτὸν ἐκβάλλει εἰς τὴν ἔρημον)

 

ἐκβάλλω "I cast out" with reference to devils is all over the place in the Synoptics. Here are just some of the examples from Mark, a primitive gospel replete with raw, vivid language:

 

 

Jesus hardly speaks of thanksgiving as characteristic of the daily spiritual life the way Paul does, but is instead more unsettled and on guard in his estimation of it

In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. 

-- I Thessalonians 5:18

And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;

-- Luke 18:1

Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.

-- Luke 21:36

For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

-- Mark 3:35

Megan McArdle discusses the failure of communism beyond the small scale . . .

. . . but misses that its origin is in the most intimate unit of small scale experience of all, the nuclear family. Once you extrapolate much beyond that level ("Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother." -- Mark 3:34f.) it's not going to last long.

Megan McArdle, here:

[C]ommunism has never successfully worked above the level of a small group; it’s trying to manage transactions with strangers on the logic of small-group reciprocal altruism. Those small groups have a lot of social mechanisms, from shaming to threat of exile, to prevent people from cheating. When you try to scale it up to millions of strangers, it collapses into destitution or bloody tyranny. 

And all that believed were together, and had all things common. ... And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. ... And one of them named Ag'abus stood up and foretold by the Spirit that there would be a great famine over all the world; and this took place* in the days of Claudius. And the disciples determined, every one according to his ability, to send relief to the brethren who lived in Judea; and they did so, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul. 

-- Acts 2:44; 4:32; 11:28ff.

*probably sometime between AD 44 and 48

Jesus' family and friends thought he was a little touched, but Paul speaks positively of being so

And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself. ... There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.

-- Mark 3:21, 31

For whether we be beside ourselves, it is to God: or whether we be sober, it is for your cause.

-- 2 Cor. 5:13

Even N.T. Wright Has Occasionally Come Close To Saying Jesus Was Nuts

My case has been, and remains, that Jesus believed himself called to do and be things which, in the traditions to which he fell heir, only Israel’s God, YHWH, was to do and be. I think he held this belief both with passionate and firm conviction and with the knowledge that he could be making a terrible, lunatic mistake. I do not think this in any way downplays the signals of transcendence within the Gospel narratives. It is, I believe, consonant both with a full and high Christology and with the recognition that Jesus was a human figure who can be studied historically in the same way that any other human figure can be. Indeed, I have come to regard such historical study not just as a possibly helpful source for theology but a vital and non-negotiable resource: not just part of the possible bene esse, but of the esse itself. Partial proof of this drastic proposal lies in observing what happens if we ignore the history: we condemn ourselves to talking about abstractions, even perhaps to making Jesus himself an abstraction. Fuller proof could only come if and when systematicians are prepared to work with the first-century Jewish categories which are there in the historical accounts of Jesus and which shaped and formed his own mindset.

-- Jesus' Self-Understanding, N.T. Wright (2002)

Western orthodoxy has for too long had an overly lofty, detached, high-and-dry, uncaring, uninvolved, and (as the feminist would say) kyriarchical view of god.  It has always tended to approach the christological question by assuming this view of god and then fitting Jesus into it.  Hardly surprising, the result was a docetic Jesus, which in turn generated the protest of the eighteenth century and historical scholarship since then, not least because of the social and cultural arrangements which the combination of semi-Deism and docetism generated and sustained.  That combination remains powerful, not least in parts of my own communion, and it still needs a powerful challenge.  My proposal is not that we understand what the word “god” means and manage somehow to fit Jesus into that.  Instead, I suggest that we think historically about a young Jew, possessed of a desperately risky, indeed apparently crazy, vocation, riding into Jerusalem in tears, denouncing the Temple, and dying on a Roman cross—and that we somehow allow our meaning for the word “god” to be recentered around that point.

-- Jesus and the Identity of God, N.T. Wright (1998)

When his family heard what was happening, they tried to take him away. "He's out of his mind," they said.

-- Mark 3:21

Reza Aslan proves some PhD's are worth more than others

Reza Aslan makes the simplest of mistakes in a recent Washington Post column, here:

'[N]owhere in the New Testament is “adelphos” used to mean anything other than “brother.”'

Well of course it is, as when the gospels portray Jesus making distinctions between his natural, biological family and his more real family, his hearers, whom he calls his real brothers, sisters and mother. And the following instance, where the term is deliberately bent to deny its natural meaning, is noteworthy for how the gospels, and presumably Jesus, made the term elastic in its meaning in the first place:

But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

-- Matthew 23:8

Quite apart from some humanitarian notion of the brotherhood of man, eschewing all earthly definitions and entanglements is part and parcel of Jesus' apocalyptic proclamation, expecting the imminent coming of the kingdom of God and with it, final judgment, which can be escaped only through turning away, even from your family if necessary. That's the whole point of his redefinition of "brother". Strictly political interpretations of the historical Jesus will of necessity ignore this, or worse, deny it.

