Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 13:54

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?

54. his own country ] Nazareth and the neighbourhood.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Into his own country – That is, into Nazareth. Mark, who has also recorded this Mar 6:1-6, says that it took place on the Sabbath. It was common for our Saviour to speak in the synagogues. Any Jew had a fight to address the people, if called on by the minister; and our Saviour often availed himself of the right to instruct the people and declare his doctrines. See Mat 4:23.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 54. And when he was come into his own country] Probably Nazareth, where his parents lived, and where he had continued till his thirtieth year, though it appears he had a lodging in Peter’s house at Capernaum.

They were astonished] It appears, hence, that our blessed Lord had lived in obscurity all the time above specified; for his countrymen appear not to have heard his doctrines, nor seen his miracles, until now. It is a melancholy truth, that those who should know Christ best are often the most ignorant of himself, the doctrines of his word, and the operations of his Spirit.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

54. And when he was come into hisown countrythat is, Nazareth; as is plain from Mr6:1. See on Joh 4:43, wherealso the same phrase occurs. This, according to the majority ofHarmonists, was the second of two visits which our Lordpaid to Nazareth during His public ministry; but in our view it wasHis first and only visit to it. See on Mt4:13; and for the reasons, see Lu4:16-30.

Whence hath this man thiswisdom, and these mighty works?“these miracles.”These surely are not like the questions of people who had askedprecisely the same questions before, who from astonishment hadproceeded to rage, and in their rage had hurried Him out of thesynagogue, and away to the brow of the hill whereon their city wasbuilt, to thrust Him down headlong, and who had been foiled even inthat object by His passing through the midst of them, and going Hisway. But see on Lu 4:16, &c.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

And when he was come into his own country,…. Not where he was born, Bethlehem, for it is never observed, that he went thither; but where he was educated, and where his parents and near relations, according to the flesh, lived; who had been some little time ago seeking for him, and desirous of speaking with him, even Nazareth:

he taught them in their synagogue, it being the sabbath day; see Mr 6:1. The Vulgate Latin, and all the Eastern versions, the Syriac, Arabic, Persic, and Ethiopic, and Munster’s Hebrew Gospel read, “in their synagogues”; but as Nazareth was so mean and obscure a place, it is not likely that there should be in it more synagogues than one; and of no more do we read in Lu 4:16 where an account is given of Christ’s preaching in this place before this time.

Insomuch that they were astonished; at the doctrines he taught, which were new and unheard of to them; and were delivered in such a graceful manner, and with so much power and authority; and also at the miracles he wrought, in confirmation of what he delivered; and said,

whence hath this man this wisdom and these mighty works? They knew his education, how that he had not been put to school, had never learned letters of men, or received any instructions from their learned doctors; and therefore could not imagine, how he came by such sublime and divine knowledge, and by what power he performed such wonderful things; looking upon him to be a mere man, and a very mean, and contemptible one: not knowing that he was the wisdom of God, and the power of God; which had they been acquainted with, there would have been no room, nor reason, for such questions.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Is not this the carpenter’s son? ( ?). The well-known, the leading, or even for a time the only carpenter in Nazareth till Jesus took the place of Joseph as the carpenter. What the people of Nazareth could not comprehend was how one with the origin and environment of Jesus here in Nazareth could possess the wisdom which he appeared to have in his teaching (). That has often puzzled people how a boy whom they knew could become the man he apparently is after leaving them. They knew Joseph, Mary, the brothers (four of them named) and sisters (names not given). Jesus passed here as the son of Joseph and these were younger brothers and sisters (half brothers and sisters technically).

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

1) “And when he was come into his own country,” (kai elthon eis ten patrida autou) “And when he had come into his own native area,” the area of Nazareth in Galilee, where He was brought up, Luk 4:16; from which place of early life He was called a Nazarene, Mat 2:23; Joh 1:46; Mr 6:1; Joh 4:43; Luk 4:23-24.

2) “He taught them in their synagogue,” (edidasken autous en te sunagoge auton) “He taught them in their synagogue.” Perhaps the synagogue in which He announced His anointing of the Holy Spirit and call to preach good tidings to men, Luk 4:16-21.

3) “Insomuch that they were astonished, and said,” (hoste ekpiessesthai autous kai legein) “So that they were astonished and inquired one to another,” much as they had done many days before, when He stood up in their synagogue and read from the scroll of Isaiah, announcing who He was, Isa 61:1-2; Luk 4:21-24; Mr 6:2.

4) “Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?” (psthen touto he sophia aute kai hai duneis) “Where, or from what source has this man this kind of wisdom and ability to do such miraculous deeds?” Joh 7:15; Mr 2:6-12.

He did not receive such from family parentage, schools, his Nazareth environment, or from synagogue instructions, that is certain. Their very questions lend strength to the necessary inference that both His wisdom and dynamic power were of supernatural origin.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

54. So that they were amazed. They are struck with amazement at the novelty of the occurrence, that Christ, who had not learned letters, but had been employed from youth to manhood in a mechanical occupation, is so eminent a teacher, and is filled with divine wisdom. In this miracle they ought to have perceived the hand of God; but their ingratitude made them cover themselves with darkness. (346) They are compelled to admire him, whether they will or not; and yet they treat him with contempt. And what is this but to reject a prophet whom God has taught, because he has not been educated by men? They cut their throat by means of their own acknowledgment, when they render so honorable a testimony to the doctrine of Christ, which after all has no influence on them, because it does not take its origin, in the usual way, from the earth. Why do they not rather lift their eyes to heaven, and learn that what exceeds human reason must have come from God?

Besides, the miracles, which were added to the doctrine, ought to have affected them the more powerfully, or at least to have aroused them from their excessive carelessness and stupidity to glorify God; for certainly, when God adopts unwonted methods of procedure, so much the more clearly does he display the power of his hand. And yet this was the very reason why the inhabitants of Nazareth maliciously drew a veil over their eyes. We see, then, that it is not mere ignorance that hinders men, but that, of their own accord, they search after grounds of offense, to prevent them from following the path to which God invites. We ought rather to argue in the opposite way, that, when human means fail, the power of God is clearly revealed to us, and ought to receive undivided praise.

(346) “ Mais par leur ingratitude ils se sont eblouis l’entendement, a fin de ne faire leur profit de ce qu’ils voyoyent devant leurs yeux;” — “but by their ingratitude their understanding was dazzled, so that they did not derive advantage from what they saw before their eyes.”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

Section 32
JESUS IS REFUSED BY HIS OWN AT NAZARETH.

TEXT: 13:5458

(Parallel: Mar. 6:1-6)

54 And coming 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 carpenters son? Is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joseph; 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 honor, save in his own country, and in his own house. 58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

What is so significant about the amazement of these people, given the fact that it is caused by the miracles and message of Jesus?

Why do you think that the Nazarenes did not know the answer to their own question: Where did He get all this wisdom and these miracles? c. Analyze the reasons why the Nazarenes were caused to stumble in Jesus.

Now, if causing someone to stumble is regarded by the NT as sin, how can you justify Jesus doing precisely that? The Scripture says that the Nazarenes were scandalized by Jesus.

One of the accusations we often make against faith miracle workers today is that too often their miracles do not seem to want to occur in the presence of skeptics, unbelievers or other critical eyes. Here Jesus did not do many miracles because of the Nazarenes unbelief. Nay, worse, Mark (Mar. 6:5) actually affirms that the Lord COULD NOT do any miracles in Nazareth. Does faithor is it credulity?in the miracle worker or in the recipient of the miracle create miracle-working power? Perhaps Jesus was limited by the same weakness and failure as modern fake healers. What is your explanation?

What is the importance here of the mention of Jesus brothers and sisters?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

Jesus left Capernaum and went to His own hometown, Nazareth. His disciples accompanied Him. On the sabbath. He began to teach the folk in the local synagogue. Many who listened to Him were astonished and asked, Where did this man get all this wisdom? What great wisdom He has! What mighty works are done by Him! Is not this the carpenter, the son of the carpenter? Is not his mother called Mary? Are not his brothers named James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters here with us? Where, then, did he get all this? So they were shocked at Him.
But Jesus commented to them, No prophet is left unhonored, except in his own hometown, among his own kin, and in his own house.
And He could not do many mighty miracles in Nazareth, because of their unbelief, except that He laid His hands upon a few sick folk and healed them. He marveled because of their unbelief.

SUMMARY

Jesus tried again to win His own hometown to discipleship. The result was superficial amazement at His supernatural wisdom and miracles, but no real conviction of His true position as Gods Prophet. The Nazarenes were shocked at Jesus; He marveled at their continued unbelief. The townspeople gave Him little or no opportunity to work great miracles on their behalf.

NOTES

Before attempting to comment on this section, it is well to ask whether it be the same incident as that recorded by Luke (Luk. 4:16-30). Some commentaries identify the two accounts and create thereby unnecessary problems for the reader. The coincidences which make the identification appear possible are three:

In both accounts the Nazarenes marveled at Jesus ability. (Mat. 13:54 b = Mar. 6:2, cf. Luk. 4:22) Is this psychologically credible especially the second time, if there were two visits? Yes, because, however well they may have remembered a supposed first visit to Nazareth at the beginning of His ministry (i.e., Luk. 4:16-30), several new factors would have contributed to occasion their astonishment: His far greater popularity in Galilee is now a fact that demanded reappraisal of His claims. New to them also would be His surprising courage in returning after the attempt on His life on His last visit, as well as the loving meekness of His manner, in contrast to their meanness, and His magnanimity in not holding their deeds against them. If time heals things, then Jesus absence from Nazareth for a sufficiently considerable interval would render a repetition of some of the same surprise quite credible.

In both accounts the Nazarenes objected to Jesus pretended authority, because He was the son of Joseph the carpenter. (Mat. 13:55 = Mar. 6:3; cf. Luk. 4:22 b) But this is only natural, since it is the basis of their refusal no matter how many times He visited there.

Would Jesus on two separate visits have reiterated the prophet? Although not exactly verbatim, the wording is close enough. (Mat. 13:57 b = Mar. 6:4, cf. Luk. 4:24) Yes, the reverting to this proverb is not exceptional, since the general circumstances of the two visits to the same hometown could have evoked the same general reaction in Jesus. In fact, the deliberate hammering on this particular motto may indicate Jesus aim to reach a far higher goal than a mere accounting for local prejudices. (See below on Mat. 13:57 b.)

Nevertheless, the differences are more marked than these supposed likenesses:

THE NARRATIVE OF MATTHEW AND MARK

THE NARRATIVE OF LUKE

Mark links this visit to Nazareth with the events around Capernaum following the great Parables Sermon, the trip to Gerasa and return to Capernaum. Matthew, having already told this, links this trip to Nazareth more loosely after the Parables Sermon. But these events are admittedly late in the Galilean ministry.

Luke gives the definite impression that he is narrating an incident early in the Galilean ministry of Jesus shortly after His baptism and temptations.

Mark notices the presence of Jesus disciples on this visit, a natural feature to be expected, as Jesus has now developed His program more fully since His earlier visit, including a following. This argument cannot be conclusive, since Matthew is silent about disciples here, and his account alone cannot argue their absence any more than can Lukes earlier story (Luk. 4:16-30).

Luke is silent about disciples on Jesus first visit to Nazareth, a fact that cannot militate against their possible presence. Nevertheless, the very progress of His relationship to His immediate followers at that early period indicates that He may not yet have called them to personal discipleship. (See Luk. 5:1-11; Luk. 5:27-32.)

Matthew notices the paucity of miracles while Mark mentions a few.

Luke not only records no miracles, but cites Jesus words about Elijah and Elisha that seem to preclude His having done any before entering the synagogue. Certainly, none were recorded as done later.

Matthew and Mark indicate no specific duration of His visit to Nazareth, but they imply at least some time to do a few miracles.

Luke tells how in the synagogue an attempt was made on His life from which He narrowly escaped by walking through the crowd and departing immediately.

These differences are explicable on the basis of Jesus love for His own townspeople: is it like Jesus to have entirely abandoned even Nazareth after one rejection? Second, Jesus growing popularity throughout Galilee and the healing of time might have counselled a second visit because of changed circumstances. Although time did not heal their unbelief, it may have let their offended pride cool enough to permit Him to try again.

Mat. 13:54 Coming into his own country, as Mark connects it, means leaving the unwanted excitement around Capernaum where Jesus had just completed a series of steps to keep tight reins on His own popularity:

The Great Sermon in Parables intended to hide vital truth from any but the most understanding disciples. (Mat. 13:1-53; Mar. 4:1-34; Luk. 8:4 ff).

