And it came to pass, [that] when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence.
53 58. The Prophet in his own Country. Mar 6:1-6
where the incident is placed between the cure of Jairus’ daughter and the mission of the Twelve, Luk 4:16-30, where our Lord’s discourse in the synagogue is given at length. But many commentators hold with great probability that St Luke’s narrative refers to a different and earlier visit to Nazareth.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Mark relates this passage, Mar 6:1-4. Our Lord went up and down preaching the gospel: he having preached unto the people in the former parables, now he departeth from the seaside, where he preached as before,
into his own country, most interpreters judge Nazareth; he was born in Bethlehem, but we read little or nothing of any time he spent there afterward. Nazareth was the place where he was brought up, and therefore he was called Jesus of Nazareth. There he preached in the synagogue, or in the synagogues of Galilee. Mark addeth, on the sabbath day.
Insomuch that they were astonished: it is not said they repented, or believed, but they admired at him, and were astonished.
And said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? That is, a power to do these mighty works. Mark saith, Whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this that is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands? Astonishment and admiration flow from ignorance, and are no indications of any spiritual saving work upon mens hearts: we shall see that these Jews, notwithstanding their astonishment, are by and by scandalized, and offended at Christ.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
53. And it came to pass, that, whenJesus had finished these parables, he departed thence.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And it came to pass that, when Jesus had finished these parables,…. Which he spoke both to the multitude from the ship, and to his disciples in the house,
he departed thence; from the house in which he was, and the city of Capernaum, where he had some time been.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| The Contempt of Christ by His Countrymen. |
| |
53 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence. 54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? 55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? 57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. 58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.
We have here Christ in his own country. He went about doing good, yet left not any place till he had finished his testimony there at that time. His own countrymen had rejected him once, yet he came to them again. Note, Christ does not take refusers at their first word, but repeats his offers to those who have often repulsed them. In this, as in other things, Christ was like his brethren; he had a natural affection to his own country; Patriam quisque amat, non quia pulchram, sed quia suam–Every one loves his country, not because it is beautiful, but because it is his own. Seneca. His treatment this time was much the same as before, scornful and spiteful. Observe,
I. How they expressed their contempt of him. When he taught them in their synagogue, they were astonished; not that they were taken with his preaching, or admired his doctrine in itself, but only that it should be his; looking upon him as unlikely to be such a teacher. Two things they upbraided him with.
1. His want of academical education. They owned that he had wisdom, and did mighty works; but the question was, Whence he had them: for they knew that he was not brought up at the feet of the rabbin: he had never been at the university, nor taken his degree, nor was called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. Note, Mean and prejudiced spirits are apt to judge of men by their education, and to enquire more into their rise than into their reasons. “Whence has this man these mighty works? Did he come honestly by them? Has he not been studying the black art?” Thus they turned that against him which was really for him; for if they had not been wilfully blind, they must have concluded him to be divinely assisted and commissioned, who without the help of education gave such proofs of extraordinary wisdom and power.
2. The meanness and poverty of his relations, Mat 13:55; Mat 13:56.
(1.) They upbraid him with his father. Is not this the carpenter’s son? Yes, it is true he was reputed so: and what harm in that? No disparagement to him to be the son of an honest tradesman. They remember not (though they might have known it) that this carpenter was of the house of David (Luke i. 27), a son of David (ch. i. 20); though a carpenter, yet a person of honour. Those who are willing to pick quarrels will overlook that which is worthy and deserving, and fasten upon that only which seems mean. Some sordid spirits regard no branch, no not the Branch from the stem of Jesse (Isa. xi. 1), if it be not the top branch.
(2.) They upbraid him with his mother; and what quarrel have they with her? Why, truly, his mother is called Mary, and that was a very common name, and they all knew her, and knew her to be an ordinary person; she was called Mary, not Queen Mary, nor Lady Mary, nor so much as Mistress Mary, but plain Mary; and this is turned to his reproach, as if men had nothing to be valued by but foreign extraction, noble birth, or splendid titles; poor things to measure worth by.
(3.) They upbraid him with his brethren, whose names they knew, and had them ready enough to serve this turn; James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas, good men but poor men, and therefore despised; and Christ for their sakes. These brethren, it is probable, were Joseph’s children by a former wife; or whatever their relation was to him, they seem to have been brought up with him in the same family. And therefore of the calling of three of these, who were of the twelve, to that honour (James, Simon, and Jude, the same with Thaddeus), we read not particularly, because they needed not such an express call into acquaintance with Christ who had been the companions of his youth.
(4.) His sisters too are all with us; they should therefore have loved him and respected him the more, because he was one of themselves, but therefore they despised him. They were offended in him: they stumbled at these stumbling-stones, for he was set for a sign that should be spoken against,Luk 2:34; Isa 8:14.
II. See how he resented this contempt, Mat 13:57; Mat 13:58.
1. It did not trouble his heart. It appears he was not much concerned at it; he despised the shame, Heb. xii. 2. Instead of aggravating the affront, or expressing an offence at it, or returning such an answer to their foolish suggestions as they deserved, he mildly imputes it to the common humour of the children of men, to undervalue excellences that are cheap, and common, and home-bred. It is usually so. A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country. Note, (1.) Prophets should have honour paid them, and commonly have; men of God are great men, and men of honour, and challenge respect. It is strange indeed if prophets have not honour. (2.) Notwithstanding this, they are commonly least regarded and reverenced in their own country, nay, and sometimes are most envied. Familiarity breeds contempt.
2. It did for the present (to speak with reverence), in effect, tie his hands: He did not many mighty works there, because of their unbelief. Note, Unbelief is the great obstruction to Christ’s favours. All things are in general possible to God (ch. xix. 26), but then it is to him that believes as to the particulars, Mark ix. 23. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation, but then it is to every one that believes, Rom. i. 16. So that if mighty works be not wrought in us, it is not for want of power or grace in Christ, but for want of faith in us. By grace ye are saved, and that is a mighty work, but it is through faith, Eph. ii. 8.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
JESUS RETURNS TO NAZARETH, AGAIN REJECTED
V. 53-58
1) “And it came to pass,” (kai egento) “And it occurred,” very shortly thereafter.
2) “That when Jesus had finished these parables,” (hote etelesen ho lesous paraboles tautas) “That when Jesus ended these parables,” completed giving them to His disciples, to whom He gave the last three, after giving the first four to the multitudes, Mat 13:1-3; Mat 13:10-11; Mat 13:24; Mat 13:31; Mat 13:36.
3) “He departed thence.” (meteren ekeithen) “He left that place,” where He had been, in His residence in Capernaum, Mt 4:13,35; 13:36.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
Mat 13:53
. When Jesus had concluded. Matthew does not mean, that immediately after delivering these discourses, he came into his own country; for it is evident from Mark, that some interval of time elapsed. But the meaning is, that after having taught for some time in Judea, he returned again to the Galileans, but did not receive from them kind treatment. A narrative which Luke gives (Luk 4:22) is nearly similar, but is not the same. Nor ought we to wonder that Christ’s countrymen, when they perceived that his family was mean and despised, and that he had been poorly educated, were at first so much offended as to murmur at his doctrine, and afterwards persevered in the same malice to such an extent, that they did not cease to slander him, when he chose to discharge the office of a prophet amongst them. This second rejection of Christ shows that the space of time which had intervened had not effected a reformation on the inhabitants of Nazareth, but that the same contempt was constantly thrown as an obstacle in the way, to prevent them from hearing Christ. (345)
(345) “ A fin de n’approcher de luy, et de ne recevoir sa doctrine;” — “that they might not approach to him, and might not receive his doctrine.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
CRITICAL NOTES
Mat. 13:54. His own country.The district of Nazareth.
Mat. 13:55. The carpenters son (see Mar. 6:3).Joseph was an artificer, for the word carpenter must not be interpreted in its narrowed modern import. The word carpenter originally meant cart-maker. But the term employed by the Evangelist rather corresponds to our more general word wright, which properly means just a workman, being etymologically connected with the word work or wrought. Like the Evangelists Greek term, it would originally designate an artificer, who worked, indeed, in wood, but not exclusively so. (Morison). His brethren.An exceedingly difficult question here arises, What were these brethren and sisters (Mat. 13:56) to Jesus? Were they:
1. His full brothers and sisters? or:
2. His step-brothers and step-sisters, children of Joseph by a former marriage? or:
3. His cousins, according to a common way of speaking among the Jews respecting persons of collateral descent? On this subject an immense deal has been written; nor are opinions yet by any means agreed. For the second opinion there is no ground but a vague tradition, arising probably from the wish for some such explanation. The first opinion undoubtedly suits the text best in all the places where the parties are certainly referred to (Mat. 12:46 and its parallels, Mar. 3:31 and Luk. 8:19; our present passage and its parallel, Mar. 6:3; Joh. 2:12; Joh. 7:3; Joh. 7:5; Joh. 7:10; Act. 1:14). But, in addition to other objections, many of the best interpreters, thinking it in the last degree improbable that our Lord, when hanging on the cross, would have committed His mother to John if He had had full brothers of His own then alive, prefer the third opinion; although, on the other hand, it is not to be doubted that our Lord might have good reasons for entrusting the guardianship of His doubly widowed mother to the beloved disciple in preference even to full brothers of His own. Thus dubiously we prefer to leave this vexed question, encompassed as it is with difficulties (Brown).
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Mat. 13:53-58
Jesus in Nazareth.The end of this chapter is, perhaps, connected with the end of the last. Some of the people of Nazareth, including at any rate those amongst them who were nearest of kin to the Saviour, are described there as coming to Him; though not (apparently) in the spirit of sympathy with His work (Mat. 12:46-50). Here we find Him, not impossibly on account of that visit, coming to them. The incidents related are such as to throw, first, some light upon them; secondly, more light upon Him.
I. Some light upon them.Evidently, in the first place, they were not amongst the distinguished ones of the earth. Persons of culture, persons of learning, persons of influence were not common amongst them. When anyone came to their synagogue who could teach with effect it seems to have been a surprise. It was certainly so when they found the Speaker to be one of themselvesa man brought up amongst thema man whose father, and whose fathers occupation as a carpenter, were known to them alland whose other relations, also, of the nearest description, were all of them as well known to them, even by name (Mat. 13:55-56). Who would have thought of such an one appearing amongst us? Are those who belong to Him, and who are with us, anything of the kind? Are they not rather, all of them, just the same as ourselves? Persons who make no pretension, and have no right to do so, to anything more? Evidently also, in the next place, like most common-place folk, they were a very prejudiced set. It was not only an astonishmentit was an offence to themthat there should be such a man in their midst (Mat. 13:57). Far from glorying in the fact that He was one of them, they objected to Him the more on that ground. What right had He to be a man of such a different stamp? That He was so, and that both in word and deed, it was impossible to deny. The wisdom He spoke with, the mighty works which accompanied it, were as manifest as Himself (Mat. 13:54). What exasperated them was that they could not make out how it was they were there. Whence hath this man all these things? The very language of prejudice ever since it was born. It will not accept what yet it cannot deny. It will not trace facts to their source. It will not submit to learn from them what they are intended to teach. It quarrels with them simply for being facts. It only wishes them out of their way.
II. More light upon Him.Light, for example, on what He had been in the days of the past. Why were they so exceedingly astonished to see so much in Him now? Because they had seen so little in Him up to that time. It is evident that when He left Nazareth to be baptised of the Baptist, and to open His chief ministry, after a short probable stay in Juda, in Capernaum and its neighbourhood (Mat. 4:12, etc.), there was no one amongst themwith one possible exception (Luk. 2:19), who knew the kind of man that He was. It is evident also (Luk. 4:23) that they heard of His doings at Capernaum on this account, with no little surprise. And just as evident (as we have noticed) that, when He now brings His greatness amongst them, they are astonished still more. Evidently, once more therefore, there had been no preliminary scintillations of all this during those many years that He had been dwelling amongst them before the baptism of John. Whatever His thoughts, whatever His hopes, whatever His plans, whatever His powers had been during those thirty long years of dwelling amongst them up to that datethose years, on His part, had been years of long silence and self-restraint in more directions than one. It is a picture to mark! How singularly unobtrusive, how retiring, how meek His life then must have been! How much must have been repressed that they should now look on the opposite with such unmeasured surprise. What was Jesus of Nazareth to all outward appearance during all those years? Just a Nazareneand no more. Light, in the next place, as to what He is to them now. How desirous to teach! Going into their synagogue where He would have the readiest opportunity for so doing; and availing Himself of it when He was there to offer them instruction. Little as they either expected or wished it, they should have the offer of light from His hands. How ready, again, to make allowance for such unpreparedness to hear on their part! He well knew that it was but with them as with all men in this world. No man likes to find one of his apparent equals claiming, for all that, to be one endowed with such gifts as to make him his superior in any important respect; least of all to make him so in such a capacity as that of a prophet (Mat. 13:57). If these His townsfolk, therefore, had such a feeling now with regard to Himself, He was the more disposed by it to feel sorrow than either disappointment or wrath. At any rate, it should not induce Him to withhold from them entirely that which He knew He was able to give. He would do some works among them, if not many, whatever their prejudices. They should have some witness among them, if not so much as some others, notwithstanding their unbelief (Mat. 13:58). A most gracious answer indeedas gracious an answer as the case admitted ofto such behaviour as theirs.