Jesus' Own Family Thought He Was A Little Nuts

One time Jesus entered a house, and the crowds began to gather again. Soon he and his disciples couldn't even find time to eat. When his family heard what was happening, they tried to take him away. "He's out of his mind," they said.

-- Mark 3:20f.

Peter Berger Misunderstands Interim Ethics

 

Peter Berger, writing in The American Interest, here:

The British writer Ferdinand Mount described the Sermon of the Mount as perhaps the greatest sermon ever, but that it was written for bachelors—that is, for individuals with no responsibility for the future. Probably Jesus’ message about the Kingdom of God was apocalyptic—a message about a radical shift in the nature of reality (which means that Paul was not far off). We know that many of his followers, and perhaps Jesus himself, expected that the apocalyptic event would happen in their own lifetime. Thus, as some scholars have put it, the moral teachings of Jesus (and possibly Paul’s as well) were an “interim ethic”—how to live in the short time before the coming of the Kingdom. If you expect the world to end next week, you won’t bother to change the oil, though you still want the windshield wipers to work. In that interpretation, the Sermon on the Mount was meant to describe the world after the coming of the Kingdom (though some of Jesus’ followers may want to anticipate this blessed condition in their present lives). Be this as it may, it is very doubtful indeed that Jesus intended these teachings to be a behavioral code for the next two millennia. In any case, any society larger than an Amish village would not survive for very long if it tried to live by such a code.

This is good as far as it goes, and God knows we don't read enough people talking about these issues, but it does seem to miss two things.

One, the Sermon on the Mount isn't just for bachelors. It's also for spinsters.

Apocalyptic ethics overthrow all human conventions because true repentance is impossible without them. There are no more husbands, fathers, wives, mothers and children per se in the kingdom of God, which is coming suddenly with the appearance of the Son of Man in the clouds of heaven. There is no time for funerals, for working at a job, for building bigger barns in your retirement to hold all your increase. "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother" (Mark 3:34f.).

Two, the world after the coming of the kingdom is not really describable because it is transformed by divine action.

What is remarkable about it is how few, however, take seriously what this means in terms of justice in the teaching of Jesus. The assumption is usually that there are many human players left in a too-worldly kingdom of God populated by shiny happy people who have received the grace of God, whereas Jesus is at pains to describe God's coming judgment in which evil and evil-doers are swept away. The angels first come at the harvest not to rapture the few into the air to ever be with the Lord, but to gather the many tares and hurl them into the fire. As interim ethics, Jesus' teaching is survival ethics, and temporary because terrestrial, designed to help his hearers escape the wrath that is coming. Beyond that, the future is not really ours to see.

Perhaps more than anything else, it is the failure of this vision to materialize historically which has been lurking in the background in the mind of modernity and fueling the conviction that God is dead. 

Dissing the Mother: Jesus' Attempt to Redefine the Family

The sermon this day (Immanuel, 2 Michigan Street NE, Grand Rapids) was only loosely based on Mark 3:30-35, for to follow it honestly and strictly, one would have had to come to a far different conclusion than that Jesus intended to bless some conception of the traditional family, by which he supposedly encouraged people to marry and have children for an indefinite future as part of God's plan for the human race from the foundation of the world.

On the contrary, Jesus' teaching that his real brother, sister and mother is "whosoever shall do the will of God" is posited over and against the news announced in the pericope that "thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee."

"They're not my real family," he might have said in so many words.

No wonder people close to him, and perhaps members of his own family, said, "He is beside himself" (Mark 3: 21). That opinion was much debated among "the Jews" according to John 10, some of whom contended that possession by a demon had driven him mad (vs. 20).

Well, why not? Jesus' outrageous message of repentance meant repudiating one's entire life as it existed at the time of the call, to the extent that the most basic societal obligations had to go. "Let the dead bury their own dead." "Say goodbye to everything you have." "Come, follow me." Only a madman would ask you to quit your job, stop supporting your family, not "be there" for your sons and daughters, and follow some cult leader around the country.

It is remarkable that the evidence for this world-renouncing ethic yet remains buried in the stuff of the gospels when you consider how much the eschatological worldview which presupposes it has been scrubbed and re-interpreted in the interests of the Pauline gospel of salvation based on Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. But its ugly head pops up all over the place, ever to be massaged and explained away in this church and that, or simply avoided, while attempting otherwise to make the Bible relevant to the people in the pew, and to maintain the status quo.

But however that may be, it does seem ever less relevant. The desperation of the circumstances of the denomination of church I visited this day was plain enough. The average age in the denomination is now 67, we were told. 67! This church is not only not making converts among the young, it long ago failed to reproduce itself in sufficient quantities by adhering to the conception of "the traditional family." Such children as they have had have not stayed, or have not been large enough in number to affect this perilous signpost of coming extinction. 

It's as if these people have somehow taken Jesus all too seriously after all, even though they have not.

Crazy indeed.