The withdrawal from the Capernaum crowds by a stormy voyage to Gerasa and, hopefully, some tranquility was interrupted by Gerasene fearful reluctance. (Mat. 8:28-34; Mar. 5:1-20; Luk. 8:26-39)

Then followed the return to Capernaum and the great crowds, the healing of the woman with the hemorrhage, and the resurrection of Jairus daughter and the injunction to the parents to avoid publicity. (Mat. 9:1; Mat. 9:18-26; Mar. 5:21-43; Luk. 8:40-56)

Although He sternly ordered two healed blind men not to publish the news of their healing, they disobeyed. (Mat. 9:27-31)

The crowds marveled yet more when He freed a dumb demoniac. (Mat. 9:32-34)

These pressures on Jesus may have determined His decision to reach an area where His impopularity would have granted a small respite from the constant thronging of people. Nazareth suited His requirements ideally, since the earlier disapprobation of His townsmen had been previously encountered. (Luk. 4:16-30) But Jesus return to Nazareth is no mere avoidance of Capernaum, as if He had nowhere else to go. He strode into Nazareth, because He knew His people and loved them, despite their sins, pride and prejudices. He had remained away from them to let them study Him at long range while He preached and healed all over Galilee. Now He must return once more to teach them, work among them and give them fresh glimpses of His true identity.

Coming into his own country He taught them in their synagogue. Matthews imperfect tense (edidasken) does not in this case mean to suggest that He kept this up for some time, because this is an example of the inchoative imperfect which describes an action as recently, or just begun, being in its first stages. (See Robertson-Davis, Short Grammar, 300; Blass-Debrunner, 169, sec. 326 call it conative imperfect) So, Marks expression, he began to teach, is only the more explicit equivalent of Matthews idiom.

So earnest and powerful, so winsome and true was His message that its immediate effect was the astonishment of the audience. But this amazement is not the marveling that leads to joyous acceptance. It arose, rather, out of what they suppose to be perfect familiarity with Jesus: they think they know Him, as their questions reveal afterward. Their perplexity, expressed in the question: Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works?, arises out of the apparent incongruity between what they thought they knew about Him and what they were even then experiencing with their own senses. But He was, in reality, a perfect Stranger. Edersheim (Life, I, 636ff) rightly notices that the very events of Jesus miraculous conception and birth were hidden from the Nazarenes, even as His earthly development was unseen by the Bethlehemites. But this fact in no way lessens the responsibility of both cities to test the claims of Jesus. In fact, the ignorance of Nazareth concerning the great fact of the Incarnation is no warrant for their unbelief. It should, rather, have spurred them on to examine all the more critically His claims in the light of His miraculous credentials. If they are curious enough to ask this kind of question, which itself contains such damaging admissions on their part, let them seek their proper answers! There was no denying that this man has this wisdom and these mighty works are wrought by his hands! Since their knowledge of these deeds is largely based on hearsay evidence filtering back into Nazareth from nearly every village in Galilee,apparently He worked no miracle in His hometown prior to this historical moment,is it credible that the popular opinions of their fellow Galileans, that Jesus might possibly be the Christ, should not also have been breathed about? They were taken aback, not because of His grace in speaking or because of the truth of His doctrine, but that these virtues should be HIS. Had they not been wilfully blind, they should have understood that ANYONE SO demonstrably without the preparation of academic education who proves himself so amply in possession of such unmatched wisdom and such glorious power MUST have been sent and empowered by God. Their culpability is the more inexcusable because not only were they well aware of these mighty works, but before He left town, they were even to witness the healing of a few sick folk. (Mar. 6:5) Even when they saw it, they did not afterward repent and believe Him. (Cf. Mat. 21:28-32) Were they but to pronounce Him Christ, they would arrive immediately at the only satisfactory answer to their questions, but they supposed the matter settled merely by voicing a few insinuating questions.

Mat. 13:55 Is not this the carpenters son? For this oblique reference to Joseph, Mark has only: Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary . . .? Did Jesus so establish Himself as a worker in Nazareth during His pre-ministry days that His acquaintances remember Joseph only in passing as the man whose carpentry his son took over? Where then is Joseph? His passing may be implied in his not being mentioned in any of the events immediately concerning Jesus family following the return to Nazareth after Jesus birth. (Cf. Mat. 1:16; Mat. 1:18-20; Mat. 1:24; Mat. 2:13; Luk. 1:27; Luk. 2:4; Luk. 2:16; Luk. 2:33; Luk. 2:43; Luk. 3:23; Luk. 4:22; Joh. 1:45; Joh. 6:42 are the only references to Joseph by name in Scripture.) His absence on some occasions may be explained on grounds other than his death, for example, where business demanded that he be elsewhere when Mary and her sons visited Jesus. (Mat. 12:46; Luk. 8:19) However, if Joseph were still alive during Jesus last visit, the unusual phrasing of some Nazarenes question according to Mark, is remarkable.

Is not his mother called Mary? Is not this . . . the son of Mary . . .? (Mar. 6:3) The simplest reading of either of these versions would lead the uncomplicated reader to think the Nazarenes are simply confirming by a negative question expecting a positive answer what they think they know about Jesus. But, some, remembering it somehow un-Jewish to identify a man by mentioning his mothers name, think Mark to be pointing to some peculiar fact.

These words in the mouth of the Nazarenes, says McMillan (Mark, 76) smell of an early rumor circulating to the effect that Jesus was illegitimate, but his proof-texts (e.g., Joh. 8:41; Joh. 9:29, etc.) do not substantiate this, being open to other interpretations. Rather, as discussed at Mat. 1:24, the very circumstances surrounding Jesus birth, in the wisdom of God, forestalled such an accusation on the part of the Nazarenes. Further, Matthews text, parallel to Mark, actually quotes the Nazarenes themselves as describing Jesus as the carpenters son, before ever mentioning Mary. If the Nazarenes believe Jesus to be Josephs son, there can be no suspicion of illegitimacy here. Again, that these words indicate no such rumor is proved by their very vagueness, if such an insinuation were intended. Jesus detractors did not mince words when resorting to name-calling! (Cf. Joh. 8:48; Joh. 8:52; Joh. 7:20; Joh. 10:20; Mar. 3:21-22; Mar. 3:30; Mat. 10:25; Mat. 11:18-19)

Is Marks special wording intended to convey the concept of the Virgin Birth? That is, by saying, Is not this . . . the son of Mary? is he not eliminating Joseph as Jesus real father in the same sense that Mary is His real mother? No, because Mark is citing the objections made by the Nazarenes on the basis of what they considered common knowledge. These words, far from containing Marks doctrine, are in fact not really his at all.

An even simpler solution for the Marcan phenomenon is available; Mark mentions only Jesus mother, because the people he is quoting could not, for some reason, refer directly to Joseph as any longer an active participant in Nazareths life. Is he only remembered by some (cf. Matthews the son of the carpenter), but absent from immediate concern, whereas Mary, being still alive, is very much present in their thinking? Marks words, rather than express editorializing, may well reflect the precise situation in Nazareth and suggest the well-nigh universal supposition that Joseph had been long dead.

Contrary to Plummer, (Matthew, 199), this difference in the form of the questions does not at all represent redactional changes by Matthew, but rather the natural, rapid-fire questioning of excited people.

Are not his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? See the Special Study, The Brethren of the Lord after this chapter. But why do the Nazarenes bother to mention these men by name? They are proudly proving thereby to be able to remember them, since these brothers had moved to Capernaum with Jesus some time earlier. (See on Mat. 4:13; Cf. Joh. 2:12.) By proving their ability to name them one by one, they think they have thereby explained Jesus too: could He possibly be any different from those named?

Mat. 13:56 And are not all his sisters here with us? Did these girls marry Nazarenes and so not move with Jesus mother and brothers to Capernaum with Him? How many ladies are implied in all his sisters is unknown, but, when considered as all younger than Jesus the firstborn and included with four baby brothers, they certainly represented a houseful for Jesus and His (widowed?) mother. Because of the poignant note in Jesus sad proverb: A prophet is not without honor except . . . among his own kin, and in his own house, some have wondered whether the sisters, fearing reprisals from their townsmen who had so bitterly rejected Jesus earlier, had sought to disassociate themselves from Him, because of His apparently unwarranted assumption of superiority over His own people.

The surprise expressed by these Nazarenes in their barrage of questions indicates just how perfectly normal must have been the entire course of Jesus life and development there. This does not deny the deep-running differences that only Mary could have known. Nevertheless, their astonishment serves to mark the perfect humanity of His maturity in wisdom and physical stature to the delight of God and man. (Luk. 2:40; Luk. 2:52) For, if the Nazarenes who knew His history among them best, humanly speaking, could trace no abnormality in His boyhood conduct, we are right to conclude that

He did no miracles as a boy, contrary to the fantastic narrations of the apocryphal gospels. His first miracle was done at Cana of Galilee and not sooner. (Joh. 2:11)

His anointing by the Spirit at His baptism really signaled the beginning of His Messianic mission, after He left Nazareth a few days prior. (Act. 10:37-38) None of His days at Nazareth before this anointing should be considered as having any relation to that commission except as they gave Him time and opportunity to mature as a perfect human being. (Cf. Luk. 2:40; Luk. 2:52)

The doctrine of Jesus perfect humanity (cf. Heb. 2:14; Heb. 2:17; Heb. 4:15; Heb. 5:7-8; Php. 2:8) passed the test of His closest acquaintances. The Nazarenes could not tell the difference between Jesus and His four brothers and all His sisters. His humanity was convincingly real to them.

Their rhetorical questions are devastating to any theory of perpetual virginity for Mary, because they imply the common knowledge that Jesus is in no way different from His brothers, sisters, mother or father. Had there been some suspicion that they were but cousins, their questions would not have been able to imply so much, since He would, in that case, not have been of the same family as the brothers, hence He could have potentially been actually superior and their own argument falls. In fact, they use the words son, mother and sisters in their normal connotation. Why should they be thought to have changed to a larger range of meaning when they speak of His brothers?

Mat. 13:57 And they were offended in him. By what right does the village carpenter, whom we have known all our lives, rise to speak to us with an authority superior to the learned rabbis? Indeed, what right? Their former astonishment hardened into scandal. He did not fit the slot they had carved for Him. So, rather than reject their categories, they rejected Him. But in so doing, they left themselves without any accounting for His wisdom and works, real facts that, despite the fact that they surpassed human understanding, were to be believed. Their shock, indignation and hurt was not any whit less real because Jesus, far from intending them any spiritual damage, aimed only at their eternal life and peace. Their stumbling into sin, further obstinacy and unbelief, could not be helped by Jesus, and this fact leads us to see that stumbling-blocks are of two types:

Sinners being offended by righteous men in the pursuit of righteousness whose godliness itself is the cause of pain, indignation, shock or disgust. Jesus, in the pursuit of His messianic mission, could not help becoming the worlds greatest stumbling block! (Luk. 2:34; Mat. 21:44 = Luk. 20:18; 1Pe. 2:6-8 = Isa. 8:14-15; see notes on Mat. 11:6).

Weak, or relatively innocent people are offended by supposedly righteous men in the pursuit of their own comfort, exercising their rights or freedom while quite unconcerned for the conscience of others. (Cf. Notes on Mat. 18:5-9; Rom. 14:1 to Rom. 15:7; 1Co. 6:12 to 1Co. 11:1)

Ironically, the Nazarenes mistakenly reputed Jesus to be a stumbling block of the latter type, only to splatter their lives against the Rock of Ages!

The Nazarenes blundered by trying to account for Jesus by discussing His quite human family, but they omitted from the account the one ingredient which, though they could not have known it, would have explained Him: the Incarnation. Lest WE too stumble over Jesus, we must appreciate how gross is the blunder involved in attempting to explain Him by ordinary rules. We are tempted to think that unless or until we are able to fathom the mystery of God, or, at least, solve the problem of Jesus Christ, we shall not surrender to Him. Nevertheless, even a perfect intellectual solution would not bow our heads in submission since common canons permit us to measure other people every day, yet we never throw ourselves at their feet to become their servants. In fact, were we to succeed in reducing the Lords Christ to a philosophical formula or a mathematical equation, He would then be unneeded, because, in our conceit, we would have thought to understand Him perfectly. He would be then useless to us as Master and Lord, since we would have then reduced Him to our own self-created categories. But His Incarnation and His Atonement are facts to be believed on the evidence He gives us of their truth, not propositions for debate the issue of which is of little or no consequence. Rather than discredit the evidence because of our failure perfectly to comprehend, let us postpone debate and submit! After all, what is faith for, if we must walk by sight?
Our scandal-level, i.e., that point at which we too are most liable to be shocked, disgusted or hurt by Jesus, is really that point in our thinking at which Jesus holds no surprises for us anymore. When our theology will have succeeded in saying all there is to know about Him, we are perfectly set up for OUR big disappointment in Him. We are Christians, wrote Morgan (Matthew, 181ff), because Jesus towers above us, impresses us, baffles us, eludes us, yet enwraps us with love and thrills us with power. We are Christians in the presence of the Infinite Mystery, infinitely more than in the presence of things that can be perfectly explained.

But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and in his own house. Two thrusts are noticeable in Jesus use of this proverb:

He cites to the Nazarenes this true psychological observation, and by so doing, shows them that, humanly speaking, He understands them. It is genuinely difficult to appreciate the surpassing importance and real accomplishments of someone whose entire growth and development occurred before our eyes. We do have problems accepting the profound changes in people with whom we think ourselves perfectly familiar. So, the Lord, perfectly familiar with His own people, because He really knew their weakness and need, in heart-warming understanding and generous mercy, expresses this solidarity with them in their difficulty.

