Blog

Alright, so it’s been a while since I wrote a blog post that wasn’t stylized as a scholarly heavily footnoted essay, but here we are. Tis the season! As I’m writing this, Christmas is only a week away. There are two lit up Christmas trees to my left, and I have a hectic week as a cashier ahead of me. Since it’s Christmas, it seemed good to me, most excellent Theophilus, to write a quick post related to the Virgin Birth of Jesus (which I do affirm).

Very often I have heard Christians exposit (Mark 3:21, 31-35) in saying not just that Jesus’s brothers and sisters did not believe in him and were opposed to his ministry, but that Mary herself did not believe in Jesus and were opposed to his ministry. ^[1]For example, see Pastor Brandon Robbins, “Jesus’ Family Problems Explained / Beyond The Words / Mark 3”, YouTube.com, July 28th 2021 — … Continue reading Mark 3:20-21 and Mark 3:31-35 says “When his family heard it, they went out to restrain him, for people were saying, “He has gone out of his mind. … Then his mother and his brothers came; and standing outside, they sent to him and called him. A crowd was sitting around him; and they said to him, ‘Your mother and your brothers and sisters are outside, asking for you.” And he replied, ‘Who are my mother and my brothers?’ 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.'” (NRSV)

I’ve been reading the Bible for a long time (and studying it deeply as I can). The first time I ever read this passage, it never dawned on me in the slightest that Mary might be included among the people who are unbelievers! Here’s the thing; we need to be very careful about whether or not we think that Mary should be included in this category.

I am not saying this out of a special reverence for Mary. I am not Catholic. So even if Mary was a sinner, it wouldn’t bother my theology in the slightest. However, this idea that Mark presents Mary as an unbeliever is a premise in an argument that skeptical New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman has used to try to argue that Matthew and Luke just sort of made up the miraculous elements surrounding his birth, and especially that Jesus was born of a virgin. Ehrman writes “If the stories of the miraculous conception and birth of Jesus were historically accurate, it is very difficult to explain why Jesus’ own family—including his mother, who would certainly have known the circumstances of his birth—is portrayed as not understanding who he was during his ministry (see Mark 3:21, 31–35).” ^[2]Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 98.

Ehrman’s overall argument is that the miraculous elements of Jesus’ birth are not historical. Ehrman does think this interaction in Mark 3 is historical on the basis of the criterion of embarrassment. Part of this argument is on the assumption that Mark was written first and Matthew and Luke came along later. This is a very widely held view of the order that the synoptic gospels were written in is shared by both Christian and non-Christian scholars like. Although it does have its detractors. That is neither here nor there for the purposes of this blog post. The thing is; I actually agree with Bart Ehrman’s reasoning! I know, right!? Take a screenshot of this paragraph! You won’t see it very often! But I agree with Dr. Ehrman’s reasoning. The problem is that his modus ponens is my modus tollens!

Ehrman reasons

1: If the virgin birth is historical, Mary would not disbelieve in Jesus.

2: Mary disbelieves in Jesus.

3: Therefore, the virgin birth is not historical.

But I have always reasoned (long before Ehrman was even on my radar, as a baby Christian) that

1: If the virgin birth is historical, Mary would not disbelieve in Jesus.

2: The Virgin Birth is historical.

3: Therefore, Mary did not disbelieve in Jesus.

And honestly, if you look at the passage closely, there is no reason to think the words “His family” have to include every last member of Jesus’ family. If I say “My family are non-Christians”, while you could infer that my Dad and aunt don’t believe, the fact is that they do. But the Christians in my family have mostly died out leaving a majority non-Christian percentage, especially with new members having been grafted in the late 2010s. Jesus had several brothers (James, Jude), and some unnamed sisters. (See Matthew 13:55-56). So this was likely a large group of people who were coming to the house that Jesus was teaching in. If every member in that group with the exception of Mary were skeptic, then you could say “When his family heard it, they went out to restrain him, for people were saying, ‘He has gone out of his mind.‘ “Mark 3:21) NRSV) Mary is definitely present with the brothers and sisters, and this is likely due to the fact that in the ancient world, women were very vulnerable when there weren’t men around to protect them. Regardless of what Mary thought of her son Jesus, she would not have probably been left alone all by herself without at least one male family member to look after her. This is why some people say that Jesus gave his mother to John at the cross (see John 19:26).

In the Gospel of Mark, this event takes place in Capernaum, not Nazareth. While Jesus grew up in Nazareth, Mark’s narrative identifies Capernaum as his “home” base during his Galilean ministry. Specifically, Mark 3:20 states that Jesus “went home” (or “into a house,” eis oikon), which most scholars and commentators identify as Peter’s house in Capernaum. ^[3]See R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 165. See also William L. Lane, The Gospel according to Mark, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), … Continue reading

So, I just see no reason to include Mary among the list of family members who were opposed to Jesus. The way the passage is worded, Mary could be included, but it possible that “his family” refers to the group in general, or to all members BUT Mary.