Let us learn from all this, for our own use and instruction:
1. To beware of limiting God.It is not for us to say where He is to look for the instruments of His work. No place, certainly, seemed less likely for such a purpose than Nazareth did at that time (Joh. 1:46). Those who knew it best, its own inhabitants, thought so the most. Also, amongst its inhabitants no one appeared less likely for such a calling and that for the years of a generation than Jesus Himself. Yet never has there been called, from anywhere else, such a Teacher and Lighteven the Light of the world.
2. To beware of despising any.Probably greater prejudice, and less excuse for it, there never was in the world than amongst these townsfolk of Jesus. Yet, with all the scorn that they showed to Him, and all the multitudes waiting to hear Him elsewhere, there is no contempt in His treatment of them. If He does not give to them what is due rather to others, He still has something for them. He has something for them, though they, on their part, have only prejudice and anger for Him.
HOMILIES ON THE VERSES
Mat. 13:55. The carpenters son.Consider how the fact that Jesus was a carpenter should be a help to our faith.
I. This fact is a sign of the humility of Christ.It is true that when He came down the tremendous way, from heavens glory to mans humiliation, it did not signify so very much to Him whether He alighted at a kings palace or a peasants cottage. The condescension would not be appreciably different in the two cases. Yet to us the humility of Christ is more apparent in His lowly earthly lot.
II. This fact is a proof that Jesus Christ went through the experience of practical life.Work takes up a large part of life. It has its difficulties, its disappointments, its weariness. We all know them, whether we work with the hand or with the brain. Christ knew them too. Work has also its special requirements, its duties, its obligations. The apprentice must learn the various branches of his trade, if only that he may afterwards understand how to direct and judge of the work of the mechanics who will be under his control. Christ knows good work. When we serve Him let it be with the thoroughness He so well understands and has a right to expect.
III. This fact shows that Christ found the school for His spiritual training in His practical work.As He bent over His task with care and diligence to do it well, His soul was growing silently in those excellencies which were ultimately revealed when His disciples saw His glory full of grace and truth.
IV. This fact sheds a glory over the life of manual industry.Everything that Christ handles becomes beautiful beneath His touch. His presence in the workshop throws a holy light over its commonest contents. As the carpenter handles his tools, shall he not remember that he is doing the very work his Master did before him, and so exalted and consecrated work?
V. This fact should attract working men to Christ.How strange that it should be said that working men are not so interested in Christianity as other classes. It must be because they are repelled by the artificial respectability of the church. It cannot be that they see anything in Christ Himself that is less attractive to them than to others. For He was a working man Himself.W. F. Adeney, M.A.
Mat. 13:56. The originality of Jesus.When Jesus began to be a force in human life, there were four existent types on which men formed themselves, and which are still in evidence. One is the moral, and has the Jew for its supreme illustration, with his faith in the eternal, and his devotion to the law of righteousness. The next is the intellectual, and was seen to perfection in the Greek, whose restless curiosity searched out the reason of things, and whose sthetic taste identified beauty and divinity. The third is the political, and stood enthroned at Rome, where a nation was born in the purple and dictated order to the world. And the last is the commercial, and had its forerunner in the Phoenician, who was the first to teach the power of enterprise and the fascination of wealth. Any other man born at the beginning of the first century could be dropped into his class, but Jesus defied classification. As He moved among the synagogues of Galilee He was an endless perplexity. One could never anticipate Him. One was in despair to explain Him. Whence is He? the people whispered with a vague sense of the problem, for He marked the introduction of a new form of life. He was not referable to type; He was the beginning of a time.John Watson, M.A.
Mat. 13:57. The worlds offence in Christ.What is there offensive in Christianity to-daywhy do so many people now find in Christian teaching a cause of vexation, an incitement to opposition, or, at least, an excuse for indifference?
I. One chief cause of the opposition is the very widespread misunderstanding about this religion of Christ as to its aims and spirit.This misunderstanding may be traced to some extent to the imperfect teaching of the church in the past. But the chief cause is want of attention, the absence of any serious desire to understand which marks the attitude of so many people. In a certain tropical country, where rains were rare and streams were small, a period of drought had brought great distress upon the people. The ground was baked hard by the burning sun, the grass withered and died, the rivulets failed, the cattle began to suffer. Water even failed for the supply of the households. Things got worse and worse. Many lost their all; some even perished in the bush from thirst; when one man, more keen-witted than the rest, and having a little more knowledge of things, managed to sink a well on his farm. He soon tapped a spring, and, by a rude arrangement of buckets and ropes he was able to draw sufficient water for all his needs. He filled the great trough which ran along the front of his house, and sent to all his neighbours to tell them the good news, and to invite them to share his good fortune. But the story had gone about among the people that the man was a wizard, and that he had obtained the water by magic, and, moreover, that what was life to him would be death to everyone else. So they refused to come, and hundreds suffered and even perished in the very presence of the saving fountain. This is an allegory.
II. There is a certain unworldliness about Christ.The kingdom He founds is a spiritual one, and such teaching is not appreciated by the greater number of people. Robert Buchanan describes a meeting on London Bridge between himself and a weak and miserable old man, with bare and bleeding feetthis is Jesus, the Jew. And presently he pictures Him arraigned before the spirit of humanity, as His judge
Humanity itself shall testify
Thy kingdom is a dream, Thy word a lie,
Thyself a living canker and a curse
Upon the body of the universe.
Many there are who could echo such words if they dared. But there is one fact which stands in the way and confronts them. Christs kingdom lives! It lives and has greater vitality to-day than it ever had.
III. Men stumble at this teaching because of the slow progress and imperfect results of the preaching of Christianity.I grant that it is a natural cause of hesitation, and at first sight a difficulty. The condition of society in Christian countriesin England and America to-dayis not creditable to our professions, and must be an offence. While Christianity has power to uplift all who submit to it, it has not the power to compel men to submit. And I shrewdly suspect that if it attempted to usurp such a power, those who now complain of it as imbecile would be the first to attack it as tyrannical. But the very argument seems to allow the fact on which I lay stress. It seems to acknowledge that Christ intended to make a complete reform of society, that at least this was the ideal He set before Himself and His followers. And this is admitting a great deal. If, however, people would use their reason a little more carefully they would surely see that no religion can, by its very nature, have a power of compulsion. Christianity aims at what is radical; it touches the springs of life; and, while people are debating, fault-finding, arguing, this kingdom of Christ is quietly going on its way. It is working out its destined ends; it is renewing hearts and ennobling lives.P. W. Darnton, B.A.
Prejudice against Jesus.It was once said to a sceptic: Sir, I think you would be about the last man that would willingly do injustice to any one. He smiled and gracefully bowing said, Certainly. Well, then, sir, was the reply, I hope you will not do injustice to Jesus Christ. Pooh! said he, and turned away.C. Clemance, D.D.
Prejudice.Richard Cecil illustrates the obvious tendency of mans predilections to bias the judgment, by a watch which a gentleman put into a watchmakers hands, as it went irregularly. It was as perfect a piece of work as ever was made. He took it to pieces and put it together again twenty times. No manner of defect was to be discovered, and yet the watch went intolerably. At last, it struck him that possibly the balance might have been near a magnet. On applying a needle to it, he found his suspicions true. Here was all the mischief. The steel work in the other parts of the watch had a perpetual influence on its motions, and the watch went as well as possible with a new wheel. If the soundest mind be magnetised by any predilection, it must act irregularly.
Prejudice unreasonable.A gentleman was one day stoutly asserting that there were no gold fields, except in Mexico and Peru. A nugget, dug up in California, was presented to him as evidence against his positive assertion. He was not in the least disconcerted. This metal, sir, is, I own, extremely like gold; and you tell me that it passes as such in the market, having been declared by the assayers to be indistinguishable from the precious metal. All this I will not dispute. Nevertheless, the metal is not gold but auruminium; it cannot be gold, because gold comes only from Mexico and Peru. In vain was he informed that the geological formation was similar in California and Peru, and the metals similar; he had fixed in his mind the conclusion that gold existed only in Mexico and Peru; this was a law of naturehe had no reasons to give why it should be so; but such had been the admitted fact for many years, and from it he could not swerve.Lewes.
Mat. 13:58. Unbelief a hindrance to miracle.
I. Our Lords conduct in Nazareth.He did not perform many miracles in Nazareth because of the unbelief of the Nazarenes. This is the very opposite of what we might have been disposed to anticipate. Surely we should have thought beforehand that where there was most of unbelief there would have been the largest employment of miracle in order to overcome it. Miracles were for the production or the confirmation of faith. Moreover, our Lord had been brought up in Nazareth; all His earliest associates were there. His human breast was filled with patriotism, and therefore, doubtless, He yearned for the welfare of the Nazarenes. Yet it is of Nazareth, where there was so much unbelief, and so much prejudice to be overcome, that we are told, He did not many mighty works there, etc. What is the explanation of this? Observe:
1. That although Christ did not work many miracles in Nazareth, He did work some.Not many implies some (see Mar. 6:5). He wrought sufficient to arouse attention and excite inquiry (Mat. 13:54).
2. The evidence afforded by a miracle is not enhanced by its frequent repetition.The very opposite is really the case. The probability is that had our Lord multiplied miracles in Nazareth He would only thereby have enhanced the guilt and aggravated the final punishment of these Nazarenes, inasmuch as the greater the evidence which they resisted, the greater the guilt which would have attached to them, and the more severe the condemnation to which they would have been thereby exposed. And then there is another reason:
3. In the dealings of grace God invariably treats men as morally accountable and responsible beings.He does enough to enable those to whom the gospel is sent to believe, but no more. He does not compel the men to believe. But why was it, after all, that the unbelief of the Nazarenes restrained the wonder-working arm of the Redeemer? In St. Marks Gospel we are told, He could do no mighty works there because of their unbelief, as though to tell us that the arm of the Redeemer was paralysed by the unbelief of those amongst whom He sojourned. I think there is a deep reason to account for this; and in order to perceive that reason we should bear in mind the two-fold design with which all the miracles which Christ wrought upon earth were performed. The miracles were evidences of the Divine commission which Christ bore; but they were more than this. They were types of those wonders of grace which Christ is still able and willing to work in behalf of mens souls. In almost every instance where Christ wrought a miracle, He required in the subject of the miracle faith, as a condition of its performance. Why? Because the miracle was intended to foreshadow His mode of acting in the economy of grace.
II. The lessons which our Lords conduct afford to ourselves.
1. If not converted to God under the ordinary means of grace you have no right to expect that extraordinary means will be employed, or that, if employed, the result would be different from what it is.
2. That the great secret why we do not make greater progress in religion is unbelief.Dr. Bickersteth, Bishop of Ripon.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
55. JESUS REVISITS NAZARETH AND IS AGAIN REJECTED THERE, Mat 13:53-58 .
53. Had finished these parables Being SEVEN in number; FOUR to the people at the sea side, and THREE to the disciples at his own residence, all illustrating the principles of the divine probationary kingdom or government of God. He departed thence He left Capernaum.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And it came about that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed from that place.’
Having ‘completed His teaching’ in parables Jesus departed from that place. This is Matthew’s regular method of finalising a batch of Jesus’ teaching (Mat 5:28; Mat 11:1; Mat 19:1; Mat 26:1), and he now moves on into more narrative, building up his picture of Jesus.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Jesus Is Confirmed As The Son of God, Begins To Establish His New Congregation, Reaches Out To Gentiles, Is Acknowledged As Messiah By His Disciples, and Reveals His Inherent Glory (13:53-17:27).
The advance of the Kingly Rule of Heaven leading up to the final consummation having been made clear by His parables Jesus is now confirmed as the Son of God (Mat 14:33; Mat 16:16; Mat 18:26) and begins to establish a new open community (Mat 14:13-21; Mat 15:32-39; Mat 16:18; compare Mat 12:25; Mat 12:50; Matthew 5-7; Mat 9:15-17). This idea of commencing a new open community was not in itself a novelty among the Jews. The Pharisees had formed their own open community, the Essenes had formed an open community, Qumran had formed a closed community, the disciples of John the Baptist had formed their own open community. The difference was that all of those communities were preparatory, each in its own way awaiting the coming of God’s future Kingly Rule. But as we have seen, Jesus was now establishing God’s Kingly Rule among men (Mat 6:10; Mat 6:33; Mat 11:12; Mat 13:38; Mat 13:41). Those who came to Him therefore entered under God’s Kingly Rule.
And as He does so a new vision opens before Him, and His outreach goes out to the Gentiles as well as the Jews (Mat 15:21-28; Mat 15:31; Mat 16:13). His acceptance of this comes out in His feeding of both Jews and Gentiles with the bread of heaven (Mat 15:32-39). It is thus on mixed Jewish and Gentile territory that He is revealed to be the Messiah (Mat 16:13-20). The section closes with a clear demonstration of His Sonship and authority over the Temple (Mat 17:24-27).
But all this is built on the fact of rejection by His own home town (Mat 13:53-58) and by the civil authorities, the ‘powers that be’, in Galilee (Mat 14:1-13), followed by the continuing hostility of the most religious and respected men of the day, in combination with the teachers from Jerusalem (Mat 15:1-14; Mat 16:1-4). Those who ‘hear’ do not hear, those who ‘see’ do not see, and their hearts are hardened. But those who follow Him will both hear and see (Mat 16:17; compare Mat 11:25; Mat 13:7), even though their faith is small (Mat 14:31 (compare Mat 6:30); Mat 17:20). We can thus understand why He found it necessary to move north. The way was not to be easy.