But the very proverb He selected so to express Himself speaks volumes. He could have said, A successful man is not without honor, etc., and have communicated the above-mentioned human comprehension. Instead, His choice of wording may be nothing less than the earnest challenge to His dear acquaintances to re-examine the evidences that would have led them to see Him as a PROPHET. They might not understand Him to be Gods Son, rather than Joseph and Marys boy, but even so, let them think of Him as Josephs Son the PROPHET! Let them study His message, accept His credentials as proving His right to reveal Gods message like any other mighty prophet born of human parents but called by God! By this approach they might eventually be convinced to bow in humble submission of their divine Townsman. (Cf. Jesus use of a similar approach with Judean enemies, Joh. 10:37-38 and with His most intimate followers, Joh. 14:10-11.)

Mat. 13:58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief. If it be true that faith is that positive contact which man makes with God by abandoning his self-justifications, if it be that positive living in conformity with the convictions he has about Him, then we see why these Nazarenes unbelief caused them to stay away from Jesus. They made no contact with Him, so He did not force them to accept unwanted miracles. If they did not believe Him enough to come bringing their sick to them or ask Him to help them, then He could do no mighty work there. (Mar. 6:6) Jesus could truly say, I just could not help them, because they would not let me!

Further, since Jesus had chosen to limit Himself to help only those willing to receive His blessing, He deliberately did not force either their belief or acceptance of His help. The seemingly objectionable statement of Mark (He could do no mighty work there.) reflects only this moral commitment, not any objective ability that somehow failed in Nazareth. Rather, here is written the meekness of the Son of God: we would have been sorely tempted to rip off some stupendous wonder just to show them, but Jesus stood firm. Again, the Lord refused to undersell the evidential value of a single healing! If the imposition of hands on a few sick folk to heal them (Mar. 6:5) will not produce the unshakeable conviction that God has sent Jesus, no mere escalation of signs and wonders could be hoped to produce it. Nor is He willing to discount the importance of believing the true testimony of others who carried the news of His miracles to Nazareth. (Cf. Mat. 13:54; Luk. 4:23)

Not only did Jesus not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief, but He marveled because of it. (Mar. 6:6) See notes on Mat. 8:10 where Jesus marveled at the great faith of the Roman centurion. There, marveling is described as implying some ignorance of that about which one feels genuine surprise. But who can complain if JESUS CHOSE NOT TO KNOW who would eventually believe or disbelieve Him? This very choice, itself part of the mystery of incarnation, lets Him react genuinely, because He is truly overjoyed at excitingly real faith, or stunned and grieved at obstinate unbelief. He was astounded as He heard their reaction, because their unbelief was so unreasonable. Even though they admitted the premises for the divine origin of His mission and message, they resolutely denied the obvious conclusion to which these premises must necessarily lead.

Although Jesus own doctrine that the quality of ones heart affects his receptivity to the truth had already been expounded in the Parables of the Kingdom, (Mat. 13:1-53), this did not alleviate His heartbreak when He too had to live with that reality embodied in the wayside hearts of His old friends and fellow townsmen. Here, again, we see that the atmosphere which a congregation brings to a message deeply affects its effectiveness, being either a stone wall of hostility through which the message cannot penetrate, or a friendly expectancy that can turn the simplest testimony into soul-stirring eloquence. Many a message has been absolutely ruined, not because it was not true and needed, but due to prejudices against the speaker. And Jesus faced this tooin His own hometown.

FACT QUESTIONS

Is this event but another version of Jesus rejection at Nazareth as recorded in Luk. 4:16-30? What are the similarities and differences?

What is the point of the rhetorical questions asked by the Nazarenes in reference to Jesus family?

What damaging evidence against the theory of the perpetual virginity of Mary is unconsciously provided by the Nazarenes questions in this section?

Did Jesus do any miracles at Nazareth? How do you know?

Explain how the Nazarenes took offense at Him.

Name Jesus brothers.

How many sisters did Jesus have?

How did the Nazarenes admit as a matter of fact the miracles that Jesus did? What, then, did they reject?

What proverb did Jesus cite as the explanation of the Nazarenes rejection of His person and ministry?

10.

According to the best information available in the NT, how many times did Jesus visit the Nazareth synagogue after the beginning of His ministry? What was the response each time?

11.

Explain how Jesus could marvel at the unbelief of His townspeople. Did their unbelief surprise Him? If so, how? If not, why not?

SPECIAL STUDY: THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD

What is the real purpose of this study? Is it to discover from an examination of the best evidence available to us, whether the men who are entitled in Scripture the brethren of the Lord, were real, natural half-brothers of Jesus, being sons of Mary; or whether they were step-brothers, being sons of Joseph by a former wife before espousing Mary; or whether they were cousins, being sons of Alphaeus (or Clopas), Josephs brother (or else, sons of Mary of Clopas, sister of Mary, Josephs wife)? Is this research into the semi-obscure facts surrounding the life of our Lord only for academic discussion?. What could be gained by a knowledge of the answer to the proposed questions? Beyond mere acquaintance with the facts, are we any richer morally?
Or is it the purpose of such a study to affirm or deny the perpetual virginity of Mary as a dogma affirmed by the Roman Catholic denomination? Even if, after accurate study, one concludes that Mary did, in fact, have no other children after the birth of Jesus, and that the reputed brethren of the Lord were, in fact, sons of Joseph by a former wife named Hannah, what is gained for the Catholic position, or what is lost for those who previously objected to the idea (not to say, doctrine or dogma) of the perpetual virginity of Mary?
Or is the question even correctly put in that fashion? Could we not ask ourselves, what USE is to be made of the supposed perpetual virginity? What is the FUNCTION of such a pretended fact?
So the importance or value of this study does not lie so much in enriching our information about the private life and relations of Jesus, as in dealing with the Catholic apologists who would elevate Mary to a superhuman plane. To do this they must demonstrate three fundamental propositions, one of which this study touches directly:

Mary was herself conceived without sin, or the dogma of the immaculate conception;

Mary remained virgin throughout her married life, or the dogma of perpetual virginity;

Mary is an object of special veneration, or the dogma of her special status in heaven whereby she is supposed to be accorded particular devotion. This last step in her exaltation involves the following unproven assumptions: (Cf. I.S.B.E., 2003)

Christs perpetual humanity (something else to prove) presumes His perpetual Sonship to Mary, as argument which implies that the glorified Lord Jesus is still subject to His mother.

Christ hears her prayers, hence she is an intercessor through whom prayers may be addressed to Jesus.

Since Mary cared for the body of Christ when He was on earth, naturally, His spiritually body, the Church, would be her special care in heaven.

Even if it were possible to establish as fact that every Church Father who supported the perpetual virginity of Mary had no ulterior theory to defend by that stand, in which case each may be regarded as trustworthy to transmit no more than simple, historical fact, and even if it were possible to establish on purely logical and exegetical grounds from the Scriptures that both Mary AND Joseph remained virgins in their marriage relationship, still much stands or falls in relationship to the moral implications drawn therefrom by the modern Christian, some of which are:

The medieval conception, not yet fully clarified or changed by those whose denomination officially tolerated it, of the intrinsic sinfulness of the desire for marital relations and the act by which that desire is realized. (Contrast 1Ti. 4:3-4; Heb. 13:4) Marriage, though a holy sacrament for many, must yet be viewed by them as inferior to celibacy and incompatible with holy living in its highest, purest sense. This conclusion must necessarily follow and certainly was the view of many, however contradictory both to Scripture and to logic. For, if, Mary was married to Joseph and Joseph to Mary in appearance only, then they were recreant to each other and to the ordinance of God which made them one. (I.S.B.E., 2003)

Must the ancient repugnance to Christian feeling to think of the womb of Mary, in which the Word, made flesh, had dwelt in a peculiar way, as the habitation of other babes, (I.S.B.E., 520) express also the sentiments of the modern Christian?

Must the modern Christian share the view that Mary is not to be considered a human being under the ordinary obligations of human life, (I.S.B.E., 2003), removed from the sphere of ordinary life and duties as too commonplace for one who is to be surrounded with the halo of a demi-god, and to be idealized in order to be worshipped? (I.S.B.E., 520)

Must the Scriptures continue to be mishandled in order to support an unjustifiable theory of celibacy, an unbased theory of Josephs virginity, a distorted view of marriage and an inadequate understanding of the family? Even if it were logically conceded that Joseph and Mary chose, for whatever reasons, to abstain from marital relations after the birth of Jesus, and even if the brethren of the Lord are logically conceded to be the sons of any other woman than Mary, it is not right that Biblical texts be distorted to prove it.

It is too apparent that the presumption of perpetual virginity for Mary is an important link in her exaltation without sin to be an object of worship in her function as mediatrix, just as much as the dogma of her immaculate conception (her being born sinless so as not to transmit inherited original sin to Jesus) and the almost forgotten but necessary assumption of her immaculate life. But whatever may be the eventual use of the particular information regarding the brethren of the Lord, the evidence for this link in the chain of Mariolatry, which binds the conscience of millions of people for whom Christ died, is as weak as any of the others.

WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE?

As will be seen, the main interpretations of the brethren of the Lord have been three: the cousin theory, the step-brother theory and the half brother view. (For fuller exposition of these views and their relative literature, see I.S.B.E. and other encyclopedic articles on the brethren of the Lord, on the individual names of the four brothers, on Mary, on virginity and similar topics. See especially J.B. Lightfoots commentary on Galatians, pp. 252291. For much of the following material, I am indebted to Lightfoots collection of evidence, however much I may disagree with his choice of conclusion.

The basic problems involved in the identification of the Lords brethren turns upon the following considerations:

The identification of Clopas (or Cleophas): was he the same man as Alphaeus, father of the Apostle, James of Alphaeus? Was Clopas the brother of Joseph, foster father of Jesus? Are Judas Thaddaeus or Simon the Zealot, or both, sons of this Alphaeus-Clopas?

Is Mary of Clopas to be identified with the Mary mother of James and Joses, hence also mother of Simon (or Simeon) Zelotes and Judas Thaddaeus? Is this Mary to be identified as the sister of Jesus mother?

Is Jesus mothers sister to be identified with the wife of Zebedee and with Salome?

In order better to see the relative connections the following charts are offered:

Chart 1:

WOMEN AT THE CROSS.

Question marks indicate doubt about the identificath

Mat. 27:56

Mar. 15:40

Joh. 19:25 (rearranged)

Mary Magdalene

Mary, mother of James and Joses

Mary, mother of James the Little and Joses

Mary of Clopas (?)

________, mother of Zebedees sons

Salome (?)

________, Jesus mothers sister (?)

________

________, Jesus mother

The identification of these women depends upon the certainty of several probabilities:

It is unlikely that in Joh. 19:25 the phrase Jesus mothers sister is to be taken as in apposition with Mary of Clopas, making John list only three women at the cross, since he is actually listing two pairs of women. This is shown in two ways:

He links the first two and the last two by the conjunction and, almost, as if to indicate a separation of some sort between the two pairs.

Johns well-known habit throughout his gospel of suppressing the names of himself and his relatives may be evident here, since it may be presumed that Mary Magdalene and Mary of Clopas were not relatives of John, whereas if this identification suggested above proves valid, then Mary, Jesus mother, and Salome, Johns mother, would be sisters. For this reason John leaves both women nameless, identifying them only by a descriptive phrase.

It is likely that Johns mother is to be equated with Jesus. Mothers sister, since Johns mother was certainly at the cross and it does not seem likely that John would have omitted her.

Both Salome and Jesus mothers sister remain otherwise totally unidentified. and unidentifiable to the modern reader of the text, unless they are otherwise to be identified with the also unnamed mother of Zebedees sons, This is not impossible, since Salome would be her name, mother of Zebedees sons gives her relationship to the Apostles, and Jesus mothers sister identifies her connection with Jesus and His mother.

One result of this theory, of course, is that Jesus is seen as a cousin of James and John, a theory which may also account for the definite intimacy these two enjoyed with the Lord, as well as provide a reason why Jesus consigned His mother over to John the Apostle, His cousin.

Chart 2:

LISTS OF THE APOSTLES INVOLVED IN THIS QUESTION

Mat. 10:2-4

Mar. 3:13-19

Luk. 6:12-16

Act. 1:13

—–

James of Alphaeus

10.

Thaddaeus

Simon the Zealot

11.

Simon the Cananean

Simon the Canaanean

Judas of James

12.

Judas Iscariot

—–

For a full list of the Twelve, see notes on Mat. 10:2-4.

In this chart several items are to be noted:

James of Alphaeus is always the principle name leading this third group of Apostles, even as Peters always leads the first group and Philips the second. Judas lscariots name always concludes this third group, except in Acts where his suicide is already an accomplished fact, hence the omission in the fourth list.

The remaining two names, though reversed in the last two lists, remain together as if bound together by some unmentioned tie.

The identification of Thaddaeus with Judas of James is discussed under Mat. 10:2-4; so also the names Cananaean and Zealot.

