GOSPEL OF MARK: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (PART 1)

Mark 3:28-29 (Matthew 12:31-32; Luke 12:10) How do I know whether I have committed the Unforgivable Sin?

In the first place, here are some unacceptable explanations of this passage:

    1. Christ's atonement was insufficient to cover my sin.

    2. The Holy Spirit must be more sacred than God the Father or Jesus.

    3. The unforgivable sin is suicide, murder, betrayal, divorce and remarriage, etc.

    4. One can commit the unforgivable sin unknowingly.

Carefully consider the background for this teaching:

    1. The Mishnah considered the following to be unforgivable sins: blasphemy, causing others to sin, giving false witness in a capital trial, and denying the resurrection.

    2. The most important context is the immediate one (Mark 3:22-30).

    3. Read the parallel gospel passages above for any additional insights.

    4. Somewhat parallel teachings are found elsewhere in the Bible (Numbers 15:30-31; I Samuel 3:13-14; Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:26-27).

Possible explanations:

    1. The sin is not a one-time event, but a state of mind. A possible translation of Mark 3:30 is: “for they were saying, 'He has an unclean spirit.'”

    2. To be forgiven, one must be repentant. The scribes and Pharisees were progressing in the opposite direction (see Matthew 12:14).

    3. These words were addressed to the scribes, men trained in God's word. This was purposeful apostasy, not a mere mistake.

    4. Here are various explanations of the unforgivable sin given by scholars:

        “The conscious and deliberate rejection of the saving power and grace of God.”

        “Only the power of the Spirit can convict a person of sin – removing oneself from the only power that can save.”

        “Deliberate labeling of good as evil (John 3:19).”

        “Someone who is declaring war on God.”

Why the distinction between blasphemy against Jesus and against the Holy Spirit?

    1. The early Church Fathers felt that sin against Christ was pre-baptismal sin while sin against the Spirit was any major sin after baptism (since that person now possessed the Holy Spirit and should know better).

    2. Christ was referring to the time after the ascension when the truth would be clearly revealed by the Holy Spirit.

    3. Christ's personal glory was hidden so the scribes and Pharisees could be forgiven for not recognizing him.

    4. It refers specifically to seeing an authentic miracle performed. It is no longer applicable.

Mark 9:5 (Matthew 17:4; Luke 9:33) Why did Peter say he wanted to build three tents?

The first thing to note is that both Mark and Luke agree that Peter was talking off the top of his head and really hadn't thought out his words. William Hendricksen (Matthew) says, “The trouble with Peter was that too often he spoke first and did his thinking afterward, if at all.”

The question remains: Why tents? Here commentators are not quite in agreement with their answers. Much of the disagreement centers around which other episode provides the proper biblical context for Peter's remarks: Is it the later Garden of Gethsemane episode, Peter's argument with Christ over the necessity of His suffering and death, or the Old Testament Feast of Tabernacles? Perhaps all are in mind in the present story.

The language in the Transfiguration story does have echoes later on in the Garden. In each case, Jesus is alone with Peter, James and John; they get sleepy; Jesus has a conversation regarding His coming suffering and death (Luke 9:31-33); and the apostles don't know what to say (Mark 14:40). With this context in mind, as well as Peter's earlier refusal to admit that Jesus might have to suffer, a number of commentators agree with Geldenhuys (The Gospel of Luke) that “indirectly, his proposal is again an attempt to influence the Saviour not to choose the way of suffering, but to continue to live in divine glory.”

However, another context that has a bearing on this story is the Feast of Tabernacles (or Booths or Tents). At that celebration every year the Jews would each construct a temporary lean-to or shelter and live in it for several days as a remembrance of their time in the desert during the Exodus. By Jesus' time, this feast was also viewed as a looking forward to the future Messianic Age when all the nations would come to Jerusalem to worship and God would live in their midst (as prophesied in Zechariah 14:16-21).

So if the “tent suggestion” is viewed as a memorial of sorts, then Jacques Ellul (The Subversion of Christianity, p. 149) is on track when he says, “An attempt is made to seize a momentary thing in such a way as to explain it and freeze it...It leads to the attempt to change what is living explicitly and implicitly into something fixed.” Peter wants to make the experience more lasting when it should have been seen as only a step toward a later goal. Hendricksen notes that we often desire to prolong the good times and stay removed from suffering.

The possible allusion to the Feast of Tabernacles has another implication if we look at its future aspects. Taking that context in mind, a number of commentators are in agreement in seeing a related motive. Since that feast looked forward to the Messianic Age when God would dwell in the midst of the people, Peter may have mistakenly thought that the time had now arrived. This was a case of wish fulfillment on his part since it then would mean there was no reason for the Son of God to suffer and die. He didn't realize that it was only an intermediate step (Lane, The Gospel of Mark). Anderson (The Gospel of Mark) puts it this way: “Peter wants prematurely to settle down and enjoy the blessings of the new age...and to secure the glory and victory before they have been won.”