One theme of this section is feeding. The food of the godless authorities is the head of John the Baptist on a platter (Mat 14:11) while in contrast those who seek Him feed on the bread of Heaven (Mat 14:13-21). The Gentiles who seek Him may ‘eat of the children’s food’ (Mat 15:27-28). They too thus eat of the bread of Heaven (Mat 15:32-39). The leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees is false teaching (Mat 16:5-12). That is not to be partaken of.
Note how, following the ministry of chapter 10, mention had been made of the imprisonment of John (Mat 11:2), followed by the approach of the Scribes and Pharisees to ‘attack’ Jesus (Mat 12:1-14). Now those ideas are repeated and intensified. The imprisoned John is martyred (Mat 14:1-12) and the aggressive Pharisees and Scribes are now ‘from Jerusalem’ (Mat 15:1).
Analysis of the Section Mat 13:53 to Mat 17:27
a Jesus comes to His home country. A prophet is without honour in His own country (Mat 13:53-57).
b He did not many mighty works in His home town because of their unbelief, but because of His mighty works Herod thinks that Jesus is John raised from the dead (Mat 13:58 to Mat 14:2).
c Herod arranges for the execution of John and does to him whatever he will (Mat 14:3-12).
d Jesus reveals His glory, and that He has brought food from Heaven, by feeding five thousand at one time. Then He is alone in the Mountain (Mat 14:13-21).
e Jesus walks on the water in a stiff and contrary wind and Peter is called on to walk the way of faith in the face of the tempest (Mat 14:22-31).
f They proclaim Him as the Son of God (Mat 14:32-36).
g The Scribes and Pharisees challenge Jesus about ritual washing (Mat 15:1-9).
h Jesus shows that the Pharisees are rejected because they have not been planted by the Father and are blind guides (Mat 15:10-20).
i The Canaanite woman may, as a Gentile ‘puppy’, eat of the children’s food (Mat 15:21-28).
j The crowds throng to Jesus, and the dumb, the maimed, the lame, and the blind are healed and ‘they glorified the God of Israel’ (Mat 15:29-31).
i The feeding of four thousand on Gentile territory. They eat of the children’s food (Mat 15:32-39).
h The Pharisees and Sadducees seek a sign and are refused one, apart from that of Jonah, and are described as evil and adulterous for doing so (Mat 16:1-4)
g The disciples are to beware of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Mat 16:5-12).
f Jesus is confessed as the Son of the living God (Mat 16:13-20).
e The Son of Man must suffer, and His disciples are called on to walk the way of suffering (Mat 16:21-28).
d Jesus’ glory is revealed to His three chosen disciples in the high mountain. Then they see no man but Jesus only (Mat 17:1-8).
c Elijah has come but ‘they have done to him whatever they would’ and they realise that He means John the Baptist and is referring to what happened to him (Mat 17:9-13).
b The disciples fail to heal the paralytic boy because of their unbelief, but faith will move mountains, thus although Jesus will be tried and executed He will be raised from the dead (Mat 17:14-23).
a Jesus is not recognised in His own country as the Son and therefore pays the Tribute, but He does it from His Father’s treasury (Mat 17:24-27).
Note that in ‘a’ Jesus is unrecognised for what He is because He is known too well as the son of the carpenter, and in the parallel He is unrecognised even though He is the Son of God. In ‘b’ Jesus is unable to heal in His own country because in their unbelief they do not bring their sick, although His mighty works connect Him with the resurrection, and in the parallel the disciples fail to heal because their faith is insufficient, and Jesus reveals His faith by assuring His disciples of His resurrection. In ‘c’ Herod does to John the Baptist whatever He wills, and in the parallel John the Baptist is declared by Jesus to be the coming Elijah, to whom men did what they willed. In ‘d’ Jesus displays His glory be feeding five thousand and more from five loaves and two fishes, and in the parallel He displays His glory on the Mount of Transfiguration. In ‘e’ Jesus walks on water in a stiff and contrary wind, and Peter stumbles, and in the parallel Jesus reveals He must walk the way of suffering, as must His disciples, and Peter again stumbles. In ‘f’ He is proclaimed to be the Son of God, and in the parallel He is proclaimed by Peter as the Son of the Living God. In ‘g’ the Scribes and Pharisees dispute about ritual washing, and in the parallel Jesus warns against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. In ‘h’ the Pharisees are declared not to have been planted by His Father, and to be blind guides, and in the parallel the Pharisees and Sadducees are refused the kind of sign that they want and are declared to be evil and spiritually adulterous. In ‘i’ the Canaanite woman is allowed to eat of the children’s food (that of Israel), and in the parallel the four thousand ‘eat of the children’s food’. Centrally in ‘j’ the crowds in Gentile areas throng to Jesus; the dumb, the maimed, the lame, and the blind are healed (His Messianic work is done among them) and ‘they glorify the God of Israel’.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
A Visit to Nazareth. v. 53. And it came to pass that when Jesus had finished these parables, He departed thence.
v. 54. And when He was come into His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom and these mighty works?
v. 55. Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? and His brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
v. 56. And His sisters, are they not all with us? Whence, then, hath this man all these things?
Jesus now closed this series of parables. For a time at least His disciples would be kept busy digesting the great spiritual truths which He had made known unto them. He went away from Capernaum; literally, removed Himself thence. Coming to His old home, Nazareth, He taught His former neighbors in their synagogue. This was undoubtedly a second visit, different from that spoken of Luk 6:16-30. But the results differed little from that time. At first His hearers were almost stupefied with amazement; they wondered at His wisdom, at His powers, at His ability to perform miracles. But on second thought they remember His youth in their midst. He is nothing but the son of a carpenter, a worker in wood. We know all the members of His family. The text here points very strongly both to natural brothers and sisters of the Lord. “Whence, then”: an expression of contempt; they thought they knew His whole bringing-up. They evidently did not realize that they were condemning their own town and its schools in disparaging the worth of a native son: He certainly could not have gotten all that from us!
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Mat 13:53-58 . The majority of more recent critics (Lichtenstein, L. J . p. 271 ff., de Wette, Baur, Bleek, Kstlin, Holtzmann, Keim) adhere to the view, received with special favour since Schleiermacher, that this narrative (which, moreover, in Mar 6:1 ff., comes after the raising of Jairus’ daughter) is identical with Luk 4:16-30 . But, in that case, it becomes necessary to set aside the very precise statements in Luke’s narrative on the one hand; and, on the other, to tamper with the rigid sequence so distinctly indicated by Matthew in Mat 13:53-54 ; Mat 14:1 , as has been done in the most awkward way possible by Olshausen (“he came once more to the town in which he had been brought up”). It is not without ample reason that Storr, Paulus, Wieseler, chronol. Synopse , p. 284 f., Ewald, have insisted that our passage is not identical with Luk 4:16 ff. What Luke records is an incident that took place during the first visit of Jesus to Nazareth after the temptation in the wilderness. The only passage to which this can correspond is Mat 4:12-13 , so that in Luke we get an explanation of what Matthew means by his . How conceivable, likewise, that on two occasions Jesus may have been driven from Nazareth in a similar way, so that he would be twice called upon to utter the words about the prophet being despised in his native place, “Nazarethanis priore reprehensione nihilo factis melioribus,” Beza.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
THIRD SECTION
Christ Manifests Himself as the High Priest in his Sufferings; Being Rejected(a.) By his own City Nazareth
Mat 13:53-58 (Mar 6:1-6; Luk 4:14-30)
53And it came to pass, that45 when Jesus had finished these parables [of the kingdom of heaven], he departed thence. 54And when he was come [having come, ] into his own country,46 he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch [so] that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works [the miracles]?4755Is not this the carpenters son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren 56[brothers],48 James, and Joses [Joseph],49 and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? 57And they were offended in [at] him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. 58And he did not many mighty works [miracles] there because of their unbelief.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
According to Schleiermacher and many others, the passage before us is identical with Luk 4:16. But this view is controverted by Wieseler, Ewald, and Meyer. The opinion of Schleiermacher is, however, supported by the fact, that in both passages the people of Nazareth are described as putting the question: Is not this the carpenters son, or the son of Joseph? and that in both cases the Saviour replies that a prophet is not without honor, etc. But the chronological arrangement seems to be rightly given by Luke, as his narrative fully accounts for the removal of Jesus to Capernaum. Matthew indeed furnishes different details as to the time and circumstances of this occurrence ( Mat 13:53-54). But we would suggest as probable, that the Lord may, after His controversy with the Pharisees, have retired for a time with His disciples into the mountains and to Nazareth. This may explain the introduction of this narrative. When recording the stay at Nazareth, Matthew, in his usual pragmatic method, also relates some events which had formerly taken place there. At the same time, it will be observed that the Evangelist only states the great outlines of this conflict of Jesus with His fellow-citizens, without repeating the details connected with it.
Mat 13:54. His own city.On the situation of Nazareth, and the meaning of the word, comp. the Exegetical Notes on Mat 2:23.
Whence hath this man?. By way of contempt, as if they were inquiring what schools He had attended while in their city.
Mat 13:55. The carpenters son.The word (artifex), faber lignarius in the widest sense (carpenter, wright, etc.).
[The occupation of a carpenter was always regarded as an honorable and respectable employment; hence this question was not a question of contempt, but of surprise. The Nazarenes regarded Jesus not as their inferior, but themselves as His equals, and doubted only His claim to superiority, which was forced upon
them by His wisdom and miracles. It is the same natural surprise which is always felt if an old acquaintance meets his former humble associates with a distinguished rank or reputation as a scholar, or artist, or statesman, or merchant-prince.P. S.]
A prophet.A fact of experienceexculpatory in its general bearing, but condemnatory in its special application in this instance.
Mat 13:58. He did not many miracles.Mark: He could there do no mighty works; i. e., He found them not prepared to receive, and therefore would not as He could not. The latter expression indicates not a want of power, but the moral limits which Himself imposed on the exercise of His power. However, it also implies that we are not to regard these displays of Christs power as merely the manifestations of absolute might.
Mat 13:55-57. The brothers of Jesus.
Mat 13:55. James, Joses,50 Simon, Judas (Mar 6:3).
Mar 15:40. James the Less, Joses, their mother Mary.
Joh 19:25. (Mary the wife of Cleophas.) The Apostles.
Mat 10:3. James (the son of Alphus or Cleophas).
Simon Zelotes.
Lebbeus (Thaddeus) (or Judas, the brother of James. Luk 6:16).
Act 1:13. James, the son of Alphus.
Simon Zelotes.
Judas, the brother of James.
From the above we conclude:
(1) That three brothers of the Lord bore the names of James, Simon, andJudas;
That three Apostles also bore the names of James, Simon, and Judas:
(2) That James, the brother of the Lord, had a brother called Joses [Joseph];
That the Apostle James, the son of Alphus, had a brother called Joses:
(3) That the father of the Apostle James the Less bore the name of Alphus;
That the father of Joses, the son of Mary, bore the name of Alphus:
(4) That the Apostle Judas had a brother called James;
That Judas, the brother of Jesus, had a brother called James:
(5) That the wife of Clopas or Cleophas was called Mary, and that she was the mother of James and Joses.
(6) Hence that
Cleophas was the father of James and Joses;
Cleophas was the father of the Apostle James;
Cleophas was the father of Judas, the brother of James.
(7) Besides, we have Simon, Brother of the Lord; Brother of James (brother of the Lord); Apostle of the Lord.
Manifestly, then, the brothers of the Lord and the Apostles whom we have just named are identical. The relationship existing between them was probably as follows: Clopas (Cleophas), or Alphus, was a brother of Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus (Eusebius, Mat 3:11). It is a mistake to suppose that Mary the wife of Cleophas was the sister of the mother of the Lord.51 Alphus probably died early [?], and Joseph [the poor carpenter?] adopted his family [of at least six children? and this, when their mother was still living, Joh 19:25?P. S.]; so that the cousins of Jesus became His adopted brothers, and in the eye of the law were treated as His brothers. Probably they were older than Jesus, and hence appear to have interfered on several occasions with His work. Although at an early period they were in the faith, some time elapsed before they attained to full obedience. Besides these sons, Alphus seems also to have left daughters [?].
The idea that the Apostles James the Less and Judas were different from the brothers of the Lord, originated among the Judo-Christian sect of the Ebionites. The oldest Catholic tradition, on the contrary, has always regarded them as identical (Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen).52 For further particulars, see my article Jakobus in Herzogs Real Encyclop. [vol. vi., p. 406 sqq. Comp. also Alford on Mat 13:55; Dr. Mill: On the Brethren of our Lord (quoted by Alford and Wordsworth, as defending the cousin-theory), and Sam. S. Andrews: The Life of our Lord, N. Y., 1863, p. 104 sqq.P. S.]
[Note on the Brothers of Jesus.After a renewed investigation of this difficult exegetical and historical problem, I beg leave to differ from the cousin-theory, even in the modified form so plausibly defended by Dr. Lange here and elsewhere. I shall present as clearly and concisely as I can the principal exegetical data in the case, on which the right conclusion must be based. For a fuller treatment I refer to my monograph on James (Berlin, 1842), where the whole subject is discussed exegetically and historically, with special reference to James the brother of the Lord and his relation to James the Less. (Compare also my History of the Apostolic Church p. 378, and the notes in previous parts of this Commentary, on Mat 1:25; Mat 12:46-47; Mat 13:55 above.)