The intriguing question to be solved is which James is intended in the descriptive Judas of James. Is Judas the brother of the son of Alphaeus? Or is he the son of another unknown James?

With these crude, rudimentary tools in hand, let us examine the evidence for each view.

THE COUSIN THEORY

The great Jerome propounded the theory which has gained currency among Catholic commentators that the brethren of the Lord are, in reality, His cousins. Others have noticed certain points necessary to sustain this suggestion and so have added features unknown to Jerome but were essential to the theory. The theory is based upon the following points:

James, son of Alphaeus, is thought to be the Lords brother, James.

Alphaeus, the father of James, is supposedly to be identified linguistically with Clopas (or Cleophas), since Alphaos is the Greek equivalent of the Aramean Chalphai. (On this, see Lightfoots learned discussion, pp. 256f and footnotes, 267f.)

The term James the Less, seemingly, implies only one other eminent man among the Apostolic band known by the name of James, i.e., James of Zebedee. Therefore, James of Alphaeus would be also James the Less, son of Mary, whose brothers name is Joses (or, Joseph), a name also found in the list of the brethren of the Lord.

According to the theory, Mary of Clopas is said to be the wife of Alphaeus, hence, mother of James of Alphaeus.

Mary of Clopas (Alphaeus), being the mother of James, is said to be sister of Jesus mother.

The result of this theory, that James the Lords brother is really the Lords cousin, is also based upon the loose Aramaic use of the word brother in Scripture for: actual brotherhood, common nationality, wider kinsmanship or only friendship or sympathy.

Due to the testimony of Hegesippus (cited by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. iii, 20), some add also Judas of James, considering him to be brother of James the Lords brother, and perhaps Simon the Zealot as well, since these three names are kept together in the list of the Apostles. Not only are the Lords brethren to be thought of as His cousins, but some, if not all, of His brothers are also Apostles, according to the theory.

The theory presupposes also the death or incapacitation of Alphaeus (= Clopas) the putative father of these four men, as well as the inability of Mary (of Clopas) to care for them, in which case they must have been practically raised in the house of Joseph and Mary in whose company they are often seen. (Cf. Joh. 2:12; Mat. 12:46 and par.) The Nazarenes consider these brethren to be as much a part of the family of Joseph and Mary as Jesus or His sisters. (Mat. 13:54-58)

Perhaps it would help to visualize the view of Jerome as it was adapted by its adherents:

Objections to this theory are hardly less numerous than the points on which it is founded :

While it may be granted that in Hebrew or Aramaic the word brother must do service for a wider range of relationships, it would be unnatural for the Evangelists who left their works for us in Greek to have failed to specify the exact relationship intended, especially since in Greek the words are available for cousin (anepsis, Col. 4:10) and kinsman (suggens, Luk. 1:36; Luk. 2:44; Luk. 21:16; Mar. 6:4). Surely the very Evangelists who describe the other most intimate facts about the relationships of people in the Lords family would not have failed to be reasonably specific about this point, avoiding those expressions which are ambiguous at least, and might be understood as implying that these men were half brothers through Mary.

Another serious objection to the Cousin Theory is its presumption that at least two (i.e., James of Alphaeus and Judas [brother] of James), if not three (including Simon the Zealot), of the Lords brethren were Apostles, a conclusion inconsistent with the Apostle Johns declaration (Mat. 7:5) that as late as six months before Jesus death: even his brothers did not believe in him. Could John say this of two or three out of four brothers, if those who did not believe were supposedly Apostles? Instead, the brethren are clearly distinguished from the Apostles. (Cf. Act. 1:14; 1Co. 9:5, Cephas name being distinguished in this latter passage only for special emphasis, not as being separate from the Apostles group just mentioned.) Judas of James (Jud. 1:1; Jud. 1:17) only seems to disclaim being an Apostle, since Peter speaks the same way (2Pe. 3:2). However, this latter part of the argument would not be conclusive.

The expression, James the Less, implies only two of the name James, one of which is distinguished from the other by this epithet. But Mark (Mar. 15:40) wrote: James the Small, Little or Young, not the Less. (Iakbou to mikro, not mikrotrou) So the descriptive title usually translated as an adjective of comparative degree, which generally speaks of only two between which the comparison is made, turns out to be one of positive degree. That it certainly denotes some standard of comparison, without which it would make no sense, cannot be doubted, but that that standard has to be one, and only one other, James (and not rather two or three others) must be questioned. Besides, there might be some long-forgotten reason in the domestic life of James the Less that dubbed him with that distinctive title that even in adult life he could not shake off. (Cf. the diminutive ending on Jimmy, or even Jim for James, used as names for grown men. Also, James the Less may have been a very tall man, earning him the humorous label Little Jimmy.) So it may well be that the expression, the Less, relates the James to no other James at all, but refers, rather, to some other point of comparison. Even if the comparison is with others by the name of James, these cannot be limited in number to only one other, as Jeromes theory demands.

According to the theory, Jude . . . of James is considered as the brother, instead of son, of James, an interpretation which, according to Lightfoot (Galatians, 253), is not the proper word to be supplied in the ellipsis. It also goes against early translations which use son. Had these two men been brothers, it is probable that Luke would have written James of Alphaeus and Jude his brother, or else, James and Judas, sons of Alphaeus, as in the case of the other pairs of brothers. Also in the Apostolic lists of Luke (Luk. 6:16 and Act. 1:13), Simon the Zealot interrupts this supposed brotherhood, for, if he were not a brother, why insert his name here? If Simon too were a brother, as some adherents of this theory claim, why call only Judas of James and not Simon too? Further, neither Matthew nor Mark, who actually mention Thaddaeus (presumably the same as Judas of James) immediately following James of Alphaeus, show any evidence of connecting Thaddaeus with James of Alphaeus. Finally, Lightfoot remarks that since this Judas is described in so many different ways (Thaddaeus, of James and not Iscariot, Joh. 14:22), were he really the Lords brother, as this theory supposes, it would not be thought possible that he could, in all these instances, have escaped being described in that way, when that one designation would have immediately identified the man meant by the authors.

Of course, it must be admitted in reference to Simon the Zealot that the fact that he is not designated also as of James, is not conclusive, since he is uniformly labelled the Zealot = the Cananaean. This appellation distinguishes him at once from Simon Peter and, at the same time, indicates his background. Both are sufficient reasons perhaps to override the necessity to mark him as brother of James of Alphaeus and Judas of James. So the interruption mentioned above would not in itself be fatal to this part of the theory;

Another significant improbability to be noted in the Cousin Theory is the presupposition that there were two Marys in the same family: Mary of Joseph and Mary of Clopas. (Joh. 19:25, see Chart 1) The problem rests in the decision whether the expression Mary of Clopas is to be taken as in apposition with the descriptive: Jesus mothers sister, and not rather as naming another woman. The reasons offered for taking the two expressions as designating two separate women are:

It is at least reasonably improbable that two sisters should have borne the same name. Among near kin, such a practice would not be so improbable as its use in the same household for blood sisters.

Joh. 19:25 seems to separate the four women into two pairs each by his use of conjunctions.

Lightfoot (ibid., 264) puts emphasis on the rendering of the Peshito Syriac which inserts a conjunction between the two names: his mothers sister, and Mary of Cleophas . . . He says, It is not unlikely that a tradition underlies the Peshito rendering. (ibid., 264)

Regardless of the linguistic relationships between the Aramaic name Cleophas (Chalphai) or Clopas, and the Greek name Alphaeus, (Alphaos), let it be remembered that perfect identification of names still does not prove identity of persons.

Jesus brothers are mentioned in the Gospels in connection with Joseph and Mary, Jesus reputed father and real mother, never with Mary of Clopas, the presumed wife of Alphaeus-Clopas. (Mat. 12:46; Mat. 13:55 and parallels) Further, these cousins real mother, Mary of Clopas, was very much alive even until Jesus crucifixion. (See Chart 1: Joh. 19:25.) Why she could not have raised these boys, instead of Joseph and Mary is, of course, unknown to us, but is it likely that the Nazarenes should have described them as Jesus brethren, in the same sense that they supposed Him to be Josephs son, Mary to be His mother, and the girls in that family to be His sisters? Their argument, intended to account for the humanness of Jesus, implies the quite ordinariness of these relations. (See on Mat. 13:54-58.)

THE STEP-BROTHER THEORY

This understanding of the matter sees the brethren of the Lord as sons of Joseph by a former wife before marrying Mary. Having, as it does, the advantage of the support of the large majority of the Church Fathers would seem to give this explanation additional importance, since that fact alone would seem to signify that a nearly unanimous opinion on the subject was shared by the very men most able to testify on the subject. Various, interesting bits of information are supplied by those Fathers who happened to write on the subject, as, for instance, the names of Jesus sisters (Mary and Salome, according to Epiphanius in his treatise against Heresies), the name of Josephs former wife (Hannah, or Anna, according to Eusebius, On the Star) or that Joseph was at least eighty years old or past when he married Mary (Epiphanius, Protevangelium Jacobi). Without pretending to pronounce upon the worth of each testimony of the Fathers, a task well beyond my competence, I might just observe that the support by a large majority of the Church Fathers does not necessarily argue the validity of the view. It may only demonstrate how widespread the error was believed and handed on. So, like any evidence received from the Fathers which must be tested by the revelation they purport to explain, so this theory of theirs must face the same fire, despite the fact that some of them write as if they thought to be giving testimony to fact, not theory.

This explanation may be represented graphically as follows:

Support for this theory is not so much exegetical or logical as it is traditional, i.e., based upon citations from the Fathers, who are themselves debating the issue.

The question, then, must be resolved in the same way the Fathers themselves tried to deal with it, i.e., by debating the relative points in the argument. While it seemed to Lightfoot, and certainly to others, that certain of the more informed Fathers were giving testimony to facts against which the appeal of logic or exegesis of Scripture would have no force, yet the Fathers themselves, if the citations brought forward by Lightfoot are typical examples, do not affirm the antiquity of their opinions on the basis of undoubted, uninterrupted tradition. Or, if some of them seem to do this, others of the same periods do not let this hinder their own independent investigation of the case. Although the great Jerome ultimately seems to have relinquished his position, yet at the close of the fourth century in his commentary on Matthew (398 A.D.) he does not seem to consider the question closed on the basis of traditional authority. Rather he taunts those who considered the Lords brethren to be the sons of Joseph by a former wife with following the ravings of the apocryphal writings and inventing a wretched creature . . . Melcha or Escha by name. (Lightfoot, 260) This state of affairs in the Fathers leaves us freer to consider the bad logic or bad exegesis involved in the problem and freer to come to our own conclusions.

The advantage of this position over the Cousin Theory is immediately apparent in that this theory takes the word brother seriously, giving to it a more natural meaning. These step-brothers can be called brothers in the same sense in which Joseph is called Jesus father (Luk. 2:33; Luk. 2:41; Luk. 2:43), even by Mary who knew the facts best. (Luk. 2:48) This view also takes better account of the fundamental Gospel description of the Lords brothers as unbelievers distinct from the Apostles. It also connects them better with Joseph and Mary, instead of bringing them in from a completely different family.

However, several objections appear at once to this theory:

The Step-brothers Theory makes Joseph a very old man, assuming for him a previous marriage, a supposition nowhere alluded to in the canonical Gospels. The argument usually offered for Josephs advanced age, on the basis of the NT Gospels, is these books silence regarding the man after his appearance in the narrative of Jesus at age twelve in the Temple. (Luk. 2:41-51) From this silence it is usually presumed that he passed permanently out of the picture by death. But this very silence, offered as Biblical evidence for the advanced age of Joseph (ignoring for sake of the argument the traditions in the Protevangelium Jacobi and in Epiphanius), is perfectly consonant with the possibility that Joseph was killed or died a natural death while relatively young. So, silence proves nothing certain about the age of Joseph.

But granted for sake of argument that Joseph actually did die shortly after Jesus was twelve years old, this still means that Joseph lived as husband with Mary for twelve years. One of the incredible results of this fact, if the perpetual virginity of Mary be true, is that, if Joseph dwelt with Mary for twelve years yet keeping her a virgin until the day of his own death, then Joseph must be seen to have made a solemn renunciation of his own marriage rights. As far as Mary was concerned, and as far as Joseph in his new relation with her was concerned, he was virtually a virgin too. Were it possible to demonstrate categorically that the Lords brethren were His cousins or His step-brothers, yet the words of Sweet (I.S.B.E., 2003) would still ring with devastating truth: That a married woman has no children is no proof of virginityperpetual or otherwise. The idea of Marys perpetual virginity demands, by the nature of the marriage relationship, the continued abstinence from marital relations with his wife on the part of Joseph, dating at least from the time of his marriage to Mary until his death.

