Mark 3:22-30

In Mark 3 Jesus’s mission is under attack.

After announcing the coming of God’s kingdom (Mark 1:14–15),

he begins to heal the sick,

cast out demons,

teach with authority,

call disciples,

and even forgive sins.

But not everyone is happy with him.

READ

Mark 3:22–30 ESV

22 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and “by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.” 23 And he called them to him and said 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 is coming to an end. 27 But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. Then indeed he may plunder his house. 28 “Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”— 30 for they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.”

In Mark 3:22–30 the scribes challenge the source of Jesus’s authority, claiming it comes from Beelzebul, the prince of demons (Satan).

In response, Jesus points out that his attacks on the kingdom of Satan invalidate the accusation that he’s working with Satan.

Jesus says he came to bind the strong man (that is, Satan) in order that he himself, as the stronger man (cf. Mark 1:7), might plunder Satan’s house. This is Jesus’s own explanation of the events we encounter in Mark 1–3.

But what did this binding of the strong man mean back then? And what difference does it make right now?

Jesus came to crush the devil.

First, Jesus came to defeat the Devil.

We can lose sight of this point since the Gospels contain many stories. But at a foundational level the Gospels are about Jesus’s victory over Satan (cf. 1 John 3:8).

Before we get to Mark 3—a text that features Jesus, the Devil, and the Holy Spirit—Mark’s readers have already encountered the wilderness temptation (1:12–13) featuring the same three characters.

We’re therefore encouraged to read the binding of the strong man in light of Jesus’s obedience in the temptation episode.

So how should we understand the temptation episode?

Most probably view the Devil’s threefold challenge and Jesus’s scriptural response as an example for us as we fight temptation. This is a valid application, and Jesus does indeed provide a model for us.

But is there more? When we read Mark’s account, we’re struck by how distinctive it is: Jesus was with wild animals and angels ministered to him. How is that a model for us?

It’s better to think of Jesus’s temptation primarily as a unique event in the history of redemption when God’s anointed Son battled and bound the Devil as part of his kingdom work.

Reading Mark’s temptation account as Jesus’s initial victory over Satan fits well with Mark 3:22–30.

Jesus’s explanation of binding the strong man employs kingdom language (3:24–27), and only after Jesus’s obedience in the wilderness does he announce the coming of the kingdom (1:14–15).

Jesus is the king who establishes the kingdom on the basis of his own obedience. The battle with Satan isn’t over in Mark 1 or Mark 3 (Jesus will end up sacrificing his life to establish the kingdom fully), but a decisive blow has already been dealt.

Jesus can forgive your sins.

Second, Jesus’s binding of the strong man means he can grant forgiveness of sins.

We see this in the logical relationship between Mark 3:27 and 3:28.

Jesus says that the one who binds the strong man can plunder the strong man’s house (3:27). Then he immediately says “all sins” and “whatever blasphemies” will be forgiven (except the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit) (3:28).

In other words, the forgiveness explained in 3:28 is a result of Jesus’s binding of the strong man recounted in 3:27.

We will try to discuss the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in the latter part of the lesson,

we shouldn’t miss the incredible scope of forgiveness

Jesus grants in 3:28: all sins and whatever blasphemies.

Put simply, there is no sin or blasphemy beyond the scope of Jesus’s authority to forgive. Again, this wide-ranging forgiveness logically results from Jesus’s wide-ranging obedience by which he bound the enemy.

Here’s the crux of the matter:

Because Jesus is stronger than the strong man, he can offer those who trust him full and unfettered forgiveness for every sin.

Jesus gives life where Adam brought death.

Third, the literary relationship between the binding of the strong man and Jesus’s temptation shows us that Jesus is the new Adam who brings life in place of death.

Jesus’s testing took place in the wilderness, the deserted landscape resulting from Adam’s sin.

Jesus’s peaceful coexistence with the wild animals shows him exercising dominion over creation, which sinful humanity failed to do (cf. Isa. 11:1–9).

Whereas Adam should’ve cast out the serpent who called into question God’s Word, Jesus overcame the Devil—and indeed bound him (cf. Rev. 20:2)

Revelation 20:2 ESV

2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years,

—This was part of his faithfulness to his messianic task.