1. The brothers of Jesus, four in number, and bearing the names Jacob or James, Joseph (or Joses), Simon, and Jude, are mentioned with or without their names, fourteen or fifteen times in the N. T. (not ten times, as Alford in loc. says), twice in connection with sisters (whose number and names are not recorded), viz., twelve times in the Gospels, Mat 12:46-47; Mat 13:55-56 ( and ); Mar 3:31-32; Mar 6:3 (here the sisters are likewise introduced); Luk 8:19-20; Joh 7:3; Joh 7:5; Joh 7:10;once in the Act 1:14;and once by St. Paul, 1Co 9:5, to which must be added Gal 1:19, where James of Jerusalem is called the brother of the Lord . Besides, the Saviour Himself speaks several times of His brothers (brethren), but apparently in a wider sense of the term, Mat 12:48-50; Mar 3:33-35; Mat 28:10; Joh 20:17.
In the former fourteen or fifteen passages it is agreed on all hands that the term brothers must be taken more or less literally of natural affinity, and not metaphorically or spiritually, in which sense all Christians are brethren. The question is only, whether the term means brothers proper, or cousins, according to a somewhat wider usage of the Hebrew .
2. The exegetical or grammatical (though not perhaps the dogmatical) a priori presumption is undoubtedly in favor of the usual meaning of the word, the more so since no parallel case of a wider meaning of (except the well-known and always apparent metaphorical, which is out of the question in our case), can be quoted from the New Testament. Even the Hebrew is used only twice in a wider sense, and then only extended to nephew (not to cousin), viz., Gen 13:8; Gen 14:16; of Abraham and Lot, who was his brothers son (Gen 11:27, 31), and Gen 29:12; Gen 29:15, of Laban and Jacob his sisters son (comp. Mat 13:13). Here there can be no mistake. The cases are therefore not strictly parallel with ours.
3. There is no mention anywhere of cousins or kinsmen of Jesus according to the flesh; and yet the term , consobrinus, cousin, is well known to the N. T. vocabulary (compare Col 4:10, where Mark is called a cousin of Barnabas); so also the more exact term , sisters son (comp. Act 23:26, of Pauls cousin in Jerusalem); and the more general term , kinsman, relative, occurs not less than eleven times (Mar 6:4; Luk 1:36; Luk 1:58; Luk 2:44; Luk 14:12; Luk 21:16; Joh 18:26; Act 10:24; Rom 9:3; Rom 16:7; Rom 16:11; Rom 16:21).
Now, if the brothers of Jesus were merely His cousins (either sons of a sister of Mary, as is generally assumed, or of a brother of Joseph, as Dr. Lange maintains), the question may well be asked: Why did the sacred historians not in a single instance call them by their right name, , or , or , or at least more generally ?53 By doing this they would have at once prevented all future confusion among commentators: while by uniformly using the term , without the least intimation of a wider meaning, they certainly suggest to every unbiased reader the impression that real brothers are intended.
4. In all the passages where brothers and sisters of Jesus are mentioned, except in John 7 (where they are represented in conflict with the Lord), and 1 Corinthians 9 (which was written probably after the death of Mary), they appear in close connection with Him and His mother Mary as being under her care and direction, and as forming one family. This is certainly surprising and unaccountable, if they were cousins. Why do they never appear in connection with their own supposed mother, Mary the wife of Clopas (or Alphus), who was living all the time, and stood under the cross (Mat 27:56; Joh 19:25), and at the sepulchre (Mat 27:61)?
Lange calls to his aid the double hypothesis of an early death of Clopas (whom he assumes to have been the brother of Joseph54), and the adoption of his children by the parents of Jesus, so that they became legally His brothers and sisters. But this adoption, if true, could not destroy their relation to their natural mother, Mary, who was still living, and one of the most faithful female followers of Christ. Besides, both the assumption of the early death of Clopas and the adoption of his children by Joseph, is without the shadow of either exegetical or traditionary evidence, and is made extremely improbable by the fact of the poverty of the holy family, who could not in justice to themselves and to their own Son adopt at least half a dozen children at once (four sons and two or more daughters), especially when their own mother was still living at the time. We would have to assume that the mother likewise, after the death of her husband, lived with the holy family. But would she have given up in this case, or under any circumstances, the claim and title to, and the maternal care of, her own children? Certainly not. The more we esteem this devoted disciple, who attended the Saviour to the cross and the sepulchre (Mat 27:56; Mat 27:61; Joh 19:25), the less we can think her capable of such an unmotherly and unwomanly act.
5. There is no intimation anywhere in the New Testament, either by direct assertion or by implication (unless it be the disputed passage on James, in Gal 1:19), that the brothers of Christ, or any of them, were of the number of the twelve Apostles. This is a mere inference from certain facts and combinations, which we shall consider afterward, viz., the identity of three names, James, Simon and Judas, who occur among the brothers of Christ and among the Apostles, and the fact that a certain Mary, supposed to be an aunt of Jesus, was the mother of James and Joses (but she is never called the mother of James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude), and with the fact of the eminent, Apostle-like position of James, the brother of the Lord, in the church at Jerusalem.
6. On the contrary, the brothers of Jesus are mentioned after the Apostles, and thus distinguished from them. In Act 1:13-14, Luke first enumerates the eleven by name, and then adds: These all [the Apostles] continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brethren. Here they seem to form a distinct class with their mother, next to the Apostles. So also 1Co 9:5 : . Such distinct mention of the brothers after the Apostles was not justified if three of the four, as is assumed by the cousin theory, were themselves Apostles; consequently, only one remained to make a separate class. The narrative, Mat 12:46-50, likewise implies that the brothers of Jesus who stood without, seeking to speak with Him, were distinct from the disciples (Matthew 13:69), who always surrounded Him.
7. More than this: before the resurrection of Christ, His brothers are represented in the Gospel of John, in Mat 7:3-10, long after the call of the Apostles, as unbelievers, who endeavored to embarrass the Saviour and to throw difficulties in His way. This makes it morally impossible to identify them with the Apostles. Even if only one or two of the four had been among the twelve at that time, John could not have made the unqualified remark: Neither did His brethren (brothers) believe in Him (Mat 7:5); for faith is the very first condition of the apostolate. Nor would Christ in this case have said to them: My time has not yet come; but your time is always ready; the world cannot hate you; but Me it hateth ( Mat 13:6-7); nor would He have separated from them in His journey to Jerusalem. It will not do here to weaken the force of , and to reduce their unbelief to a mere temporary wavering and uncertainty. The case of Peter, Mat 16:23, and that of Thomas, Joh 20:25, are by no means parallel. The whole attitude of the brothers of Christ, as viewed by Christ and described by John, is entirely inconsistent with that of an apostle. It is an attitude not of enemies, it is true, but of doubtful, dissatisfied friends, who assume an air of superiority, and presume to suggest to Him a worldly and ambitious policy. After the resurrection they are expressly mentioned among the believers, but as a distinct class with Mary, next to the Apostles.
All these considerations strongly urge the conclusion that the brothers of Christ were real brothers, according to the flesh, i. e., either later sons of Mary and Joseph, or sons of Joseph by a former marriage (more of this below), unless there are very serious difficulties in the way, which make this conclusion either critically, or morally, or religiously impossible.
Let us now approach these difficulties.
8. There are serious but no insurmountable objections to the conclusion just stated.
(a) The first objection is the identity in name of three of these brothers with three of the Apostles, viz., James, Simon, and Jude.55 But it should be remembered that these were among the most common Jewish names. Josephus mentions no less than twenty-one Simons, seventeen Josess, and sixteen Judes. Why could there not be two or three persons of the same name in the apostolic Church? We have at all events two Jamess, two Simons, and two Judes among the twelve Apostles. This difficulty is more than counterbalanced by the opposite difficulty of two sisters with the same name.
(b) The second objection, likewise of a critical and exegetical character, is derived from Gal 1:19 : But other of the Apostles saw I none, save ( ) James, the Lords brother. Here James, who was one of the brothers of Jesus, seems to be included among the Apostles, and this must have been James of Alphus, or James the Less.56 But the passage bears the exactly opposite interpretation, if after we supply simply: , and not , viz.: I saw none other of the Apostles (besides Peter, Mat 13:18), but only (I saw) James, the Lords brother. This interpretation is very old,57 and is defended by some of the highest grammatical authorities of our age.58 I think with Meyer 59 that James is here distinguished from the twelve to whom Peter belonged, and yet at the same time mentioned with the Apostles in a wider sense of the term. In other words, he is represented as a man who, on account of his close natural relationship to Christ, and of his weight of character and piety, enjoyed an apostolic dignity and authority among the strict Jewish Christians. He was the acknowledged head and leader of this branch and the first bishop of Jerusalem, where he permanently resided and died, while the apostles proper were not fixed in a particular diocese, but traveling missionaries, with the whole world for their field of labor. That this was precisely the position of James is evident from various passages in the Acts, in the epistle to the Galatians, from Josephus, Hegesippus, and the traditions of the Eastern Church.60
(c) The third objection is of a moral character, and derived from the consideration that Christ on the cross could not have commended His mother to the care of John if she had other sons (Joh 19:26-27). But why, we may ask with Andrews,61 if James and Judas were Apostles and His cousins, sons of her sister and long inmates of her family, and it was a question of kinship, did He not commend her to their care? The difficulty then remains, and must be solved on other grounds. The brothers of Jesus at that time, as appears from John 7, were not yet full believers in Christ, although they must have been converted soon after the resurrection (Act 1:14). Moreover, John was the most intimate bosom friend of the Saviour, and could better sympathize with Mary, and comfort her in this peculiar trial than any human being. If the modern interpretation of Joh 19:25 be correct, as it probably is, Salome (not Mary, wife of Clopas) was a sister of Christs mother, consequently John His cousin. But we would not urge this as an additional reason of the commendation, which must be based on a deeper spiritual affinity and sympathy.
(d) The fourth objection is religious and dogmatical, arising from the pious or superstitious belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary, and the apparent impropriety of the birth of any later descendants of the house of David after the birth of the Messiah. The perpetual virginity of the mother of our Saviour is an article of faith in the Greek and Roman Church; it is taught also in a few of the older Protestant symbols,62 and held to this day by many evangelical divines. Bishop Pearson says that the Church of God in all ages has maintained that Mary continued in the same virginity,63 Olshausen takes the same view, and Lange, though the latter only as far as offspring is concerned. Dr. Jos. Addison Alexander, a Presbyterian, who will not be accused of any sympathy with Romanism, says with apparent approbation: Multitudes of Protestant divines and others, independently of all creeds and confessions, have believed, or rather felt, that the selection of a woman to be the mother of the Lord, carries with it as a necessary implication that no others could sustain the same relation to her; and that the selection of a virgin still more necessarily implied that she was to continue so; for if there be nothing in the birth of younger children inconsistent with her maternal relation to the Saviour, why should there be any such repugnance in the birth of older children likewise? The same feeling which revolts from one hypothesis in some, revolts from both hypotheses in both.64
A doctrine or feeling so old and widely spread must be treated with proper regard and delicacy. But it should be observed:
In the first place, that these doctrinal objections hold only against the view that the brothers of Christ were younger children of Mary, not against the other alternative left, that they were older children of Joseph by a former marriage.
Secondly, the virginity of Mary can be made an article of faith only as far as it is connected with the mystery of the supernatural conception and the absolute freedom of Christ from hereditary as well as actual sin. But neither His nor her honor require the perpetual virginity after His birth, unless there be something impure and unholy in the marriage relation itself. The latter we cannot admit, since God instituted marriage in the state of innocence in Paradise, and St. Paul compares it to the most sacred relation existing, the union of Christ with His Church.
Thirdly, the Apostles and Evangelists, who are certainly much safer guides in all matters of faith and religious feeling than even fathers and reformers, seem to have had no such feeling of repugnance to a real marriage between Joseph and Mary, since they not only frequently mention brothers and sisters of Christ, without any intimation of an unusual or indefinite sense of the word, but Matthew and Luke (Mat 2:7) call Christ the first-born son of Mary, and Matthew moreover says (Mat 1:25), that Joseph knew not Mary, i. e., did not cohabit with her as man and wife, till she had brought forth her first-born son. I admit that neither nor are conclusive in favor of subsequent cohabitation and offspring, but they naturally look that way, especially in a retrospective historical narrative, and in connection with the subsequent frequent mention of the brothers and sisters of Christ by the same writers. At all events, we are warranted to say that those terms could not have been used by the Evangelists if they had regarded legitimate cohabitation as essentially profane, or in any way degrading to Joseph and His mother. The Old Testament, it is well known, nowhere sustains the ascetic Romish views on the superior merits of celibacy, and represents children as the greatest blessing, and sterility as a curse or misfortune.
Finally, it may be regarded as another proof of the true and full humanity and the condescending love of our Saviour, if He shared the common trials of family life in all its forms, and moved a brother among brothers and sisters, that He might be touched with a feeling of our infirmities. This last consideration, however, has its full weight if we adopt Dr. Langes modification of the cousin-hypothesis, viz., the formal adoption of Christs cousins into the holy family.