But then there is the real possibility that Peter did not have any of these rather spiritual motives in mind at all. At least four commentaries I consulted felt that Peter just wanted these two visitors to stay a little longer so he could be around them. And he thought that he could perhaps convince them if he and the two other disciples built them shelters for the night. Related to that suggestion is the interpretation that several scholars have for Peter's statement: “It is good that we are here!”

I had always taken those words to be an expression of Peter's joy at the blessing he had received from the vision of the Transfiguration. However, several commentators take it to mean, “Isn't it fortunate that we three apostles happen to be here so that we can construct the tents and help everyone out.” If this is the meaning, then it is a further example of Peter's complete incomprehension of spiritual matters.

And as a final example of how far off-base Peter was with his comments, it has often been pointed out that by wanting to construct three tents, he was in effect placing Jesus on an equal par with Moses (the law) and Elijah (the prophets). He is soon put in his place by (a) the disappearance of those two, leaving only Jesus behind (recognition that Jesus is the culmination and fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets) and (b) God the Father's words to them at the end of the story (“ Listen to him.”).

Mark 10:23-27 (Matthew 19:17; Luke 18:19) This appears to rule out any rich people going to heaven. Isn't that a little harsh? Also, why were the Apostles so shocked at this teaching?

You are not the only one to feel that way. Look at the way some manuscripts of this passage read: “The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus answered again and said to them, 'Children, how hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter the Kingdom...'” The words in italics are in many manuscripts but not the earliest. This addition was probably an attempt to soften the teaching. By the way, this is the only time in the Synoptic Gospels that Jesus uses the term “children” to apply to his followers. It may stress their lack of understanding.

There have been other attempts to soften the teaching:

    The Acts of Andrew and Peter has a story where a needle's eye miraculously grows until a camel can go through it.

    A passageway in Jerusalem named The Eye of a Needle is being referred to here You can't enter mounted on your camel but must dismount and leave your possessions behind. Variation: a young camel can enter but only if its load is removed and it kneels. (This is a rather recent proposal. Unfortunately, there is no evidence at all for such a passageway).

    The word camel (kamelos) was confused with cable or rope (kamilos) in Greek. However, that doesn't really make the situation any more likely to happen.

    In Aramaic the word for camel is gamel; acts of benevolence = gemiluth as a reminder of what the rich should be doing. A rather fanciful explanation.

    The most likely explanation is that Jesus followed a literal teaching about wealth with figurative hyperbole.

        A 3^rd cent. AD teaching in the Talmud uses the idea of an elephant trying to pass through the eye of a needle to express the idea of impossibility.

        The camel was the largest animal in Palestine. That is why Jesus uses it, just as he talks about the Pharisees straining out a gnat but swallowing a camel (Matthew 23:24). Another example of hyperbole is taking the log out of your eye.

Why were the apostles shocked and unbelieving?

    Many Jews assumed that wealth was a reward from God for the righteous. Look at the start and conclusion of the Book of Job; Psalm 128:1-2 and Isaiah 3:10, but it is not a pervasive teaching in the OT.

    Alternatively, those with wealth were assumed to have an advantage over the poor in that they had the leisure to devote themselves to prayer, fasting, study and good works such as almsgiving. (Anchor Bible) “In Judaism it was inconceivable that riches should be a barrier to the Kingdom.” (NICNT)

    But even if that were true, Jesus has a similar teaching in Matthew 5:20: “Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Charles Williams notes that we should consider that riches may include other forms of supposed blessings by God – reputation for righteousness, respect, power, talent, intelligence, etc. Look at the example of the rich young ruler. Paul said he counted all such things in his life as trash, which are not only useless in entering the Kingdom, but they are a barrier since they are forms of self-righteousness in attempts to earn their way into Heaven.

Mark 13:28-29 Doesn't the fig tree stand for the nation of Israel in these verses?

I have seen that interpretation in print but doubt that there is any truth to it. Here are a few of my thoughts on the subject:

1. That particular explanation is usually followed by a series of calculations beginning with the date of the modern state of Israel's founding. I am always suspicious of any attempt to even roughly guess at the timing of future events.

2. Israel is often symbolized as a grape vine, but virtually never as a fig tree (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery).

3. Mark 13:28-31 is best understood as one of the portions of Jesus' answer to the first question of the apostles regarding the destruction in 70 AD, not their second question regarding the End Times (at least according to my own detailed literary analysis of the parallel passage in Matthew 24).

4. Practically all commentators take verses 28-29 as a simple parable comparing a physical event to a deeper event. If one views the fig tree as a stand-in for Israel, then that is combining two types of figurative language by piling a symbol on top of a parable, which seems to be unduly complicated.