Adam should’ve obeyed unto life; instead, Adam sinned and brought death. Jesus obeyed fully, even unto death, and his obedience brings everlasting life.

Jesus bound the strong man through obedience to God’s will. And only this fully obedient Savior has the authority to grant you life and forgive your sins.

The unforgivable sin.

This has been a topic for the last 2,000 years that believers have debated. Debating wether they or another brother or sister in Christ had committed.

We know this was an issue in the early church and several denominations over the years have had their own thought on the matter.

For many, it was understood that a falling away under persecution, for example, was this kind of unforgivable sin. And we know different portions of the church split over whether a relapsed Christian could re-enter the church.

We know of many stories including a most tragic one where an English Puritan name John Child actually took his own life, convinced in despair he’d committed this unforgivable, unpardonable sin.

The “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit” language comes directly from the Gospels and is found in parallel accounts in Matthew 12:31-32, Mark 3:28-29, and Luke 12:10.

In all these cases the literary context varies slightly, but there’s a consistency in emphasizing the one greatest and unforgivable sin - the “speaking against” or “blaspheming” of the Holy Spirit.

There are a few very old resources that understand the unforgivable sin to be opposing the Spirits’s work.

Many in the church connected this saying with the “sin unto death from 1 John 5:16. This is understood as an unforgivable post-conversion relapse, while others interpreted it more generally as a rejection of the gospel.

There have been many that I have heard apply the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit as being suicide. This is not even close to anything biblical.

Another misinterpretation would be to understand the blasphemy too generically as meaning that anyone who at any point rejects Christ openly can’t be a true Christian later.

We see contrary evidence in both Peter and Paul.

Paul’s conversion story wasn’t simply one of ignorance and then acceptance of Christ but rather one of hardened opposition to Christ and his followers preceding his conversion (Acts 9:1-19). Such open rejection of Jesus apparently wasn’t an unforgivable sin.

Even more shocking, Peter himself—after following Jesus for some time—denies him openly (three times!), yet is restored not only to forgiveness but leadership in the early church (John 18:15-27; 21:15-19).

AUGUSTINE, who dedicated one whole sermon to this topic, is most known for arguing that the blasphemy isn’t a specific act but a state of enmity and impenitence lasting unto death. It’s a hardness of heart that, if not repented of in this life, will prove to be unforgiven.

In this sense, then, the blasphemy is understood simply as unbelief that persists throughout life.

Which is something that many theologians will accept.

Mark 9. The Accusation of Demon Possession and the Warning against the Unforgivable Sin (3:22–30)

Thus in both Mark and 1 John the unforgivable sin is the stubborn refusal to acknowledge that God is working/ has worked in the man Jesus.

But when you read also Warren Weiresbe or Jonathan Pennington . They seem to have a more fuller understanding of this and more specific understanding.

Pennington writes that

Augustine’s view that the unforgivable sin is a state of unrepentant enmity toward God isn’t wrong, but it doesn’t deal with the specificity to which the Gospel texts speak. It’s certainly a truism and a valid reading/application of these texts to argue that a state of unbelieving enmity toward Christ results in no forgiveness. But the first reading of the blasphemy of the Spirit in the Gospel texts is much more specific: it’s a hardened evaluation of Jesus’ work as being demonic in origin.

Matthew’s additional material in 12:33-37 both makes this reading clear and also shows interpreters have regularly misunderstood how 12:33-37 relates to 12:22-32.

Continuing in his argument, Jesus forces the Pharisees to face their own position and make a choice—either declare that he’s a good tree or a bad one (12:33).

It makes no sense to say he’s a bad tree (demonic in origin) producing good fruit (healings)

the blasphemy against the Spirit is saying that Jesus’ good works (by the Spirit) are the fruit of a bad (demonic) tree.

So… Blasphemy against the Spirit, this consistency of saying that Jesus’ good works (by the Spirit) are the fruit of a bad (demonic) tree, THAT is the unforgivable sin. But also the ultimate rejection of Jesus as Lord.