9. It remains to be seen whether the cousin-theory is more free from difficulties. This theory is comparatively late and cannot be traced beyond the time of Jerome in the fourth century,65 but has since been adopted by the whole Latin Church, and by the older Protestant divines, who, however, paid very little critical attention to this question.66 Jeromes view did not obtain credit and currency without an undue weight of dogmatical considerations connected with the perpetual virginity of Mary and the superior sanctity of celibacy (as is very evident from Jeromes violent work against Helvidius). It has moreover to contend with all the facts presented under No. 17, which are as many arguments against it. And finally it has to call to its aid two assumptions, which are at least very doubtful, and give the theory an intricate and complicated character. These assumptions are:
(a) That Mary, the mother of James and Joses (Mat 27:56; Mar 15:40), was a sister of the Virgin Mary, and that consequently her children were cousins of Jesus. But who ever heard of two sisters bearing the same name without any additional one by which to distinguish them? Then, the only passage on which the alleged relationship of the two Marys is based, Joh 19:25, admits of a different and more probable explanation, by which the term His mothers sister is applied to Salome,67 who stood certainly under the cross (see Mat 27:56; Mar 15:40), and could not well be passed by in silence by her own son, St. John, while he, with his accustomed modesty and delicacy, omitted her name, and intimated her presence by bringing out her relation to Mary.
(b) That Clopas, or Cleophas, the husband of Mary, the supposed sister of the Virgin Mary, is the same with Alphuns, the father of James, the younger Apostle of that name, who is called (Mat 10:3; Mar 2:14; Mar 3:18; Luk 6:15; Act 1:13). But this, though not improbable, and supported by the testimony of Papias, is at least not certain. Besides, Matthew (or Levi) was also a son of Alpbus, Mar 2:14, and if , and Simeon, two of the twelve, were likewise among the brothers of Christ, we would have four Apostles, of whom it is said in John 7 that they did not believe. Finally, Mary, it should be remembered, is called the mother of James and Joses only, but never the mother of Simon and Jude, the other two brothers of Jesus, and both of them supposed to have been Apostles, which Joses was not. It is nowhere intimated that she had more sons than two, or any daughters at all; and even from her two sons, one, Joses, must be exempt from being a namesake, since Joseph, and not Joses, according to the correct reading, in Mat 13:55, is the second brother of Christ.
Dr. Lange, it is true, avoids some of these difficulties by giving up the sisterhood of the two Marys, and assuming in its place the brotherhood of Clopas, or Alphus, and Joseph,68 as the basis of the cousinship of their sons, and calling to his aid the additional hypothesis of the early death of Alphus and the adoption of his children into the holy family,but all this without a shadow of exegetical proof. The absence of all allusion in the Evangelists to Mary, the real and still living mother of these children, when they are collectively mentioned, is a surprising fact, which speaks as strongly against Langes hypothesis as against the older and usual form of the cousin-theory.
10. We conclude, therefore, that the strict grammatical explanation of the term brothers and sisters of Christ, though not without difficulties, is still far more easy and natural than the explanation which makes them mere cousins.
But from the exegetical data of the New Testament we are still at liberty to choose between two views:
(a) The brothers of Jesus were younger children of Joseph and Mary, and hence His uterine brothers, though in fact only half-brothers, since He had no human father, and was conceived by the Holy Spirit overshadowing the Blessed Virgin. This view may be supported by the and the in Mat 1:25 and Luk 2:7, and has been adopted by Tertullian, Helvidius, and many modern Protestant divines of Germany, as Herder, Neander, Winer, Meyer, Wieseler, Rothe, Stier, and by a few English divines, Alford (on Mat 13:55), T. W. Farrar (in W. Smiths Dictionary of the Bible, vol. i., p. 231), and, though not decidedly, by Andrews (Life of our Lord, p. 114). This view of the case is the most natural, and would probably be taken by a majority of commentators, if it were not from the scruples arising from the long and widely cherished doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Once clearly and fully established on the testimony of Scripture and history, this theory would give a powerful polemical weapon into the hands of Protestants, and destroy by one fatal blow one of the strongest pillars of Romish Mariology and Mariolatry, and the ascetic overestimate of the state of celibacy. But the case is by no means so clear at the present state of the controversy that we could avail ourselves of this advantage; and Protestants themselves, as already remarked, differ in their views, or feelings, or tastes, concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary.
(b) The brothers of Jesus were older sons of Joseph from a former marriage, and thus in the eyes of the law and before the world, though not by blood, brothers and sisters of Christ. This view has the doctrinal advantage of leaving the perpetual virginity of Mary untouched. It seems, moreover, to have been the oldest, and was held not only among the Ebionites, and in the pseudo-apostolical constitution, but by several early fathers, as Origen, Eusebius (who calls James of Jerusalem a son of Joseph, but nowhere of Mary), Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Epiphanius (who even mentions the supposed order of birth of the four sons and two daughters), Hilary, Ambrose, etc.69 It is equally consistent with the Scripture data on the subject as the other alternative, and in some respects even more so. For it agrees better with the apparent difference of age between Joseph (who early disappears in the gospel history) and Mary, and especially with the patronizing and presumptuous air of the brothers of Christ, when they sought an interview with Him at a particular crisis (Mat 12:46), and when they boldly dared to suggest to Him a more expeditious and ostentatious Messianic policy (Joh 7:3-10). This is at least more readily explained, if they were older according to the flesh; while on the other theory some of them must have been almost too young to figure so prominently in the gospel history. It is true, they are nowhere called sons of Joseph;70 but neither are they called sons of Mary. The reason in both cases must be found in the fact, that Christ is the great central figure in the Gospels, round which all others move. On the other hand, however, it is difficult to believe that God should have selected an old widower with at least six children, as the husband of the mother of Christ. And the old tradition on which this view rests, may itself be explained as an attempt to escape the force of scriptural statements against the cherished belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary.P. S.]
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. In this narrative the Evangelist sets before us the circumstances under which the sufferings of our High Priest were introducedby successive rejections of His person and claims. This in all probability induced him to relate in this connection that Christ was rejected even in His own city. But the historian drops a veil over the particulars and circumstances of His rejection. Nazareth adjoined Matthews native city, and, perhaps, lay even within the district of his home.
2. On the fact that our Lord had no uterine brothers or sisters, comp. my Leben Jesu, Mat 2:1, p. 139 sqq. To our mind, there seems nothing offensive in the idea, that Joseph and Mary lived on conjugal terms;71 but it appears to us inconceivable that the mother of Jesus should afterward have given birth to other children. Besides, the brothers of the Lord are introduced as speaking and acting like persons who claim to have more enlarged experience than Jesus, or, as we infer, as His seniors.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
The question: Is not this the carpenters son? or prejudice.How the people of Nazareth condemned themselves, while imagining that they judged Jesus.How they unconsciously verified the exclamation of Nathanael: Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?How every prejudice against Christianity contains the germ of its own condemnation. For, 1. it evidences a want of proper faith, (a) in the power of God, (b) in humanity, (c) in the miracles of history, (d) in the deeper recesses of our own inner life; 2. and yet even prejudice must confess that the wisdom and the works of Christ are most mysterious and inexplicable. Hence such persons readily have recourse to lying and hostile criticisms.The offence of the people of Nazareth on account of the humble origin of the Lord, a picture of all other offences in Him. 1. An offence, (a) in His terrestrial state and existence; (b) in His human lowliness; (c) in His brothers and sisters with their human weaknesses. 2. Yet an offence which will leave us self-condemned, since it implies an admission of His wisdom and of His deeds. 3. A most fatal offence, since unbelief deprives us of the blessings of Christs wondrous works.The saying of Christ, A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and in his own home: 1. As an extenuation; 2. as a reproof.Jesus rejected by His own city.The rejection of Jesus in Nazareth a prelude to His rejection by the people.Nazareth, so poor, yet casting out the Lord of glory: 1. Nazareth in Galilee; 2. the land of Judea so poor; 3. the earth so poor.The inmost characteristic of unbelief is, that it implies contempt of our own being and higher nature.Whenever we read that the Lord could not do, or else that He knew not, the circumstances connected with it show that it was not from weakness or ignorance, but that His infinite power and wisdom were controlled and limited by supreme love and faithfulness.How the King gradually merged into the High Priest.
[Matt. Henry:
Mat 13:58. Unbelief is the great obstruction to Christs favor.If mighty works are not wrought in us, it is not for want of power or grace in Christ, but for want of faith in us.P. S.]
Starke:Canstein: Jesus is in truth the son of the carpenter; but of that Carpenter who made heaven and earth.Ungrounded prejudices are too often obstacles in the way of faith, Joh 7:40-42.Jerome: Naturale prop modum est cives civibus in videre.Homines familiaria conemnere, peregrina exosculari et in admiratione ac pretio habere solent.72
Gerlach:Carnal men look at the outward appearance; and this state of mind repels them from the Son of God, appearing in the form of a servant.
Heubner:Jesus does not force His love or His blessings upon us.Pride brings its own punishment. (Of this, history furnishes ample confirmation.)
Footnotes:
[45] Mat 13:53.[That is an unnecessary interpolation placed before when in Cranmers and Jamess versions, or before he departed by Tyndale and the Geneva Bible, and is omitted by Wiclif, the N. T. of Rheims, also by Conant in his work on Matthew, but restored before he departed, in the revised Vers. of the Am. Bible Union.P. S.]
[46] Mat 13:54.[Lange, as also de Wette, Ewald, and others, translate here: Vaterstadt, paternal (maternal) town, for Vaterland (Luther), fatherland. Nazareth is meant as the residence of his mother and reputed father. Euthym. Zigab.: , , .P. S.]
[47] Mat 13:54.[, de Wette: die Wunder; Lange: die Wunderkrfte; Ewald: die Heilsmchte, Comp. the note on Mat 11:20, p. 210. The definite article here is more emphatic than the demonstrative pronoun of the E. V.P. S.]
[48] Mat 13:55.[Comp. my note on Mat 12:46, p. 231.P. S.]
[49] Mat 13:55.B., C, and several translations read . So Lachmann, Tischendorf. Many uncial MSS. D., E., F., G., etc., ;K., L., etc., . In the parallel passage of Mark the reading Joses is by far better supported than Joseph. According to Lightfoot the Talmudists write for . Perhaps the person in question was called by both names already in the apostolic age. [Dr. Lange, in his German translation, retains Joses from the received text. But Joseph is undoubtedly the true reading according to the ancient authorities, including Cod. Sinaiticus, and is adopted also by Meyer, Tregelles, Alford Conant. The reading has some bearing on the question concerning the brothers of Christ. For if be the true reading, there remains but one brother of Christ, viz. James, of the same name with one of the two sons of Mary, the wife of Alphus (supposed to be the same with Cleophas), Mat 27:56 (Mary the mother of James and Joses); and this argues against the view defended by Dr. Lange, that the brothers of Christ were merely his cousins. See below.P. S.]
[50](Or rather Joseph. See the critical note above.P. S.]
[51]Comp. Wieseler in the Studien und Kritiken for 1840. p. Matt 648: There stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and the sister of His motheri. e. , Salome, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. Joh 19:25. Comp. Mar 15:40; Mat 27:56.
[52][But it must be added, that the oldest tradition, including the most distinguished Greek and Latin fathers, as Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Epiphanius, Hilary, and Ambrose, regarded the brothers of Christ as sons of Joseph by a former marriage. See the passages in full in my book on James, p. 80 sqq.P. S.]
[53]Hegesippus (ap. Euseb. H. E. Mat 4:22) speaks of cousins of Christ, calling Simeon, the successor of James in Jerusalem: .
[54]Hegesippus (in Eusebius H. E. iii. 11) asserts that Clopas was the brother of Joseph. Lange denies that Mary, the wife of Clopas, was the sister of the Virgin Mary. But Lichtenstein (Lebensgeschichte des Herrn, Erlangen, 1856, p. 124) assumes, that the two brothers, Joseph and Clopas, married two sisters, both named Mary. Clopas dying, Joseph took his wife and her children into his family. Schneckenburger reverses the hypothesis and assumes that Mary, after the early death of Joseph, moved to the household of her sister, the wife of Clopas.
[55]Dr. Lange, in his article Jakobus in Herzogs Encycl., vol. vi., p. 412, calls this die Unhaltbarkeit einer dreinamigen Doppelgngerlinie in dem apostolischen Kreise, and afterward eine unerhrte swei- bis vierfache Doppelgngerei.
[56]So Schneckenburger on the Epistle of James, and all the commentators on Galatians who adopt the cousin-hypothesis, also Ellicott ad Gal 1:19, who, however, does not enter into a discussion of the general question.
[57]Victorinus, in his Commentary in loc., says: Paul disclaims James as an apostle, saying, that he saw no other apostle besides Peter, but only James.
[58]Winer, Grammatik, 6th ed., p. 557 ( 67, sub I. e); who quotes for a similar use of Act 27:22 and Rev 21:27; Fritzsche, Comment. in Matt., p. 482. who translates: alium apostolum non vidi, sed vidi Jacobum; Bleek (in Studien und Kritiken for 1836, p. 1059), and, as to the inference drawn, also Meyer and Hilgenfeld ad Gal 1:19.
[59]In his Comment. on Gal 1:19.
[60]This subject is fully discussed in my book on James.
[61]The Lift of our Lord upon the Earth, p. 115.