Further granted for sake of argument that Joseph were eighty when he married Mary and died when Jesus was twelve years old, let it not be supposed that he COULD NOT have begotten by Mary at least six children before his death. Neither the birth of Isaac (Gen. 21:1-3) nor that of John the Baptist (Luk. 1:5-24; Luk. 1:57-67) are ever thought of as miraculous (i.e., supernatural) conceptions, even though they were born of extremely old parents, a fact which makes the births marvellous indeed, but that fact alone would not necessitate their being considered as being supernaturally conceived. Had they been supernatural, then the astonishing, supernatural conception of Jesus would not have been at all unique.

Another objection that should be raised to this theory is the fact that, had these brothers been sons of Joseph by a former wife before he espoused Mary, then the oldest of these brothers would surely have been regarded as legal heir to Joseph, hence to the throne of David. Jesus would not be the legal heir of Joseph, as attested by the genealogies of Matthew (Mat. 1:1-17, on which see notes, Vol. I) and of Luke (Luk. 3:23-38), since Jesus, in such a case, would be but the youngest of five legal sons of Joseph. While it is true that these very genealogies of Jesus do not always follow the direct line of descent from father to his firstborn son, due to deaths, adoptions, etc., yet the generally established rule is to follow this direct succession, unless there be some well-known, overriding factor that prohibits this. But in the Gospel there is no such fact that would justify the passing over four older sons of Joseph merely in order to consider Jesus as the legal heir of Joseph, unless that were His rightful position because of His real primogeniture.

While the argument from silence can never be conclusive, yet the ancient authors, who are cited as being of the opinion that the Lords brethren are elder sons of Joseph by another wife before his espousal to Mary, do not take adequate account of the Scriptures silence regarding their (supposed) existence from before the birth of Jesus until their actual appearance in the narrative. That is, where were those supposed sons of Joseph while he took Mary to Bethlehem for the census? Where were they during the flight into Egypt? Until Joseph brought the family back to Nazareth? That is, unless the testimony of Eusebius (On the Star) be so construed, which says, Joseph and Mary and Our Lord with them and the five sons of Hannah (Anna) the first wife of Joseph. Supposedly, the account from which this passage is taken professes to be founded on a document dating A.D. 119. (See Lightfoot, ibid. 283, footnote 1.) The usual assumption of the Fathers, who lean heavily upon the apocryphal gospels for their proof of the existence of these sons of Joseph prior to Jesus birth, is that the Gospel silence is to be interpreted as suggesting that either the brethren were present on the occasions mentioned above but escaped mention by the Evangelists because of the relative unimportance of their place in the history at that point. Or, it must be assumed that they were left at home in Nazareth, being grown up enough to care for themselves during Josephs absence. Let it be remembered, however, that this same silence of the Evangelists is just as fully capable of being interpreted to mean that these brethren of the Lord had not yet been born!

THE HALF BROTHERS VIEW

This view, in the words of Lightfoot (Galatians, 253), is that the obvious meaning of the term (brethren) was the correct meaning; and that these brethren were the Lords brethren as truly as Mary was the Lords mother, being her sons by her husband Joseph. Though each detail in connection with the protagonists of this question, when considered individually, might with some difficulty be explained otherwise, the force of the argument is cumulative. There are too many items to be explained away, in order to establish any other inference than that these people were half brothers of Jesus. (I.S.B.E., 519)

This view may be diagrammed as follows:

Some of the points in the chart depend upon factors already discussed, such as the identification of Mary of Clopas with Mary the mother of James and Joses (see Chart 1), the identification of the Apostles James, Simon and Judas (Chart 2 and notes under the Cousin Theory), as well as the linguistical identification of Alphaeus with Cleophas (or Clopas), hence enjoy the strengths or suffer the weaknesses of the position of these factors in the other theories.

There are, however, several new items that are derived, rightly or not, from the testimony of Hegesippus, a Hebrew Christian of Palestine living around 160 A.D. Though the testimony was cited by Lightfoot as tending to support the Step-brothers Theory, rather than the Half Brother View, since Eusebius and Epiphanius who quote Hegesippus take former view of the question, yet the objective facts which Hegesippus mentions are susceptible of another interpretation:

After the martyrdom of James the Just on the same charge as the Lord, his paternal uncles child Symeon the son of Clopas is next made bishop, who was put forward by all as the second in succession, being cousin of the Lord. (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., iv. 22)

They say he (Simeon the son of Cleophas) was the cousin german of our Saviour, for Hegesippus asserts that Cleophas was the brother of Joseph. (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., iii, 11)

In another place (iii, 32), Eusebius cites Hegesippus testimony to the same effect. Now, the question arises whether it is legitimate to reject out of hand the contrary testimony of the Fathers on one view and appeal to agreeable testimony for another view. It will be noticed, however, that appeal is not made here to direct testimony on the perpetual virginity of Mary or upon the relation of the brothers to Jesus, even though Hegesippus witness contains also notice of this latter fact. Rather, the testimony is brought forward to notice the connection of Cleopas and Joseph, a relationship that, while not directly material for the controversy, yet provides a link in an otherwise incomplete chain. Eusebius himself quotes this testimony no less than three separate times as if he had no doubt about its authenticity even though he himself lived about 180 years later.

Weaknesses of this theory of the relationships immediately arise:

The identification of Clopas with Alphaeus, which itself, in turn, is dependent upon the following considerations: (I.S.B.E., 106)

That Mary of Clopas is the same as Mary, mother of James the Less and Joses. (See Chart 1.) Impossible to prove or disprove.

That James the Less and James of Alphaeus are the same person. Though this is impossible to demonstrate absolutely, this identification is the absolutely necessary key to solve the problem.

That Clopas and Alphaeus are different variations of a common name, variations arising out of varying approximation in Greek of an Aramaic name. Competent scholars stand both for and against this identification. But, as noted before, certain linguistic identification of the two names would never prove identification of persons.

That Clopas (or Alphaeus) was known by two names, a hypothesis not unlikely, considering the practice of that period. Unfortunately, there is no evidence to demonstrate whether he too followed this usage.

Also the supposition that we have correctly identified the sons of Clopas (Alphaeus?) and Mary as being James and Joses (Mat. 27:56; Mar. 15:40), Simon (Hegesippus, cited above) and Judas of James (or Thaddaeus). While it would seem that three out of four of these cousins of the Lord are to be numbered among the Apostles, yet the tenuous identifications are impossible to prove:

While Simon of Clopas is described by Hegesippus as the Lords cousin, this seems to weigh against his being the same as Simon the Zealot, the Apostle, else would not Hegesippus have found it easier so to describe him? Further, Hegesippus remark (Eccl. Hist. iii, 11) is found in a context where the Apostles, brethren and disciples of the Lord gather to seek a worthy successor to James, bishop of Jerusalem. Considering the particular mission of the Apostles, it would be hardly likely that an Apostle, Simon the Zealot, were he to be identified with Simon of Clopas, should have been selected to fill the episcopal office.

The likelihood of Judas being the brother of, rather than the son of, James, has already been noticed. (See objection 4 under the Cousin Theory.) Yet, if the writer of the Epistle of Jude is the same man as Judas of James, the identification of that Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James (Jud. 1:1) is reasonably assured. Unfortunately, the very, fact that the name James was so common, reduces our certainty that the very James to whom he was brother is also James of Alphaeus.

At this point it is worthwhile to examine the objections Lightfoot (ibid. 270ff ) offers to the Half Brother View:

Without stating it clearly, Lightfoot seems to suggest that since Joseph disappears from the record after Jesus visit to the Temple at age 12; therefore Joseph died. Hence, Mary naturally appears alone with Jesus brethren. Lightfoot suggests (but does not state) the conclusion that Joseph could not have begotten at least six children in these twelve years. If so, this is patently impossible to prove, since Mary and Joseph could have had one baby every other year, all born after Jesus.

It is objected also that the perpetual virginity of Mary is not hindered by certain expressions thought to deny it:

According to Lightfoot, the expression he knew her not until (Mat. 1:25) does not imply normal marital relations after the birth of Jesus. But this is manifestly false in light of the following considerations:

(1)

The very fact that Matthew made any declaration at all, short of saying, He knew her not until her death, suggests quite the opposite interpretation. Had the Apostle Matthew considered the perpetual virginity of Mary to be so important as later to be recognized as dogma, he could not have expressed the critical information upon which the dogma depends in more equivocable or compromising language.

(2)

It is often argued by defenders of the perpetual virginity myth that the Evangelist, whose purpose in this chapter (Mat. 1:25) is to bring out the supernatural birth of Jesus, clearly affirms the virginity of Mary up to the moment of birth; what occurred after that, and that which comes to us through tradition, lies outside of his present perspective. In an excellent discussion of the critical word until (hos ho) Fausto Salvoni (Sesso e amore nella Bibbia) brings forward cogent reasons why the word until actually does deal with, or speak clearly about, that period which follows the time limited by until. It has been thought useful, therefore, to include in summary form Salvonis argument at the conclusion of this study.

As Lightfoot rightly points out, some have mistakenly supposed that Lukes (Mat. 2:7) expression, She gave birth to her first-born son, implied a second-born and so further. However, first-born to the Jewish mind had special significance. (Cf. Luk. 2:22-24) The first-born belonged to the Lord in a special way that was not true of the second-born, or of other children born later. The term first-born refers, then, to a position based upon order of birth, it is true, but does not necessitate other births.

Woman, behold thy son. (Joh. 19:26-27) is thought by Lightfoot to be most devastating to the Half Brothers View, for this phrase seems to indicate that Mary did not have four grown sons who should care for her so well as John the disciple. Lightfoot argues (ibid. 272):

Is it conceivable that our Lord would thus have snapped asunder the most sacred ties of natural affection? The difficulty is not met by the fact that her own sons were still unbelievers, This fact would scarcely have been allowed to override the paramount duties of filial piety. But even when so explained, what does this hypothesis require us to believe? Though within a few days a special appearance is vouchsafed to one of those brethren, who is destined to rule the mother Church of Jerusalem, and all alike are converted to the faith of Christ; yet she, their mother, living in the same city and joining with them in a common worship (Act. 1:14) is consigned to the care of a stranger of whose house she becomes henceforth the inmate.

But Lightfoots rejection of the Half Brothers theory is ungrounded in light of the following considerations:

The supposed unnaturalness of Jesus action on the cross in consigning His mother to John, were there other sons of Mary to whom He might have given her, is not formidable against His placing her in the hands of John. As a matter of fact, no one knows exactly WHERE those brothers were at that moment, just before Jesus died. Some unknown domestic circumstance may explain the omission of her sons. (J.S.B.E., 520) If, for any reason whatever, those sons of Mary were not present at the cross, Jesus COULD NOT have consigned her care to them, even had He wanted to, unless by delegation.

But the very assumption by those who argue against the Half Brothers Theory on the view that these men were older sons of Joseph by a former marriage, falls at this very point. Their assumption fails to take into account the fact that Jesus, according to their theory, turns out to be the YOUNGEST of five sons in the legal family of Joseph. Hence, Jesus does not have the right to turn His mother over to anyone! That right belongs to the oldest brother, not to Jesus. If appeal is made in this discussion to Jewish custom, neither Jesus authority nor the special circumstances under which Jesus made the statement can have anything to do with the question. On the other hand, Jesus action on the cross, delivering Mary into Johns care, is perfectly harmonious with the view that He consistently maintained the position and performed the duties of the eldest son throughout His earthly life. Jesus could hand over His sacred charge to the trustworthy keeping of another, because He had faithfully maintained it Himself. (I.S.B.E., 2002)

Some may take exception to this view that the picture seen of Jesus in the Gospels is that of His playing the part of the eldest son, by objecting, But does not the interference of His mother and brothers with Jesus ministry (Mat. 12:46 ff; Mar. 3:31 ff; Luk. 8:19 ff; cf. Mar. 3:19 b Mar. 3:21) presuppose a superiority? This attitude of superiority is quite inconsistent with the position of younger brothers, according to Jewish customs. Jacobs (ISBE, 520) answers, Those who pursue an unjustifiable course are not models of consistency.

True, the mere supposition that Marys own sons were still unbelievers, by itself, would not be completely convincing, since it was Jesus intention to make a special appearance to James (1Co. 15:7) who was to become such an important leader in the early Church (Gal. 1:19; Gal. 2:9; Gal. 2:12; Acts 15). Yet, conceding all this, it must still be repeated, they were yet unbelievers. Even Lightfoot himself admits the force of this fact: (ibid. 265)

A very short time before the Lords death His brethren refuse to accept His mission: they are still unbelievers. Immediately after His ascension we find them gathered together with the Apostles, evidently recognizing Him as their Master. Whence comes this change? Surely the crucifixion of one who professed to be the Messiah was not likely to bring it about. He had claimed to be King of Israel and He had been condemned as a malefactor: He had promised His followers a triumph and He had left them persecution. Would not all this confirm rather than dissipate their former unbelief?

Lightfoot believes with us that only the post-resurrection appearances would have been sufficient to produce the great turning point in the religious life of Jesus brethren.

Granted, then, the importance of the unbelief of Marys own children, the extreme likelihood of a profound spiritual sympathy and friendship between John Bar-Zebedee and Jesus and His mother, as well as a possible kinship (if John be Jesus cousin and Marys nephew), when considered together with the unbelief of Marys own sons, form an almost irrefragable combination that both justifies and explains Jesus choice.