Alternatively, biblical scholar D.A Carson has proposed another interpretation. He writes “The family of Jesus, including his mother, did not necessarily lack faith in his identity, but they certainly failed to grasp the nature of his mission. Their attempt to ‘restrain’ him (Mark 3:21) should be seen as a misguided attempt to protect him from the pressures of the crowd and his own apparent lack of concern for his physical well-being, rather than a denial of the miraculous events surrounding his birth.” ^[4]D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 168.

And upon looking at the Markan passage, in light of what Carson said, I noticed that the text (at least in the NRSV) doesn’t say that his family was saying that Jesus was out of his mind, but that Jesus’s family went to sieze him because “people” were saying that he was out of his mind. So Carson might be right. That said, we know from John 7 at least, that Jesus’ brothers did not believe in him. So it isn’t implausible that the brothers of Jesus could have shared in this opinion of the “people” of Capernaum. However, I do have doubts about Carson’s proposal. It seems that whether the group of people who thought that Jesus was out of his mind were the family members of Jesus, the townspeople, or both is somewhat uncertain and what impression you get kind of depends on the translation you read. The NET Bible says “When his family heard this they went out to restrain him, for they said, ‘He is out of his mind.‘” (Mark 3:21, NET 2nd ed.) One of the things I love about the NET Bible is that they have multiple footnotes explaining the reasoning behind their translation decisions. The footnote says “tc Western witnesses D W it, instead of reading οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ (hoi par’ aujtou, here translated “family”), have περὶ αὐτοῦ οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ λοιποί (peri autou hoi grammateis kai hoi loipoi, “[when] the scribes and others [heard] about him”). But this reading is obviously motivated, for it removes the embarrassing statement about Jesus’ family’s opinion of him as ‘out of his mind’ and transfers this view to the Lord’s opponents. The fact that virtually all other witnesses have οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ here, coupled with the strong internal evidence for the shorter reading, shows this Western reading to be secondary. tn On the meaning “family” for οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ (hoi par’ autou), see BDAG 756–57 s.v. παρά A.3.b.β.ב.” ^[5]NET Bible 2nd Edition, Footnote 43

In conclusion, there are two solutions to the apparent tension;

1: Mary was the exception. While “His family” is said by Mark not to believe in him and have come to sieze him “because he’s out of his mind”, the phrase “His family” need not refer to every last blood relative of Jesus. And honestly, if you carry this logic out consistently enough, it gets a bit silly. Joseph was his family too. He was not related to Jesus by blood, but he was his stepfather, technically speaking. Most scholars think that Joseph was likely dead by this time. ^[6]e.g Richard Watson in “A Biblical and Theological Dictionary”, page 545. So did Joseph get out of his grave just to go see his son and call him a lunatic?

2: D.A Carson’s proposal that due to the people of the town saying Jesus was out of his mind, Mary and her other sons came to seize Jesus out of a protective urge.

I myself favor the position I’ve always held, which would be the first option. Agreeing with Ehrman’s reasoning (just in the other direction), I don’t think Jesus’ mother is included in the list of family members saying. “He is out of his mind.” Therefore, Bart Ehrman’s argument that the doctrine of the Virgin Birth (which I do affirm) is not true on the basis of Mark 3 is an unsound argument.

This serves as an object lesson to us. As Christians, we need to be careful with how we interpret biblical passages. Some people may wonder why I spend so much time arguing against things like Calvinism and Eternal Consious Torment and Young Earth Creationism on this site. The reason is that these views hinder the reasonableness of Christianity. They are not just unbiblical, but stumbling blocks! While we should never change our theology or interpretations of biblical passages just to appease non-Christians, if what we are teaching is not Biblical or theologically sound in the first place, then we are making it harder for people to enter the kingdom of God than it needs to be (Acts 15:19). In refuting misinterpretations of certain passages, or even whole theological systems, I am not just doing theology and exegesis, I am at the same time doing Apologetics! When well meaning Christians interpret Mark 3 as depicting Mary as an unbeliever, they are unwittingly giving the non-Christian ammo to attack the reliability of the Bible!

Before you click off, don’t forget to scroll down past the footnotes and subscribe to the newsletter so you can be alerted to whenever I have new blog posts out. I used to market my blog on Facebook, but given how certain FB Groups are governed and how much of a nightmare the algorithm has come, that has become a less reliable method of getting people to see my writings. But if you subscribe to the newsletter below, you won’t be at the mercy of a social media algorithm, you will have my blog post delivered to you in your email. So unless you are really bad about checking your emails, you should not miss when a new post is out. Peace out, God bless, and keep using the brains that God gave you.

I hope everyone has a Merry Christmas! Christ our Savior was born to grow up and die on the cross for our sins. And he was born of a virgin.