[62]The Articles of Smalkald, Pars. I. art. IV. (p. 303. ed. Hase): Ex Maria pura, sancta, semper virgine. The Form of Concord, p. Matt 767: Unde et vere , Del genetrix est, et tamen virgo mansit. Even Zwingli shared in this view, Comment. in Mat 1:18; Mat 1:25. and the Helvetic Confession speaks of Jesus as natus ex Maria semper virgine.
[63]Exposition of the Creed, art. III.
[64]Commentary on Mat 13:56, pp. 388 and 384, and in the same language. Com. on Mar 6:3. Dr. Alexander does not decide one way or the other (though leaning to the cousin-theory), and thinks that the difference of taste and sensibility on this subject is likely to continue to affect the interpretation until the question has received some new and unequivocal solution.
[65][Dr. Wordsworth and others would carry the cousin-theory to Papias in the second century, and quote a fragment, ascribed to his name, on the four Marys (ap. Routh, Reliqui sacr, ex Cod. MSS. 2397): I. Maria, mater Domini. II. Maria, Cleoph sive Alphi uxor, qu fuit mater Jacobi Episcopi et Apostoli, et Simonis, et Thadei [Jud Jacobi], et eujusdam Joseph. III. Maria Salome, uxor Zebedei, mater Joannis evangelist. et Jacobi. IV. Maria Magdalena. But this extract is evidently a part of a dictionary written by a medival. Papias, which still exists in MS. both at Oxford and Cambridge.P. S.]
[66]Calvin for instance regards the question as one of idle curiosity in Mat 1:25 : Certe memo unquam hac de re questionem movebit nisi curiosus; nemo vero pertinaciter insistet nisi contentiosus rixator.
[67]This explanation was brought out first clearly by Wieseler (in the Studien und Kritiken for 1840. p. 648 sqq.), and adopted by Meyer, Lange, and Alford. But the old Syriac version already implied this interpretation by inserting a before , and translating: And there were standing near the cross of Jesus, His mother, and His mothers sister [Salome], and Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
[68]Hegesippus, in Eusebius H. E. iii. 11, comp. 4:29, asserts, that Clopas was the brother of Joseph, but it does not appear whether he uses the term brother strictly, or for brother-in-law.
[69]See my book on James, p. 80 sqq. Chrysostom may also be included in this class; at least he clearly separates the brothers of Christ from the apostles, for the reason that they were for a long time unbelievers (Hom. 5 in Matt.).
[70]Eusebius, however, H. E. ii. 1, calls James of Jerusalem a son of Joseph.
[71][In this point Lange differs from the view of the Greek and Latin Churches, which deny every conjugal intercourse as degrading the character of the holy Virgin.P. S.]
[72][Comp. the proverbs: Familiarity breeds contempt; Distance lends enchantment to the view; Es ist nicht weit her (It is not far off).P. S.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
“And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence. (54) And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? (55) Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? (56) And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? (57) And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. (58) And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.”
Reader! even now the offence of the cross is not ceased! And, the Lord be praised, it never shall. Oh! what a blessedness is it, that amidst all the unworthiness that is in us, there is none in Christ. Lord! grant that I may never be offended, but in the midst of the present perverse and crooked generation, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
53 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence.
Ver. 53. He departed thence ] As wanting, and yet waiting, the next opportunity to glorify God, and edify others. Ministers may hence learn, after their hardest labour, not to be weary of well doing, but to be instant (or to stand close to their work) in season and out of season, even then when that good word of God, that seasons all things, to some seems unseasonable. a Si decimus quisque, si unus persuasus fuerit, ad consolationem abunde sufficit, as Chrysostom hath it. Say but the tithe of our hearers be persuaded, say but some one of them, it is sufficient encouragement. But what if not one? yet our labour is not in vain in the Lord. The physician is both thanked and paid, though the patient recover not. And “though Israel be not gathered (as here Christ’s countrymen would not be reclaimed), yet I shall be glorious (saith he by his servant Isaiah) in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength,” Isa 49:5 .
a ( ) 2Ti 4:2 . Dic importunus, Tu vis errare, Tu vi, perire, ego nolo. Aug.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
53 58. ] TEACHING, AND REJECTION, AT NAZARETH. Mar 6:1-6 . See Luk 4:16-29 and notes.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
53, 54. ] . ., viz. Nazareth. Perhaps the proceedings of ch. Mat 8:18 to Mat 9:34 are to be inserted between these two verses. In Mar 4:35 , the stilling of the storm and voyage to the Gadarenes are bound to the above parables by what appears a distinct note of sequence: : for we can hardly interpret . . on any other hypothesis than that . . . means ‘ on the same day .’ The teaching was on the Sabbath (Mark).
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 13:53-58 . Visit to Nazareth (Mar 6:1-6 , cf. Luk 4:16-30 ). In Mk. this is the next section after the parables, deducting what had previously been reported in Mt. (chaps. 8 and 9), a pretty sure sign that our evangelist has Mk. under his eye. We can here see how he handles his source substantial reproduction of the contents, no slavish copying of style, editorial discretion in reporting certain details. No attempt should be made to connect with the foregoing passage, except perhaps by the general category of prevalent un-receptivity to which also the following narrative (Mat 14:1-12 ) may be relegated.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Mat 13:53 . : in classics to transfer something from one place to another. Hellenistic, intransitive = to remove oneself; one of Matthew’s words (Mat 19:1 ).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mat 13:53-58
53When Jesus had finished these parables, He departed from there. 54He came to His hometown and began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers? Is not this the carpenter’s son? 55Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household.” 58And He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief.
Mat 13:53 “parables” This was a compound word in Greek which meant “to throw alongside.” Common occurrences were used to illustrate spiritual truths. However, it must be remembered that to these Jewish writers this Greek word (parabola) reflected the Hebrew mashal, which meant “riddle” or “proverb.” One must be willing to rethink issues and expected outcomes in light of the surprising nature of the mashal. There are two paradoxical reasons given for the use of parables in Jesus’ teaching ministry: (1) to communicate clearly spiritual truths to those who exercised faith in Him and (2) to hide spiritual truths from those who do not have faith in Him.
Mat 13:54 “He came to His hometown” A similar account is mentioned in Luk 4:16-30. There has been much discussion among commentators as to whether this is the same visit or a second visit. There are several accounts in Jesus’ ministry that are very similar (cf. Joh 2:13-22 versus Mat 21:12-16; Mar 11:15-18; Luk 19:45-47), but scholars must be careful, based on their western literary presuppositions, not to assume they are the same event. There may well have been two cleansings of the Temple, for example, and Luke’s account may refer to another incident.
“began teaching them in their synagogue” It was Jesus’ habit to attend regular Sabbath worship. Jesus learned the OT during His days in the synagogue school at Nazareth. The synagogue was a Jewish institution which developed during the Babylonian exile for the purpose of (1) training children, (2) worship, (3) ministering to the Jewish community, and (4) retaining the Jews’unique culture while in exile by emphasizing study of the Law and the traditions of the fathers.
“they were astonished” They were incredulous, not only by the tremendous insight of His teaching, but also by the authority of His teaching. The scribes taught in the authority of earlier famous rabbis; Jesus taught in His own authority (cf. Mat 7:28-29).
“where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers” The source of Jesus’ power was much debated. He was an officially untrained local boy. The Jews even accused Him of being in league with the evil one. For them His action against the oral law was “the unpardonable sin.” For those in Nazareth it was hard to believe that a local boy was the Messiah, Deity Incarnate.
Mat 13:55-56 “Is not this the carpenter’s son” There are three questions in these two verses; all three expect a “yes” answer.
Carpenter was used in the sense of craftsman. It could have referred to a craftsman of stone, metal or wood. The English term ” architect” comes from this Greek term. These questions by the townspeople of Jesus’ hometown imply that Jesus had a normal childhood (cf. Luk 2:40; Luk 2:52).
Mat 13:55 “His brothers” The men listed
1. James, who became the leader of the Jerusalem church and wrote the book of James.
2. Joseph, he is called Jose in Mar 6:3 and a few later Greek manuscripts. We know nothing else about him.
3. Simon, we know nothing else about him.
4. Judas, he is also called Jude and wrote the NT book of Jude.
“His brothers. . .His sisters” These are later children by Mary and Joseph (cf. Mat 1:25; Mat 12:46; Mar 6:3) or possibly children from Joseph’s previous marriage (which is not recorded anywhere in Scripture), so option #1 is best (see F. F. Bruce, Answers to Questions, pp. 47 and 174).
Mat 13:57 “they took offense at Him” He is the rock of offense and a stone of stumbling. The stone which the builders have rejected has become the head of the corner (cf. Mat 11:6; Isa 8:14; Isa 28:16; Jer 6:21).
“a prophet” This was a common proverb. That which is familiar loses its significance. See Special Topic at Mat 11:9.
Mat 13:58 “He did not do many miracles there” God has always chosen for believers to cooperate in matters which relate to Him (covenant). It is not that Jesus could not, He chose not to. We learn from Luk 4:28-29 that they tried to kill Him because of His statements.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
finished. Thus marking the end of this special collocation of parables, showing them to he one whole.
departed. Greek. metairo. Occurs only here and Mat 19:1; referring probably to His going by water.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
53-58.] TEACHING, AND REJECTION, AT NAZARETH. Mar 6:1-6. See Luk 4:16-29 and notes.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 13:53. , finished) These parables form a regular and perfect whole, which He is therefore said to have finished; see ch. Mat 11:1.[649] Thus, in Luk 7:1, we have , He completed. These parables contain, however, besides the general condition of the Church of the New Testament, a more special account of future events. Cf. Gnomon on Mat 13:3, and on Joh 16:13.-, He departed, Lat. migravit)[650] He ended for the time His sojourn at Capernaum.[651] Thenceforward Jesus did not remain so long in one place, being harassed by Herod.
[649] sc. .-ED.
[650] The word implies change of abode as well as departure.-(I. B.)
[651] In the same manner, the same word, , is used in ch. Mat 19:1 of the last journey of the Saviour from Galilee to Judea, which He took before the Passion.-Comp. Jer 39:9. Therefore that verb is opposed to the dwelling which, for a considerably long time, Jesus had had at Capernaum, ch. Mat 4:13. Not long after, the Saviour returned thither afresh; but after having made a survey [lustratione, a purifying examination: see Joh 6:66-71] of His disciples, He presently departed again, Joh 6:22-71 [see Mat 13:24]. The same thing happened after the interval of nearly a year, Mat 17:24 : and this was the last of all His visits there. His address to the city of Capernaum, Luk 10:15, was delivered at a distance from it, when He had already finished no inconsiderable part of the journey which led to the Passion: comp. Luk 9:51. He subsequently addressed Jerusalem in the same manner from a distance, Luk 13:34.-Harm., p. 324.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Mat 13:53-58
11. JESUS REJECTED AT NAZARETH
Mat 13:53-58
53 When Jesus had finished these parables.-Jesus was in Capernaum and in a few days after this teaching left; it is supposed to be October or November. Some think that he probably went to Jerusalem in December to attend the feast of dedication; however, we do not know, and the Holy Spirit has not recorded in chronological order the events of his life; therefore it is not necessary to attempt to arrange them in such order. These events seem to close the second year of his earthly ministry.
54-56 And coming into his own country he taught. “His own country,” that is, Nazareth, which was only a few miles west of Capernaum. “He taught them in their synagogue,” which was on the Sabbath. (Mar 6:1-6.) The questions asked concerning him were asked on the Sabbath, after he had taught the people in their synagogue. It was common for any prophet or good man to address the people in the synagogue; Jesus was busy teaching the people; he never lost an opportunity. His wisdom “astonished” them, and they asked, “Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?” Jesus had astonished his home people on a former occasion. (Luk 4:16-32.) The question that they asked about his wisdom implied contempt as they asked “whence hath this man” such wisdom? So long as they rejected him there was no solution to the question, but if they accepted him as the Messiah, all was clear and simple.
They further asked, “Is not this the carpenter’s son?” Mark records it, “Is not this the carpenter?” A carpenter here means one who worked in iron, stone, or wood. The ancient tradition has it that Joseph was a carpenter, and Matthew bears this out. Mark’s record shows that Jesus followed the humble occupation of his reputed parent until he began his ministry, and went about his “Father’s business.” Jesus was a carpenter and his apostles were Galilean fishermen; none of his disciples today should be ashamed of any humble profession. They further asked, “Is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas?” Some have attempted to show that Mary remained a virgin after her miraculous conception and the birth of Jesus; hence they have worshiped her as such. They claim that these mentioned here as brothers of Jesus were his cousins. It seems that Mary the mother of Jesus had a sister named Mary and that this sister had sons by the same names; this seems unreasonable, but is an explanation offered by many scholars. The “mother” and “sisters” here seem to be literal mother and sisters, and hence the brethren were literal brothers , probably they were half brothers. At any rate, they are mentioned here to show that Jesus was only an ordinary man; that he was not what he claimed to be. Hence, they contemptuously asked, “Whence then hath this man all these things?” In Mat 12:46-50, we have his mother and brethren who came from Nazareth to visit him and probably to persuade him to give up his public work. It may be of little consequence as to whether these mentioned here were only his kinspeople or whether they were members of his immediate family.