If it be objected that this view sees two families (that of Joseph and that of Cleophas, Clopas or Alphaeus) naming their sons with nearly identical names, this is no great difficulty, since these four names are all famous in Israel. (Lightfoot, ibid., 268) No special claim is made for the order in which the names of the sons of Clopas-Alphaeus are given, except to show the coincidence of the first three names with those given in the Apostolic list. But, as the question marks on the graph indicate, no claim is made that all the men named were actually Apostles; the intriguing, but unanswerable, query is raised whether they might not be the same.

As Lightfoot (ibid. 269) notes further, the difficulty in seeing two families, possibly related, is not at all increased but actually diminished on the supposition that they were actually related, since family use of the names of common ancestors or relatives is most reasonable. (Cf. Luk. 1:59-61)

CONCLUSION

While the view that the Lords Brethren were actually Jesus half brothers, being true sons of Joseph and Mary born after the birth of Jesus, is not without weaknesses, it appears to possess fewer weaknesses than are found in the alternate theories, while at the same time this view explains equally well, if not better, the scraps and pieces of information given in Scripture.
Also, in relation to the motherhood of Mary, it may be said that

The interpretation that they are the Lords real brethren ennobles and glorifies family life in all its relations and duties, and sanctifies motherhood with all its cares and trials as holier than a selfish isolation from the world, in order to evade the annoyances and humiliations inseparable from fidelity to our callings.

(I.S.B.E., 520)

Thus, the polemic against the perpetual virginity of Mary is not by any means a polemic against Mary. Rather, it is the desire to present the relations of our Lord in their proper light, in order better to understand our own position before God, for if we are ignoring a fundamental part of our mediation between us and God (the supposed mediation of Mary), then we do her injustice and weaken our own spiritual position on earth. On the other hand, since the major step in her exaltation, the human declaration of her perpetual virginity, is founded upon bad exegesis and human authority (i.e., of the Fathers who assert it), the modern Christian loses nothing to reject it.

AND HE KNEW HER NOT UNTIL SHE HAD BORNE A SON

Does the use of the word until in this Matthaean text suggest anything about what took place in the marital relations of Joseph and Mary after the birth of Jesus? Or, as many think, does the word until affirm only that Joseph kept Mary a virgin until the time of Jesus birth, without either affirming of denying anything about his attitude following that event?
Fausto Salvoni (Sesso e amore nella Bibbia, 95132) deals with the question underlying the problem of interpretation of the word until: Is there a defining use of the word until?, by putting to critical examination the proofs offered. In reading the text of the English Bible, beware of missing the point of Salvonis illustrations by failing to note that in English translations the word until might not have been used in the passages cited. However, a cognate idea is always present, even if the English translators adopted another word having the same meaning as until.

1. Until death . . .

Many times Fathers and theologians try to prove the definitive sense of until by referring to those numerous Bible passages in which it is affirmed that a given thing took place until the death of an individual. Evidently the fact indicated could not be done after his death! However, the passages of this category have no value whatever, since the situation of the individual after death was so totally altered as to impede any possibility to act. But this is not true in the case of Matthew, which puts the limitation in a period in which there was yet the possibility for conjugal relations. Now if in Matthew we should have read until death, there would not be anything we could object to on this subject, since any matrimonial relationship would have been evidently and forever excluded. Unfortunately, this is not the case with Matthew. It would be useless to examine such examples, which, however, will be presented, even if briefly, for greater completeness:

Until the death of the individual. (2Sa. 6:23; 2Sa. 20:3; 2Ki. 15:5; Job. 27:2-5; 2Ki. 7:3)

Until the death of ones, adversaries. (Psa. 112:8; 1Ma. 5:54)

Until the end of the world. Here, too, the passages are parallel to those on the death of the individual, except that instead of ones death, the end of the world or of humanity is spoken of. (Mat. 28:20; Psa. 72:7) Such passages evidently cannot be considered as being truly parallel with Mat. 1:25, because this latter text is not discussing the end of the world or of the individual which would have rendered any conjugal relationship impossible. Rather, we are talking about a particular period prior to it, that is, the birth of Jesus, after which conjugal relations continued to remain possible.

2. Unto this day

Cf. Deu. 34:6; Gen. 35:20; Mat. 27:8; Mat. 28:15. This expression really limits the consideration of the writer to the period prior to the limit set (the defining sense), not because that limit is inherent in the word until, but because this is required by the limit established, which is the moment in which the writer is living. He wanted to limit his statement to this instant for the simple reason that the rest of the future remained unknown to him. The reality he indicated could have continued or not, for which reason he could not predict what would have happened after the moment in which he was writing, unless he had a divine revelation. So we are not talking about a true parallel with the passage in Matthew in which he is talking about a period prior to the moment in which the Evangelist was writing, that is, the birth of Jesus. If Matthew had written: Joseph had no relations with Mary to this day, in that case, then, he would have excluded from his consideration all the time from Josephs espousal of Mary until the time of writing the record by Matthew.

All the passages presented up to this point do not correspond at all to the until used in Matthews sentence in our study, since, at the end fixed in them, it was not at all possible to act in the manner indicated, whereas, contrarily, the action of knowing Mary was always possible after the birth of Jesus. Therefore, they are not parallels to the Matthaean text. For if they were, it would be necessary to read that Joseph did not have relations with the bride until her death, or to this day, or up to the moment of the time of writing or until the moment in which such an act was no longer possible.
Let us now see the importance of the Biblical until in the various cases where the action indicated by the principle verb always remained possible even after the limit established. Here we are in the field more exactly parallel with the Matthaean text under study.

3. Until a certain moment in the past.

In all these cases the until always presupposes a change of situation after the limit indicated.

In the case in which the indication of the principle clause is positive, until affirms the denial of it at the moment of the limit set by until. Examples offered by Salvoni are: Dan. 11:36; Gen. 24:19; Rth. 2:21; Num. 32:17; Isa. 30:17; Mat. 2:15; Mat. 2:19; Mat. 13:33; Luk. 13:21; Mat. 14:22; Mat. 26:36; Luk. 12:50; Luk. 24:49; Act. 21:26; Act. 25:21; 2Pe. 1:19; cf. Rev. 22:5. In each of these illustrations he shows how a reasonable view of each case shows that, once a change is brought about in the situation, the action limited by until is no longer needed, possible or reasonable.

If the principle clause is negative (as in the case of Matthew), the until always indicates the realization of the thing denied before.

Eliezar, sent by Abraham to search for a wife for his son Isaac, said to Laban, I will not eat until I have said (what I must say), after which, naturally, he would eat. (Gen. 24:33) Also the Jews that intended to kill Paul made a vow not to eat or drink until they had killed Paul (Act. 23:12; Act. 23:14; Act. 23:21). After the transfiguration Jesus demanded that the three Apostles present not speak about the vision until the Son of man be risen from the dead (Mat. 17:9); afterwards they would have been able to talk about it. When Jesus left Jerusalem He said that they would not have seen Him any more until they received Him with the cry of Blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord. In that moment, then, they would have seen Him. (Mat. 23:39) Other illustrations: Mat. 5:26; Luk. 22:16; Luk. 22:18; Luk. 22:34; Joh. 13:38; Joh. 18:27; Joh. 9:18; 1Co. 4:5. After considering seeming exceptions to the rule (i.e., Psa. 110:1; 1Co. 15:27 f; Psa. 123:2; 1Ti. 4:13; Luk. 1:80; cf. Luk. 3:4; Luk. 7:24; Gen. 49:10; Num. 20:17; Gen. 28:15 of cf. Gen. 28:20-21; Mat. 12:18-21 citing Isa. 42:1-4), Salvoni concludes that, unless the action which is the logical opposite to that indicated in the principle clause is rendered impossible by death or the end of the world or a (then) unknown future, the action is to be considered possible, the limitation until indicating the change of what was affirmed or denied by the principle verb.

To keep from limiting the abstinence from marital relations to the period prior to the birth of Jesus, Matthew would have had to use an expression similar to that describing Judith where it is said that after the death of her first husband, No man knew her all the days of her life. (Jdt. 16:22)

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE PASSAGE

Now we need to see why Matthew should have used such a limiting formula. For what reason did he want to insist on the fact that the marital relations did not take place before the birth of Jesus?

Some have found the motive in the fact that Matthew wanted to use this phrase to underline the virginal conception of Mary and the purely legal paternity of Joseph. But there was no motive to take up this theme again, since it had already been clearly established by the expression and before they came together, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit (Mat. 1:16), or else by the words of the angel to Joseph: Do not fear to take Mary your wife, because what is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. (Mat. 1:20) Later marital relations would not have had any influence on the conception that had already taken place.

Others insist on the fact that Matthew wanted to demonstrate how the prophecy of Isaiah that he had cited had been fully realized in Mary: Behold the virgin shall be with child: and she shall bring forth a son; and He will be called Emmanuel. (Mat. 1:23 = Isa. 7:14) Here the virginity of Mary is not only affirmed at the time of the conception, but also at the time of the birth. But the wife of Joseph would not have been a virgin at the time of the birth of Jesus, had Joseph had conjugal relations with her prior to that moment. Thus, those who hold this view emphasize that clear up to the moment of delivery Joseph respected the virginity of his own wife.

But as we have seen before, with this phrase Matthew hints at conjugal relations in a later period, i.e., after the birth, In fact, after having said that Joseph took Mary as his wife and introduced her into his own house, it was logical for the reader to conclude that he would have treated her as his wife, Therefore, Matthew corrects such a thought, saying that in fact they abstain from every contact until the birth of Jesus. The reader was logically led to conclude, by the normal course of marital relations, that later he acted toward her as any husband. Even if his intent had been to announce that the bride remained a virgin until the birth of Jesus, Matthew used language that clearly lets the reader catch a glimpse of a different comportment after that birth. If Matthew had been convinced that Mary remained always a virgin, he would not have expressed himself in an ambiguous, actually compromising, phrase such as he did.
Blinzler does not want to feel this difficulty and debates it by saying that inasmuch as the early Christians knew that Jesus did not have brothers german by Mary, the expression of Matthew did not cause them any difficulty. But this argument has the defect of supposing already proved what must yet be demonstrated, Who says that the early Christians, who tranquilly speak of brothers and sisters of Jesus, did not consider them as being born from Mary and Joseph? Given the fact that there were persons described as brothers of the Lord, would it not have been much simpler to clarify yet further the fact of the perpetual virginity of Mary, if her supposed condition had possessed such importance, for Christian theology? The early believers were interested in Jesus and not in the virginity of Mary, and this latter truth had value only insofar as it could document the virginal conception of the Christ. Having completed this mission, Mary returned, as far as they were concerned, to the situation of all other women.

Why did Joseph abstain from any marital relationship until the birth of Jesus? It is usually thought that Mary, being a temple of God, that she would be considered taboo for Joseph. But this reasoning is based upon the metaphysical concepts of much later Catholic theology that Joseph did not possess at that time. For him Mary was his own wife, for him the yet unborn babe was the fruit of a special divine intervention, after whose birth there could be no reasons for which he should regard his own wife as taboo. Given the illumination by the angel, it would have been logical, as Matthew says, that Joseph should have abstained from marital relations as long as the unborn Babe lived in the womb of Mary, and not afterwards.

Fausto Salvonis own view is that due to influences of the Essenes felt in Jewish life, perhaps Joseph would have abstained from regular marital relations during the pregnancy, even as the Essenes reputedly did. This, even though not a member or even a sympathizer with their movement. Of course, this view is absolutely impossible to prove, however attractive to some, since it is impossible to document to what extent the Essenes views permeated and affected Jewish life or to what extent Joseph or Mary would have respected those views.

Salvoni concludes by repeating that the perpetual virginity of Mary, asserted by many, creates some not indifferent Biblical problems, since it seems to be contradicted by clear New Testament testimonies. Such a doctrine obligates the believer to give to the until of Matthew a defining sense that is never found elsewhere in Holy Scripture, introducing into it an exception without any sure foundation.

DO YOU HAVE THE WORD IN YOUR HEART?

Matthew 13

Can you remember who made each of the following statements? What was the occasion? To whom was it spoken? What did they mean by it? Are there any manuscript variations or other ways of translating it? Is it possible to apply its truth to our own day? If so, how?

Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Blessed are your eyes, for they see . . .

. . . and the thorns grew up and choked them.

Let them both grow together until the harvest . . .

. . . but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that which he hath.

Is not this the carpenters son?

All these things spake Jesus in parables unto the multitudes; and without a parable spake he nothing unto them: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophet . . . (Deal particularly with the phrase in italics.)

He that hath ears, let him hear.

The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that cause stumbling, and them that do iniquity, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire . . .

10.

Therefore every scribe who hath been made a disciple to the kingdom of heaven is like unto a . . . householder, who bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.

11.

A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country . . .

12.

