20 Then he went home, and the crowd gathered again, so that they could not even eat. 21 And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, “He is out of his mind.”
These verses are unique to Mark. In fact, this is the first time that we would have been introduced to Jesus’ family. There is no birth narrative in the gospel of Mark. Why does Mark do this? Why does it seem that Jesus’ family think Him to be out of his mind?
The problem of language
If you read Mark 3:20-21 in your King James Bible it’ll read a bit differently. Rather than having his family trying to seize him, the KJV reads that it was “his friends” who went to lay hold of him, because he was “beside himself”.
Which is it? Family or friends?
Mark’s language here is ambiguous. Literally it reads “those of him”. This could mean his associates, his followers, his friends, his kin, or his family. The context alone will help us determine meaning.
It is the context which has caused some to see this as family. The family appears again in verse 31. They have arrived and they are looking for Jesus. The words used there are similar to verse 21, and this appears to be another Markan sandwich—where he combines two stories and has a main point in between them.
If verse 21 is someone other than the family, then it doesn’t work for Mark’s sandwich. The context seems to lean us toward it being the family.
But such a view is not without its problems.
The problem of Christmas
This is not a problem for Mark, but it is for those of us desiring to harmonize the Gospels. If Luke and Matthew are correct in what happened with Mary (and there is no reason to believe they are not) then Mary would have known about Jesus’ identity as the Messiah. How would she have had the experiences that she had in the birth narrative and then 30 years later, think that Jesus was a crazy loon for doing the things which Messiah would do?
But this isn’t a problem only for Mark. There are instances in each of the gospels where it seems that Jesus was rejected even by his immediate family. Certainly, it would not be strange for us to imagine Mary having a certain image in her mind of what Messiah would do. And she too might have experienced some level of consternation when her son doesn’t match up to expectations.
But perhaps we shouldn’t be so quick to reject other options for translation. Maybe the reference is to his disciples—and they don’t think he’s crazy, but it means something entirely different.
Other Possible Explanations
The immediate context might suggest the disciples other than Jesus’ family. After all, he has just introduced the calling of the twelve disciples. Why would we so quickly move to thinking “those of him” is a reference to family and not his disciples? But what would be the meaning of the passage if it is the disciples?
One explanation is that Jesus was absolutely exhausted—he couldn’t even eat. He isn’t “mad” as much as he is “overwhelmed.” And his disciples are doing what kinfolk ought to do in such a situation—they are taking care of their vulnerable.
A similar line of argument is put forth where Jesus’ disciples don’t think the Jesus is insane but rather the crowd. Here, you end up with a translation like that of H. Wansbrough1: ‘When they heard it, his followers went out to calm it [the crowd] down, for they said that it was out of control with enthusiasm.”
Creative, but not entirely plausible. For one, it would destroy the Markan sandwich—and for what? What point in the context would this make? That Jesus is tired and needs his disciples to watch out for Him? How would that thrust us into a conversation about the strong man?
A suggested interpretation
I believe the traditional interpretation—that his family were the ones desiring to seize/control/bind him—is the correct translation. But I wonder if “out of his mind” might give us the wrong impression. What if, rather than a comment on His psychological well-being it is a comment on His social well-being?
In their book, Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes, Richards and James labor to help us Westerners understand the concept of honor. And in particular how honor relates to things like kinship. In one particular section, the authors interact with John 6. Why are the religious leaders so off put by Jesus’ claim of being bread from heaven? They explain:
Like the manna that God miraculously provided, Jesus would need to be ascribed this honor by God. They point to his known ascribed honor—his family of origin. His claim doesn’t match his ascribed honor, in their view. In this case, the court of opinion began to rule against Jesus. (Richards, 163)
What if something similar is happening here? Jesus’ family doesn’t think he’s a loon—not in the same way that we would think that—but rather that His claims, His gathering disciples, etc. is causing difficulty for the family. It’s giving them a bad reputation and they are losing honor.
What they attempt to do is to seize Jesus. To control Him, and bound Him. To put Him back into proper order befitting his station in society.
This fits with the middle of the sandwich as well. The point there is that there is a strong man (Satan) who needs bound. Only a Stronger Man (Jesus) is able to do this. But what is happening is that Jesus’ family, friends, and the religious leaders are attempting to bind Jesus. It’s as if they are attempting to make Jesus submit to societal and kinship rules—which He supersedes.
His family tries to bind him by their assumption that they have a special relationship with him. The scribes try to use authority and accusation. Both are attempting to bind up the Stronger Man.
But Jesus will not be bound. He has come to destroy the works of the devil—he’s binding up this strong man—and nobody will bind up Him. Nobody will dictate what Jesus says or what Jesus does. He is sovereign. He is the authority.
Conclusion
Did Jesus’ family think He was crazy? Probably. But not quite in the way we might make this accusation today. They thought He was placing Himself outside the bounds of normal society. This is a “crazy” act. And so they are trying to reign Jesus back in.
But Jesus will not be reigned in—Jesus will reign!
—
1 H. Wansbrough, NTS 18 (1971/2) 233–35