57, 58 And they were offended in him.-The jealously, pride, and self-conceit, which go to make up the trait of character here exhibited, must impress us painfully as it did Jesus. He never manifested the slightest qualities of character or spirit to provoke enmity against him; there never was a man more meek, modest, humble, and affectionate; Jesus had every quality that upright souls should love and esteem, yet he could not escape even the jealousy of his own people; neither could he avoid their positive hostility toward him. Hence, Jesus applied to them the common maxim, “A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and in his own house.” It seems that some slighted Jesus for the lowliness of his parentage, and rejected his teachings from prejudice. The people had often seen the truth of the proverb that Jesus here quoted, and so they should have profited by it, and not again have fulfilled it to their own shame. His people stumbled at his superiority and did not want to acknowledge that he was better than themselves; their stupid pride blinded their hearts so that they could not see in his teachings and his mighty works the evidence of his Messiahship.
And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.-Mark adds that he “laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.” (Mar 6:5.) The reason assigned for the lack of his working miracles among them is “because of their unbelief.” Their invincible prejudice against him rendered them inattentive to his doctrine and stirred their prejudice against him. Miracles were wrought as evidence that his teachings were true; he did not wish to work miracles before men who stubbornly refused to see a prophet in their townsmen. These same Nazarenes sought to take his life. (Luk 4:29.) They blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts; they refused to accept Jesus; hence, it would be a waste of divine power to perform miracles that would be disregarded and condemned. It may be that the people refused to let many of the afflicted come to Jesus for healing. Both morally and physically they rendered the performance of mighty works a thing out of the question. Mark puts it that “he could there do no mighty work.” (Mar 6:5.) Jesus would not do a useless and unsuitable deed. The light that they had and what they might have had became their heaviest curse, so that ultimately Nazareth fell under more fearful woes than did Sodom.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Chapter 32
The Power of Unbelief
And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence. And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenters son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.
(Mat 13:53-58)
We often hear and read about the power of faith, and rightly so. Our Lord Jesus said, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you (Mat 17:20). But in this closing paragraph of Matthew 13 the Holy Spirit sets before us the power of unbelief. Just as faith as a grain of mustard seed, looking to Christ, has the power to cast the mountains of our sins into the depths of the sea, so unbelief has the power to ruin your soul, unleash the wrath of God, and drag your soul down to hell.
The power of faith in Christ is manifest throughout the Scriptures. Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him for righteousness. Noah believed God and built an ark to the saving of his family. Israel believed God and walked through the Red Sea. David believed God and slew Goliath. Daniel believed God and stopped the mouths of lions. The centurion soldier believed God and saw his servant healed. Two blind men believed God and received their sight. The woman with an issue of blood believed God and was healed of her infirmity. Jairus believed God and saw his daughter brought back to life. The Philippian Jailer believed God and received everlasting life. The list could go on and on. The Bible says much about the power of faith.
But the Word of God also shows us the power of unbelief. Adam, Noahs generation, Lots wife, Pharaoh, Israel, Nebuchadnezzar, the Scribes and Pharisees, the Rich young ruler, Felix, Festus, and Agrippa all stand out as beacons to warn us of the danger and power of unbelief. All unbelief is a matter of the will. Unbelief is a matter of choice. Unbelief is saying no to God in spite of the evidence. This is what we see in Mat 13:53-58.
Capernaum had been the home base of our Lords ministry for about a year (Mat 4:13; Mat 8:5). The people there had seen his miracles. They heard his word. They watched his life. But they did not believe on him. Therefore, the Lord departed, never to return (Mat 13:53). The Lord Jesus never went back to Capernaum again, except to walk through it to go to another place.
When the Lord Jesus returned to Nazareth, he met with opposition and unbelief in his own hometown and among his own kinsman (Mat 13:54-57; Luk 4:16-32). The people who heard him preach and saw the miracles he performed were astonished by his doctrine and his divine power; but they were offended in him. They stumbled at the stumbling stone. That which should have been a stepping-stone for them, the incarnate Son of God, the sinners Friend and Substitute, because of the gospel he preached, was a Rock of offense to them.
Poor souls! Like multitudes today, the things they heard from his lips, by which they were astonished, made him a savor of death unto death (2Co 2:16) to them! Because they only knew Christ after the flesh, and not after the Spirit (2Co 5:16), they despised him. He was, therefore, a prophet without honor in his own country and among his own people. The offence of the cross has not ceased; and it never shall.
Time and again our Lord came to Nazareth. Yet, he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief (Mat 13:58). J. C. Ryle wrote, Behold in this single word the secret of the everlasting ruin of multitudes of souls! They perish forever, because they will not believe. Let me show you six things about unbelief. May God the Holy Spirit be our Teacher and give us understanding.
1.Unbelief ignores the obvious.
And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works ?(Mat 13:54) Those who heard his doctrine and saw his miracles did not reject him for lack of evidence, but in spite of overwhelming evidence. They did not reject him because they lacked the truth, but because they rejected the truth. They despised the light because they preferred darkness (Joh 3:1-20).
When men and woman willfully reject Christ, the most powerful arguments and the most convincing facts will not convince them of divine truth. These people, being left to themselves, would not and could not come to him. The most convincing preaching, the most unquestionable displays of divine power, and the most emotional experiences did not produce faith in them. Faith in Christ is the gift of God (Eph 2:8-9). It is something that must be wrought in us by the omnipotent mercy of God the Holy Spirit (Col 2:12)
2.Unbelief exalts the irrelevant.
Is not this the carpenters son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? (Mat 13:55-56) These things were totally irrelevant. The Lord Jesus preached the gospel to these eternity bound sinners; and they began to quibble about his family, his education, and his qualifications as a preacher!
They grew sarcastic, and harped upon the family names of James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas. They hinted that he could not have learned much wisdom in a carpenters shop, and as he had not been among the rabbis to obtain a superior education, he could not really know much. How could he have attained to such eminence? He was a mere nobody. Why, they knew him when his parents lost him when they went up to the feast at Jerusalem! They could not listen to the talk of the carpenters son. (C. H. Spurgeon)
There are multitudes just like them today. As Paul described them, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth (2Ti 3:7). There are countless armchair theologians, men (and even women!) who consider themselves the religious authorities of the age, honor bound to enlighten all with whom they come in contact regarding spiritual matters of which they have no knowledge. They contribute nothing to the cause of Christ or the souls of men. But they are always full of questions, questions they spew out under the pretense of sincerity, with no purpose except to exalt themselves and slander faithful men.
It is sad and tragic to see people exalting small, insignificant things, using them as great excuses for not believing the gospel. They like to discuss obscure texts, choosing to ignore the obvious. They value their opinions more highly than the Revelation of God in Holy Scripture. They cling to personal experience, religious tradition, and religious creeds as coverings for their rebellion to divine authority and unbelief. By their quibbles, they seek to divert attention away from the gospel, escape the claims of Christ, and justify themselves. Pastor Chris Cunningham, in his commentary on John 9, accurately describes the know-it-all Pharisees of the religious world as orangutans with a vocabulary.
3.Unbelief stumbles over the truth.
And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and in his own house (Mat 13:57). Read Rom 9:30-32; Rom 10:3-4, 1Co 1:21-24, and Luk 4:20-24. The fact is, all who are left to themselves in unbelief are offended by Christ and the gospel of Christ. In Mat 11:6 our Savior declares, blessed is he whosoever shall not be offended in me. Truly they are blessed of God, blessed with grace and salvation in Christ, who, rather than being offended by the gospel, believe it and cannot part with it. Trusting Christ alone as our Savior, we have peace, joy, and comfort in our souls and look for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life (Jud 1:21).
4.Unbelief blocks the supernatural.
And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief (Mat 13:58). Our Lord performed some miracles there, but not many, that they might be left without excuse. John Gill wrote, He only laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them. Yet, these were such as raised their wonder and astonishment, but did not command their faith, and were rather stumbling blocks unto them. Such were their prejudices, their unbelief, and the hardness of their hearts. And the reason indeed why he did no more was, because of their unbelief.
Mark tells us that he marveled because of their unbelief, and he could there do no mighty works (Mar 6:5-6). That does not mean that he lacked the power to perform them, or that their unbelief was too great and mighty for him (the omnipotent God) to overcome. Some of our Lords miracles were performed in direct response to personal faith. But many, perhaps most of them, were performed without any expression of faith in those who benefited from them. So mans lack of faith does not bind the power of God. Mans unbelief does not hold dominion over Gods omnipotence. God does what he will, whether man believes or not!
However, throughout his earthly ministry our Lord chose not to perform his miracles where men and women manifest a hardened, willful unbelief. Unbelief became a barrier to divine blessings. In Mat 13:58 the Holy Spirit specifically tells us that it was because of the unbelief of the people that our Savior did no miracles of significance in Nazareth.
5.Unbelief can never see the glory of God.
How unbelief robs us! I cannot help wondering, What might have been, had I but believed God? People sit around and debate the issue of Gods sovereignty and mans responsibility as casually as they debate politics, so that they may appear very precise and orthodox in their theological opinions and excuse their rebellion, unbelief, sin, and disobedience, saying, Well, God is sovereign. His purpose stands fast. His will is done. All of that is true enough; but their rationalization is wrong. In Isa 48:16-19 the Lord God expressly declares what might have been, had Israel simply obeyed his voice. As Martha stood before her brothers tomb, Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God? (Joh 11:40).
John Calvin wrote, Our own unbelief is the only impediment which prevents God from satisfying us largely and bountifully with all good things. Too often we walk upon Gods promises like children upon ice, always fearful of the breaking and us falling! How shameful! It is unbelief alone that prevents us from soaring in our hearts into the celestial city and walking by faith even now across the streets of gold.
6.Unbelief alone holds lost souls in condemnation under the wrath of God.
If you perish, it will be for only one reason. It will be because you will not believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (Joh 3:13-18). There is nothing else in heaven or earth that will prevent you from being saved (Joh 5:40).
There are three great enemies, J. C. Ryle, wrote, against which Gods children should daily pray pride, worldliness, and unbelief. Of these three, none is greater than unbelief. Let us ever beware of unbelief, praying for grace to be delivered from it. Unbelief kept Moses out of the promised land, caused Aaron to fall under pressure, caused David to behave like a mad man, and caused Peter to tremble before a little girl! I often wander what blessings, privileges, and opportunities I have missed because of unbelief! Lord, I believe, Help thou mine unbelief (Mar 9:24).
Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible
he: Mar 4:33-35
Reciprocal: Mat 13:3 – in
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
3:53
Finished these parables refers to the ones in this chapter.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 13:53. He departed thence. The departure was to Gadara (comp. chap. Mat 8:18; Mar 6:35 ff.); a number of events intervening between this and the second visit to Nazareth.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Subdivision 2. (Mat 13:53-58; Mat 14:1-36.)
Features of a day of rejection.
We return now to the personal history of the Lord, but to find in it also the foreshadow of such things as the parables have put before us. The fact of His rejection by man is now a governing thought; and this involves rejection for His people, and a path in separation from a world in estrangement from Him. This is especially what characterises the next portion of the Gospel which developer for us the features of a day of rejection; but in which grace still works, and finds among men not its objects only but its instruments. But the world is at the same time on the one hand a desert, on the other a stormy sea. Soon He Himself also is absent, and His disciples are left in the darkness, toiling over the waters in the face of the adverse wind. But again there is a change: He is coming back to them over the waters; and faith, discerning Him and seeking to be with Him, is fain to leave the boat and at His invitation walk upon the waters too to go to Him. Here the Church’s path is clearly presented to us, the boat imaging the position of that remnant of Israel which as to their hopes the disciples were, when He went away, and to which (accompanied by His heavenly people) He will again return. Then the wind ceases, and the boat having reached the shore, mercy flows out to men far and wide as it will in millennial days. Let us now seek to apprehend this in detail.
1. First of all, we have a two-fold witness to His rejection. All classes of men are concerned in this: for the reception of Christ alike wounds their pride and opposes their lust; and thus Christ Himself and he who would prepare His way must share together.
(1) First, Nazareth rejects Him, – the place where He had been so long, and where the glory of a life to which all else was darkness had shone before their eyes. They have perforce to own His wisdom and His mighty work; but what right has He to them? They know His mother and His kindred; and these suggest no such greatness. They ought surely to have argued therefore that all this in Him was not natural but supernatural – that there was more in Him than nature could account for: but no! they will rather discredit what they see and know, than accept such things from a carpenter’s son. Divine power must not work without human credentials. The root is out of a dry ground: the plant may be anything you please, but it is a sufficient condemnation of it that the ground is dry.
That was His glory for which they despised Him. He was no creature of His circumstances; He derived not from man; He received no honor from him. Nor could He thus, on His part, put honor on man, nor accredit him who had fallen away from God. He could serve, and for this come into the lowest place, when from man He could not accept the highest. Those who had not judged aright the world or themselves, could not judge Him aright. And still the proverb) holds that a prophet may be in honor anywhere rather than among those who know him in his earthly relations best. Did not this for long dim the eyes even of His brethren (Joh 7:5)? and does not its influence appear even in the tender solicitude of His mother?
So Nazareth shuts itself out from the blessing which was ready to be poured out upon them: “He did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.”