He did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(54) When he was come into his own country.The visit to Nazareth, here recorded in almost-identical terms with Mar. 6:1-6, has so many points of resemblance with the narrative of Luk. 4:16-31 that many critics have supposed it to be a less complete account of the same fact. On this assumption, the narrative must be misplaced in its relation to other facts in one or other of the Gospels. A dislocation of some kind must indeed be admitted in any case, as St. Mark places it after the resurrection of Jairuss daughter, and makes that event follow the cure of the Gadarene demoniac, and places that on the next day after the first use of parables. We are compelled to admit, as before in the Notes on Mat. 8:1, the almost entire absence of any trustworthy notes of chronological sequence, beyond the grouping, in some cases, of a few conspicuous facts. In comparing, however, St. Matthew and St. Mark with St. Luke, there seems no sufficient ground for hastily assuming identity. The third Gospel places the visit which it narrates, at the very beginning of our Lords work, and as giving the reason of His removal to Capernaum. Here, there is no outburst of violent enmity such as we find there, but simple amazement. It seems, therefore, more probable that we have here a short account (short and imperfect, it may be, because our Lord went without His disciples) of another effort to bring the men of Nazareth to acknowledge Him, if not as the Christ, at least as a Prophet. The circumstances of the case in St. Matthews record suggest another motive as, at least, possible. He had recently, as in Mat. 12:48, when His mother and His brethren had come in their eager anxiety to interrupt His work, spoken in words that seemed to repel them to a distance from Him. What if this visit were meant to show that, though as a Prophet He could not brook that interruption, home affections were not dead in Him, that His heart still yearned over His brethren and His townsmen, and that He sought to raise them to a higher life? On comparing the account here with that in St. Luke, it would seem almost certain that there was now a less direct assertion of His claims as the Christ than there had been beforea proclamation of the laws of the kingdom rather than of His own position in it. And so the impression is one of wonder at His wisdom, not of anger or scorn at what He claims to be.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

54. Into his own country To Nazareth, the home of his childhood; in distinction from Capernaum, the residence of his manhood.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘And coming into his own country he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, “From where has this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?”

Jesus arrives back in the place where He was brought up and teaches in their local synagogue where He had once learned so much, and to which He had often gone in order to study the Scriptures. Who better than they should have known how unique He was? But they had failed to pierce the veil and saw only the town carpenter. Thus when they heard Him teach they were astonished. News of His mighty works and preaching success had filtered through from Capernaum (Luk 4:23), but they did not really believe it. For where could such skill and such mighty works have come from? They just could not believe that God would so anoint a local boy with whom they were so familiar. He was simply getting above Himself and would no doubt bring disgrace on the town.

The synagogue was the centre of a town or village’s life, where weekly worship was conducted, male children were taught to read the Scriptures, justice could be sought, religious discipline would be exerted, sometimes by beatings, Scripture teaching would be given, and on the Sabbath any prominent visitor would be invited to speak. The reading and teaching of Scripture was a central part of its worship.

We are not actually told that this is in Nazareth, and that may be deliberate. Matthew does not want it to be seen as simply a local town rejection, but as one by His ‘home country’. But the description below points to Nazareth.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Jesus Is Rejected In His Own Country (13:54-57).

This passage connects back with Mat 12:46-50 where Jesus’ relationship with His family came second to His relationship with those who did the will of His Father. And that is what this section is all about, that while being rejected by the Jews as a whole, He is building up a congregation who will be His new Israel, and will do the will of His Father. His ‘home country’ reject Him, and He is dismissed as ‘the son of the carpenter, but this will lead on to His feeding of those who follow Him with bread from Heaven (Mat 14:19-23; Mat 15:32-38), His emphasis on the establishment of a new community (Mat 16:18), and the further emphasis on the fact that He is really the Son of God (Mat 14:33; Mat 16:16; Mat 18:26).

In this passage the word used for ‘His own country’ is ambiguous. It could mean His own home town, or it could signify His native land. The ambiguity is probably deliberate. For His rejection ‘at home’ is to be seen as symbolic of His future rejection by the Jews as a whole, apart, that is, from those who become disciples. However at the end of this section He will return ‘home’ when He will make clear to Peter that He and His community have a special relationship with their Father (Mat 17:24-27).

We have already noted the link with chapter 12. The previous narrative section closed in chapter 12 with Jesus declaring that those who were His true relatives were those who did the will of His Father (Mat 12:50), in other words they were the ones who have received the Kingly Rule of Heaven (Mat 7:21). This new narrative section commences with His rejection by His natural countrymen. They have rejected the Kingly Rule of Heaven. The divisions caused by the Kingly Rule of Heaven in chapter 13 are being made clear. On the one hand is the new ‘congregation of Israel’ formed of believers, on the other is unbelieving Israel, who are no longer Israel. They are ‘cut off’ from the new Israel (Joh 15:6; Rom 11:17 onwards) in accordance with Old Testament principles (e.g. Gen 17:14; Exo 12:15; Exo 12:19; Exo 30:33; Exo 31:14; etc.). They have become ‘not My people’ (Hos 1:9).

Mark has this incident in Mat 6:1-6. It is doubtful if it is the same as the one in Luk 4:16-30. This one was later when things had settled down there. Nevertheless that visit no doubt coloured this one. Tempers had improved and they may have been feeling a little ashamed of themselves, and were perhaps prepared to give Him a hearing, but they were not convinced of His validity. They were too familiar with Him. Matthew’s positioning of it, however, is in order to bring out the point mentioned above, that at the root of old Israel is unbelief. It was in order to demonstrate from how small a mustard seed the mustard bush would grow (Mat 13:31-32). Even Jesus’ own home country is against Him. It may be intended to be significant that this is the last mention in Matthew of Jesus preaching in a synagogue. In this rejection by His ‘home country’ is symbolised His rejection by both Israel and its elite.

His home town here is probably Nazareth rather than Capernaum (Mat 4:13). This is suggested by the familiarity of the people with his family and background which point to their having known Him for years.

Analysis.

a And coming into his own country he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, “From where has this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?” (Mat 13:54).

b “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?” (55-56a).

c From where then has this man all these things?” (Mat 13:56 b).

b And they were offended in him (Mat 13:57 a).

a But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honour, except in his own country, and in his own house” (Mat 13:57 b). .

Note that in ‘a’ they were astonished at His wisdom and mighty works (which they knew of by hearsay) and in the parallel He points out that a prophet has no honour in His own country. In ‘b’ they indicate their over familiarity with Him, and are clearly offended, and in the parallel they are offended at Him. Centrally in ‘c’ is the question that this whole section will answer, ‘from where has this man these things?’

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Rejection of Jesus’ Doctrine at Nazareth ( Mar 6:1-6 , Luk 4:14-30 ) – Mat 13:54-58 tells us the story of how the hometown of Nazareth rejected the doctrine of Jesus Christ. We find this parallel story in Luke’s Gospel placed at the beginning of His Galilean ministry because Luke uses this story to show the authority and anointing of His teaching ministry. Mark’s Gospel records this same story by placing emphasis upon how Jesus preached the Gospel with miracles following. Matthew’s Gospel is the most brief as it simply emphasizes how Jesus faced offences to His doctrine and how He handled it.

The Transition of Themes Reflected in the Story of the Rejection of Jesus at Nazareth The Gospel of Matthew makes a transition in its thematic scheme from an emphasis upon perseverance in the midst of offenses to perseverance in God’s Word as Jesus is now rejected in His hometown of Nazareth because of offenses. [473]

[473] Christopher R. Smith, “Literary Evidences of a FiveFold Structure in the Gospel of Matthew,” in New Testament Studies 43 (1997): 549-550.

Comparison of Jesus’ Visit to Nazareth in the Synoptics The Synoptic Gospels give parallel accounts of Jesus’ visit to Nazareth (Mat 13:54-58, Mar 6:1-6, Luk 4:16-30). While the Gospel of Luke introduces Jesus’ public ministry beginning with His visit to His hometown of Nazareth, the Gospels of Matthew and Mark offer a prior record of Jesus’ early public ministry before He entered His hometown. Thus, Jesus had “taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all” (Luk 4:15) prior to entering the town of Nazareth. In other words, the narrative material of Jesus’ public ministry prior to His visit to Nazareth recorded in Matthew and Mark (Mat 4:12 to Mat 13:53, Mar 1:14 to Mar 5:43) shows us how Jesus was glorified throughout Galilee for His miracles and healing power before entering His hometown. Luke’s introductory statement (Luk 4:14-15) also tells us that Jesus continued to minister mightily in Galilee after being rejected in Nazareth. Jesus ministered in the power of the Spirit, teaching in their synagogues, and being glorified by the people. Thus, Luk 4:14-15 serves as an introductory passage of Jesus’ anointing and fame in Galilee, with examples found in the narrative material of Luke that follows. Although He was initially rejected in His hometown of Nazareth and was not able to heal the sick (Luk 4:16-25), the Galileans glorified Him while teaching in the synagogues (Luk 4:15; Luk 4:22). Later in a synagogue in Capernaum “they were astonished at his doctrine: for his word was with power” (Luk 4:32), “they were all amazed” (Luk 4:36), “(Peter) was astonished, and all that were with him” (Luk 5:9), “there a fame abroad of him” (Luk 5:15), “they were all amazed, and they glorified God, and were filled with fear” (Luk 5:26). The Galileans were amazed and declared that with authority and power He speaks. It is this authority that gave Him dominion all manner of sickness and disease. Luke’s account of Jesus’ Galilean ministry will place emphasis upon Jesus teaching and preaching with divine authority and power over every area of man’s life: sickness, sin and Jewish customs, including nature itself. He begins His Galilean ministry in the power of the Spirit (Luk 4:14). As a result, He heals the multitudes in the region of Galilee. This is the two-fold emphasis in Luke’s Gospel of His Galilean ministry, of preaching the Gospel under the anointing of the Holy Spirit, an emphasis not found in Matthew and Mark.

The Infancy Gospels Grant Osborne notes how the recognition of Jesus as a simple carpenter by the people of Nazareth contradicts the stories recorded in the Infancy Gospels of miracles that Jesus performed as a child recorded. [474] Had Jesus performed miracles as a child, the people of Nazareth would have reacted differently, greatly fearing Him, rather than running Him out of the city.

[474] Grant R. Osborne, Matthew, in Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Clinton E. Arnold (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010), 550. The stories of Jesus working miracles as a child are recorded in the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel fo Pseudo-Matthew, and The Arabic Gospel of the Infancy. See Montague Rhodes James, The Apocryphal New Testament being the Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypses (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, c1924, 1963), 49-82.

Mat 13:57 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.

Mat 13:57 Comments The declaration by Jesus Christ that a prophet is not accepted in his own country is recorded in the all four Gospels (Mat 13:57, Mar 6:4, Luk 4:24, Joh 4:44). While the Synoptic Gospels place this statement within the story of Jesus’ rejection in His home town of Nazareth (Mat 13:53-58, Mar 6:1-6, Luk 4:16-30), John alone records this declaration of Jesus within the context of His testimony to the Jews in Judea of His call as the Saviour of the world.

Mat 13:57, “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.”

Mar 6:4, “But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.”

Luk 4:24, “And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country.”

Those family and friends who had grown up with Jesus and lived with Him had a difficult time accepting Him as the Messiah, while the rest of Galilee received Him gladly. Andrew Wommack quotes this proverb, “Familiarity breeds contempt.” [475] In other words, when we become too familiar with someone, we generally are less likely to praise his gifts, and more likely to condemn his weaknesses. Although Jesus Christ had not faults, no sin, He was fully human. Those who became familiar with His humanity had a difficult time embracing His deity. The writings of the New Testament reveal that Paul the apostle had a greater revelation of who Jesus Christ was than did the Twelve who walked with Him for three and a half years. This is because Paul only knew Jesus as the Resurrected Christ. He did not have to lay aside his experience of walking with Jesus as flesh and blood. It is easier for us to understand the revelation of the deity of Jesus Christ than it was for those who walked with Him on earth because we can only view Him by the Word of God through the revelation of the Holy Spirit. Thus, Jesus said, “Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.” (Joh 20:29) There is a greater blessing in believing for those who have not seen Him because it is easier to take hold of the Word of God through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit.

[475] Andrew Wommack, “Familiarity Breeds Contempt,” in One Year With Jesus: February 16 th , [on-line]; accessed 17 February 2012; available from http://www.awmi.net/devotion/jesus/feb_16; Internet.