(2) Prince and people were alike in this; and now we hear of the murder of the Baptist at the hands of the licentious Herod. Conscience he has, enough to trouble him; religion enough to bind him to the abominable wickedness in which he is ensnared by the evil influences to which he has already surrendered himself. The spirit of uncleanness is quite ready to take to himself other spirits more wicked than himself, and with the key of the house in his hand, it is too late to shut the door upon them. Scrupulous the adulterer may be as to his oath, and for his honor before those who are at table with him, – the poor remains of honor which are so apt to increase in value in proportion to the little left. So the death of the prophet is cheaply purchased by the dance of a light girl, and the king’s oath is kept inviolate. What a world it is in every view that can be taken of it, whether in its pleasures, its morals, or its underlying passions and malignities! In such a world what an honor to be persecuted! what a reproach to be in esteem! The Spirit of God sums it up morally thus: “All that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life,” and adds that “it is not of the Father” (1Jn 2:16). The Father has been seen and hated in the Son (Joh 15:23-24).
2. The Lord accepts the news of the Baptist’s murder as His own rejection. He withdraws into a desert place apart; but those who are drawn to Him by their necessities flock after Him still, and He cannot withdraw Himself from the need which appeals to Him. The wilderness thus becomes a place of plenteous provision, and the Lord’s grace and power are manifest for all that come. He heals all the infirm among them; and as night comes on; and the disciples remind Him of the need of the multitude there in a desert place, He casts them for all this upon the disciples themselves: “They have no need to go away,” He says, “give ye them to eat.” But they do not realize what this implies, and that they can avail themselves of His power for ministry such as this. They have but five loaves and two fishes: how plainly we may read ourselves in them! What use to put such a pitiful morsel even into His hand to satisfy so many with! But He does not disdain it, or set it aside, to work independently. If a miracle were in His mind, this might seem more worthy of Him; but on the contrary He will rather lower the miracle than set aside those whom He would identify with Himself and use in service. They are to find the little that they have, enough, if but His blessing be with it; and so are we.
But they are to bring it to Him first, and to receive it from Him; and then He bids the multitude recline upon the grass: His way is to give rest and then refreshment. Then He blesses and breaks, and puts it back into His disciples, hands to distribute; and they distribute it all; and there is more than enough for all the multitude. How good to know that out of that insignificant quantity there is positively enough for every one there; yea, and more than enough: “twelve hand-baskets full of fragments that remained” over and above all that had been eaten! Thus there is actually more left than they had had at the beginning; and this is constantly the way of spiritual increase, scattering and yet increasing. Would that we all and always remembered it: – the responsibility of the possession of whatever ministers to the need of man; but above all, of that which ministers to what is truly life, – and then the gain resulting. Every particle of truth we have, brings with it corresponding responsibility, proportionate privilege, and opportunity of greater gain. “To him that hath shall more be given; and he shall have abundantly; and from him that hath not, even that which he hath” – hath and hath not, hath as if he had it not, without practical use or advantage – “shall be taken away.”
Such grace was still going forth in Israel: the power of Jehovah was manifesting itself among them, to satisfy her poor with bread” (Psa 132:15). The twelve baskets full may point to the resources of power for them in the presence among them of their King; the five thousand men, the responsibility of such realized capabilities (5×10^3), which yet unbelief might make of no effect. And this is in fact the result. The stream of grace that was flowing then could not, indeed, be dammed back by all that unbelief could do, but it might be forced to flow in other channels; and this was in fact the result. The Gospel of John it is which gives us insight (Joh 6:1-71) into the spiritual condition of those to whom the Lord ministered here, and to whom He had to say, “Ye seek Me, not because ye saw the miracles,” – not because ye realized divine power in them, – “but because ye did eat of the loaves and were filled.” These were they who would after this carnal manner, “have taken Him by force, to make Him a king” (ver. 15). Such was the nation; and, as such, He had to turn away from them.
3. We find Him therefore urging His disciples to re-enter the ship, and go before Him to the other side, while He Himself, having dismissed the multitudes, goes up into the mountain apart to pray. This is simple, as significant of His present place and work, Israel being in the meantime left to the consequences of their unbelief. Gone up to God, He intercedes for His own; tossed on the sea of this world, and with the wind contrary: for Satan is “the prince of the power of the air,” by whom “the course of this world” is directed (Eph 2:2). The “ship” does not represent, however, what is proper to the present dispensation; but the means by which, when faith has not Christ before it, we are sustained upon the waters. Such means are essentially Jewish, no doubt, and it was practically a Jewish remnant which the Lord left upon earth when He went up, as it will be a Jewish remnant to which He will by and by return. The question put by the disciples to the Lord immediately before His going up, “Lord, wilt Thou at this time restore the Kingdom to Israel?” (Act 1:6) shows how little beyond the national hope they were at this time. Long after, they “walked orderly,” thronged the temple, and were “zealous of the law” (Act 21:20; Act 21:24), and Paul it is who speaks the decisive word by which the Christian company separate themselves from the Jewish ship to take the true path of faith upon the waters.
The ship speaks not properly of help given to faith, but of help to do without it. “The law is not of faith,” and in the notable chapter in which Paul insists to the Hebrews upon the path in which the elders walked, and in which they obtained a good report, it is striking how little the times of walking orderly and keeping the law furnish him with examples (Heb 11:1-40.) Faith lives in the unseen and is built up by that which is spiritual, not natural. Nay, the mighty miracles of the wilderness did not beget a generation of believers, as we well know. The law, being the trial of man; gave every assistance to man naturally: the eye, the ear, the senses generally, through these the whole sensitive being, were appealed to, – only to end in more emphatic witness to his utter impracticability. The schoolmaster’s reign, therefore, is at an end, though the lessons learnt abide: “after that faith is come, we are no longer under the schoolmaster” (Gal 3:25).
Faith could not be more strikingly pictured than in this solitary man stepping out of the ship upon the waters to go to Jesus. And this has been in fact the Church’s path ever since. True, the “ship” has come back again; with the return of Jewish principles with church establishments and the patronage of the world; but this has made the picture only a more striking one, by separating even disciples from disciples, and making the Church’s path in result more absolutely the individual, isolated path, which for the saint, in character as such, it has ever been. Faith is, of necessity, personal and individual. A “Christian world” means only a corrupt and degenerate Church profession. The Church itself, as well as the open world, becomes a scene in which the word of the Lord calls for “overcoming” and more and more appeals to the individual only, – to him “that hath an ear to hear” (Rev 2:1-29; Rev 3:1-22.)
Indeed, this Figure on the water is not seen except by faith; even those who are disciples may count it an “apparition” only, and fear, instead of being drawn by it. Notice, that it is to the soul that invites the invitation that the Voice says, “Come.” It speaks to no other. Nor does it speak other than approvingly, though the one inviting it proves thoroughly his weakness in his response to it. But he gets no rebuke for a rash venture. The other disciples might have given him that: there are many who are in no danger of this kind of failure, who would justify themselves by it from all such attempts; but the Lord says only, “Wherefore didst thou doubt?” And surely this doubting is as foolish as disastrous. For the moment, at least, he had proved the power of Christ: he had actually walked upon the water, and why should boisterous winds put him now in fear? The power was not his own; and he might reckon on it as much for rough water as for smooth. But with the eye off Christ, one cannot reckon right. He doubts and he begins to sink; but at his cry there is a Hand outstretched to him, and he is held up. It is not the ship that rescues him, nor is he taken from the path, but supported in it. Good is it to remember and realize this as grace which acts towards us in our failure now.
Peter and his Lord come back to the ship together; then the wind ceases; and those in the ship come and worship Him with the acknowledgment, “Indeed Thou art the Son of God.” This is again not difficult to understand; for when He returns to Israel, we shall be with Him still, and for them and us the wind will be at rest. Satan’s power will be over, himself shut up in the bottomless pit, the power of Christ supreme over all.
4. We see now therefore in Gennesaret the mercy flowing out which will characterize this blessed time. “Gennesaret” may even mean “the protection of the prince.” Sickness and distress are banished by the presence of the “Prince of life.” It is but the shadow; what will the reality be?
Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary
Observe here, 1. Christ’s tender and compassionate regard to his own countrymen, the people of Galilee and Nazareth: he preached to them in their synagogue.
2. The effect which his doctrine had upon them: They were astonished at it, but not converted by it; they admired, but did not believe.
3. The cause of their rejecting Christ’s ministry was the meanness of his person, the contemptableness of his outward condition, the poverty of his relations: is not this the carpenter’s son? Mar 6:3. He is called the carpenter; whence the fathers concluded, that our Saviour during the time of his obscure privacy, wrought at the trade of Joseph his reputed father; and Justin Martyr says he made ploughs and yokes. Sure we are, our Lord spent no time in idleness, though we are not certain how he employed his time before he entered upon his public minstry.
Note, That the poverty and meanness of Christ’s condition was that which multitudes stumbled at; and which kept many, yea most, from believing on him. None but a spiritual eye can discern beauty in an humble Saviour: Is not this the son of the carpenter?
2. That it is no impediment to, or hindrance of, our faith, that we never saw Christ’s person in the flesh, nor knew his parentage and education; for here are his own countrymen, who daily saw his person, heard his doctrine, and were witnesses of his holy conversation, yet instead of believing in him they were offended at him.
Our Saviour tells them, he doth not wonder that so many of his own countrymen, to whom he had been so familiarly known, did despise his person, and reject his doctrine; a prophet generally has least esteem where he has been brought up; because, perhaps the follies of his childhood, and indecencies of his youth, are remembered and reported to his disparagement.
Learn, 1. That there is a real tribute of honour due and payable to every prophet, or faithful minister of Jesus Christ.
2. That the ministers of Christ, for the most part, have least honour from their own countrymen, to whom they are best known.
3. That although it be so, yet this may not be through their own fault, for Christ was so amongst us.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Mat 13:53-55. When Jesus had finished these parables Namely, those last mentioned, delivered in the house, which he added to the others spoken before in public; he departed thence, (see Mar 6:1,) and came once more into his own country Namely, Nazareth: but with no better success than he had had there before: for though he preached in their synagogue with such wisdom and eloquence that they were astonished, and also performed some miracles, yet the Nazarenes were not disposed to believe on him, taking offence at the poverty and meanness of his family and relations. They said, therefore, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? Whence? certainly from above, for you yourselves acknowledge that they are too extraordinary to be ascribed to a poor uneducated man. Is not this the carpenters son? In Mark it is, Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary? Although the word, , rendered carpenter, may mean one that works either in wood, iron, or stone, yet it is probable that a carpenter, properly so called, is here intended. Accordingly Justin Martyr tells us that Jesus, before he entered on his public ministry, was employed in this occupation: and the ancient Christians were all of the same opinion. The Jewish canons required that all parents should teach their children some trade; and, probably, the poverty of the family engaged Christ, while he was at home with Joseph, to work at his. What an additional proof is this of the humiliation of the blessed Redeemer for our sakes! The four persons here mentioned and termed the brethren of Christ, it appears, were his cousins, the sons of his mothers sister, the wife of Cleophas, or Alpheus. By James is meant James the Less, whom St. Paul calls the Lords brother, Gal 1:19. Joses, or Joseph, (for the name is the same,) is the only son of the virgins sister, who never was an apostle. Simon is the same who is called the Canaanite, or Zelotes, to distinguish him from Simon Peter. And Judas, or Jude, is the author of the epistle that goes under that name: wherein he is styled the brother of James.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Mat 13:53-58. Jesus Rejected at Nazareth (Mar 6:1-6*, cf. Luk 4:16-30).Mt. has already used Mar 4:35-41 and Matthew 5. Perhaps the original reading in Mat 13:55 is neither carpenters son nor carpenter (Mk.), but, as in the Sinaitic Syriac version, Josephs son. It is a nice question whether in Mat 13:58 Mt. is simply abbreviating Mk. or deliberately altering what seemed a disparagement of Jesus power, and making the absence of mighty works a punishment for unbelief.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
5. The departure 13:53
Matthew leaves the reader with the impression, from this concluding transition as well as from the structure of the discourse, that Jesus related all the preceding parables at one time. This was apparently the case, though He may have repeated some of them at various other times as well. Jesus now left Capernaum and traveled to Nazareth (Mat 13:54).
The clause "and it came about that when Jesus had finished" signals the end of the discourse and the end of another major section of this Gospel. Matthew traced the course of opposition to the King carefully in this section. Israel’s rejection of Jesus was so clear that the King began to tailor His teaching more specifically to unbelievers and to believers.
"Thematically the three chapters (11-13) are held together by the rising tide of disappointment in and opposition to the kingdom of God that was resulting from Jesus’ ministry. He was not turning out to be the kind of Messiah the people had expected. Even John the Baptist had doubts (Mat 13:2-19), and the Galilean cities that were sites of most of Jesus’ miracles hardened themselves in unbelief (Mat 13:20-24). The nature of Jesus’ person and ministry were ’hidden’ (an important word) from the wise, despite the most open and compassionate of invitations (Mat 13:28-30). Conflicts with Jewish leaders began to intensify (Mat 12:1-45), while people still misunderstood the most basic elements of Jesus’ teaching and authority (Mat 12:46-50)." [Note: Carson, "Matthew," p. 260.]
However, Jesus’ enemies had not checkmated Him. The kingdom would still come. Matthew 13 provides assurance of that fact. Jesus added new revelation to old about the kingdom in this chapter to appeal further to the crowds and to prepare His disciples for what lay ahead. He did not teach about the church in this chapter, though He did describe conditions that would exist in the church age, which is part of the inter-advent era. The new revelation that there would be a "church" did not come until chapter 16. He did give further revelation concerning the coming messianic kingdom here (ch. 13). [Note: See Bailey, in The New . . ., pp. 29-30, for a list of 25 major truths taught in Matthew 13.]