Mat 13:58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

Mat 13:58 Comments – Andrew Wommack gives this illustration. We can help a driver get his car started if it has a dead battery by push starting the engine. It is then necessary that the driver put the transmission in first gear. But, if this same drive does not want help and puts on the brake, then our pushing becomes futile. This was the case when Jesus came to minister in His home town. These people “put on the brakes” of their faith and resisted His message, and thus, His help. [476]

[476] Andrew Wommack, Gospel Truth (Colorado Springs, Colorado: Andrew Wommack Ministries), on Trinity Broadcasting Network (Santa Ana, California), television program.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Examples of Offences and Confessions of Faith in the Kingdom of Heaven – Mat 13:54 to Mat 17:27 deals with perseverance in the Kingdom of Heaven as does the previous narrative section (Mat 11:2 to Mat 12:50); however, the emphasis here is upon the rejection and acceptance of the doctrines of the Kingdom. This narrative section carries forward previous themes as well, seen in the fact that Jesus continues to train the Twelve as He performs miracles and ministers to the people (the theme of the second major division), and seen in the fact that Jesus faces increasing persecution from the Jewish leaders (the theme of the third major division). In addition, Jesus now reveals Himself to the Twelve and predicts His Passion and Resurrection. This narrative material is related to the fourth major discourse that will follow (Mat 18:1-35) in that Jesus will then teach His disciples on the same topic of how to deal with offenses. The emphasis in this narrative material is that it serves as a testimony of the fulfillment of Isa 29:13, reflecting the theme of this division of Matthew on persecutions from within.

Isa 29:13, “Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:”

This prophecy tells us that there will be those who appear to be members of the Kingdom, but their doctrine in wrong because their hearts are not with God. The remedy to persevere amidst this challenge is to come to the revelation of God’s Word, a doctrine founded upon the confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, a confession of faith made by Peter (Mat 16:16) upon which the doctrines of the New Testament Church are founded.

Mat 13:54 to Mat 17:27 has one of the most difficult structures to identify within the Gospel. [471] The key to understanding its structure is the fact that it generally alternates between those who deny the deity of Jesus Christ and those who acknowledge Him. Regarding the passages of denial, the Jews deny the testimony of Jesus and John the Baptist (Mat 13:54 to Mat 14:12), the testimony of the Scriptures (Mat 15:1-20), and the testimony of Jesus’ miracles (Mat 16:1-12). Regarding the passages of acceptance, David Turner recognizes clear “affirmations of faith” woven in the midst of these denials of Jesus’ deity. [472] The pericopes that show the Jews denying the testimony of Jesus and John the Baptist are followed by a series of miracles that solicit a confession from the Twelve declaring Jesus as the Son of God (Mat 14:33). The pericope that shows the Jewish leaders denying the Scriptures for tradition is followed by the Syro-Phoenician woman’s confession of faith in Jesus’ words (Mat 15:28). The pericope that shows the Jews denying the testimony of miracles performed by Jesus is followed by the confession of Simon Peter at Caesarea Philippi that Jesus is the Son of God (Mat 16:16). These events climax when Jesus reveals various aspects of the atonement and the responsibility of His disciples to this revelation (Mat 16:21 to Mat 17:27).

[471] David L. Turner, Matthew, in Baker Evangelical Commentary on the New Testament, eds. Robert Yarbrough and Robert H. Stein (Ada, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 357.

[472] David L. Turner, Matthew, in Baker Evangelical Commentary on the New Testament, eds. Robert Yarbrough and Robert H. Stein (Ada, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 357.

Outline: Here is a proposed outline:

1. The Rejection of Jesus & John the Baptist Mat 13:54 to Mat 14:36

2. The Rejection of Old Testament Scriptures Mat 15:1-39

3. The Rejection of the Miracles of Jesus Mat 16:1-20

4. The Revelation of the Atonement of Jesus Christ Mat 16:21 to Mat 17:27

Mat 13:54 to Mat 14:36 The Rejection of the Doctrine of Jesus and John the Baptist In Mat 13:54 to Mat 14:36 emphasis is placed upon the rejection of the message and doctrine of Jesus Christ and of John the Baptist by the Jewish leaders (Mat 13:54 to Mat 14:12) and the acceptance of Jesus Christ as the Son of God by the disciples (Mat 14:13-36).

Here is a proposed outline:

1. Rejection of Jesus’ Doctrine at Nazareth Mat 13:54-58

2. Rejection of the Baptist’s Doctrine by Herod Mat 14:1-12

3. Acceptance of Doctrine of Jesus Christ: Three Miracles Mat 14:13-36

a) Feeding of Five Thousand Mat 14:13-21

b) Jesus Walks on the Water Mat 14:22-33

c) Jesus Heals the Multitudes in Gennesaret Mat 14:34-36

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Handling Offences and Persecutions in the Kingdom of God Mat 13:54 to Mat 18:35 emphasizes the theme of how God’s children are to handle offences and persecutions over doctrinal issues within the Kingdom of Heaven. [468] The narrative passage of Mat 13:54 to Mat 17:27 emphasizes the many occasions when offences came into Jesus’ ministry from the Jewish leaders and shows us how Jesus responded to offences. This narrative material builds upon the theme of the previous narrative material found in Mat 11:2 to Mat 12:50 regarding man’s reactions to the King. [469] This is because persecutions will come from those who adhere to false doctrines when we preach the Gospel and we must learn how to handle these offences. In this fourth narrative section, Jesus also explains to His disciples the dangers of offending others. Thus, the fourth discourse (Mat 18:1-35) teaches the disciples how to properly deal with these offences within the Church, which Jesus experiences in the preceding narrative passage.

[468] Benjamin Bacon identifies the theme of 13:54 to 18:35 as church government and the problems of church unity. He says, “Because of this unmistakable interest dominating the whole structure of Division B (Matthew 18) we naturally expect from previous experience of our evangelist’s use of his material that Division A will lead up to this Discourse on church government with narrative selections of corresponding character. In reality such is the case” See Benjamin W. Bacon, Studies in Matthew (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1930), 397, 410.

[469] Craig Blomberg says two major themes are carried over from the previous narrative material, which are the increased intensity of the rejection of Jesus Christ and His message, and the progressive, Christological revelation of His identity to the Twelve. He says the development of these two themes create “sharper lines of demarcation between insiders and outsiders.” See Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew, in The New American Commentary, vol. 22 (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 226. David Turner describes the two leading themes in the fourth narrative section as “increased oppition and conflict” and the works and teachings of Jesus intended to increase the faith of His disciples. See David L. Turner, Matthew, in Baker Evangelical Commentary on the New Testament, eds. Robert Yarbrough and Robert H. Stein (Ada, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 358.

The one Old Testament prophecy of this division in Matthew’s Gospel is Mat 15:7-9, which quotes Isa 29:13 and simply prophecies how God’s own people would rejected the Gospel, reflecting the theme of this division of Matthew on persecutions from within.

Mat 15:7-9, “Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”

In the fourth major discourse (Mat 18:1-35) that immediately follows the narrative material Jesus lays down principles for His disciples to follow when dealing with offences. He quotes Deu 19:15 as a guideline for His disciples to use when dealing with offences.

Deu 19:15, “One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.”

We may compares this major division of material to the General Epistles of 2 Peter , 1, 2, 3 John and Jude in that they also emphasize persecutions that come from those who hold fast to false doctrines.

The section of Matthew emphasizing sanctification through perseverance from persecutions within (Mat 13:54 to Mat 18:35) closes with a transitional sentence that concludes each of the five discourses, telling us that Jesus had ended His teaching (Mat 19:1).

Mat 19:1, “And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;”

Literary Evidence of a Common Theme between the Fourth Narrative Section and the Discourse that Follows There is literary evidence that connects the third narrative-discourse section with the fourth narrative-discourse section. While these two macro structures share the same theme of perseverance in the faith for the child of God, there is literary evidence to confirm this connection. [470] For example, the fourth narrative section is related in retrospect to the third discourse in the fact that the Greek word is used nine times in the Gospel of Matthew, with six uses in the third discourse (Mat 13:13-15; Mat 13:19; Mat 13:23; Mat 13:51) and three uses in the fourth narrative (Mat 15:10; Mat 16:12; Mat 17:13). This literary evidence reflects the common theme of the servant of God’s need to persevere in the faith in the midst of offenses by hold fast to one’s understanding and confession of faith in God’s eternal Word. In addition, the fourth narrative section shares a common theme with the fourth discourse that follows in the use of the Greek words and , key words Jesus uses four times in the course of the fourth narrative (Mat 13:57; Mat 15:12; Mat 16:23; Mat 17:27), as well as six times during the fourth discourse (Mat 18:6-7 [three], 8, 9). Note that this key word opens and closes the fourth narrative section (Mat 13:57; Mat 17:27).

[470] The thematic scheme of perseverance connects third and fourth narrative-discourse sections. Scholars acknowledge the connection of these sections. For example, A. G. van Aarde says, “ Matthew 13:53-17:27, the fourth micronarrative, in an associative manner relates retrospectively to the third discourse (13:1-52) and prospectively to the fourth discourse (18:1-35), while correlating concentrically with the corresponding third micronarrative (11:2-12:50).” He again says, “the “structural interrelatedness of chapters 13, 14-17 and 18 fits into the concentric and progressive structure of the Gospel of Matthew as a whole.” See A. G. van Aarde, “Matthew’s Portrayal of the Disciples and the Structure of Matthew 13:53 17:27,” Neotestamentica 16 (1982): 21, 22.

Sanctification: Perseverance – Numbers Versus Fourth Discourse which Deals with Persecutions from Within – We see in the book of Numbers the establishment of the journey of perseverance that the children of Israel endured during the forty-year wilderness journey. In a similar way the fourth discourse on church discipline establishes the perseverance of the Church that every believer must endure.

The narrative passage of Mat 13:54 to Mat 17:27 emphasizes the many occasions when offences came into Jesus’ ministry from the Jewish leaders. In this passage, Jesus explained to His disciples the dangers of offending others. Thus, the fourth discourse (Mat 18:1-35) teaches the disciples how to properly deal with these offences within the Church, which Jesus experiences in the preceding narrative passage.

In summary, the fact that Matthew 11-18 deals with obstacles and persecutions along the journey as a servant of the Lord is a clear reminder of how the children of Israel wandered in the desert facing similar challenges in the book of Numbers.

Outline Here is a proposed outline:

1. Narrative: Examples of Offences Mat 13:54 to Mat 17:27

2. The Fourth Discourse: Dealing with Offences Mat 18:1-35

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Mat 13:54. Into his own country Nazareth is so called, because it was the town in which Jesus was brought up, and to distinguish it from Capernaum, where he commonly resided. This wisdom signifies this learning. They were amazed to find in our Lord such extraordinary learning, without having ever been taught by their doctors. These mighty works, in the Greek is , virtues. The word denotes both miracles, and the power of performing them.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Mat 13:54 . ] Nazareth , where His parents lived, and where He had been brought up, Mat 2:23 .

] is contemptuous (Xen. Anab . iii. 1. 30; Joh 6:42 , and frequently), and is due to the circumstance that the people knew all about the origin and outward training of Jesus. Joh 7:15 ; Joh 6:41 f.

] so that in Nazareth also He must not only have taught, but must have performed miracles, although not to the same extent, Mat 13:58 .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

XXXII

OUR LORD’S GREAT MINISTRY IN GALILEE

Part VII

STILLING THE TEMPEST, THE TWO GADARENE DEMONIACS, SECOND REJECTION AT NAZARETH, SENDING FORTH THE TWELVE, AND HEROD’S SUSPICION

Harmony -pages 66-75 and Mat 8:18-23 ; Mat 11:1 ; Mat 13:54-58 ; Mat 14:1-12 ; Mar 4:34-5:20 ; Mar 6:1-29 ; Luk 8:22-40 ; Luk 9:1-9 .

When Jesus had finished his discourse on the kingdom, as illustrated in the first great group of parables, he crossed over the Sea of Galilee to avoid the multitudes. While on the bosom of the sea a storm swept down upon them, as indicated by Luke, but our Lord had fallen asleep. So the disciples awoke him with their cry of distress and he, like a God, spoke to the winds and the sea, and they obeyed him. Such is the simple story of this incident, the lesson of which is the strengthening of their faith in his divinity.

Upon their approach to the shore the country of the Gadarenes occurred the thrilling incident of the two Gadarene demoniacs. The story is graphically told here by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and does not need to be repeated in this interpretation, but there are certain points in the story which need to be explained. First, there are some difficulties: (1) The apparent discrepancy of long standing, relating to the place, is cleared up by Dr. Broadus in his note at the bottom of page 67 (see his explanation of this difficulty);

The long famous instance of “discrepancy” as to the place in this narrative has been cleared up in recent years by the decision of textual critics that the correct text in Luke is Gerasenes, as well as in Mark, and by Dr. Thomson’s discovery of a ruin on the lake shore, named Khersa (Gerasa). If this village was included (a very natural supposition) in the district belonging to the city of Gadara, some miles south-eastward, then the locality could be described as either in the country of the Gadarenes, or in the country of the Gerasenes

(2) Matthew mentions two demoniacs, while Mark and Luke mention but one. This is easily explained by saying that the one mentioned by Mark and Luke was probably the prominent and leading one, and that they do not say there was only one. Second) there are some important lessons in this incident for us: (1) We see from this incident that evil spirits, or demons, not only might possess human beings by impact of spirit upon spirit, but they also could and did possess lower animals. (2) We see here also that these evil spirits could not do what they would without permission, and thus we find an illustration of the limitations placed upon the Devil and his agencies. (3) There is here a recognition of the divinity of Jesus by these demoniacs and that he is the dispenser of their torment. (4) There is here also an illustration of the divine power of Jesus Christ over the multitude of demons, and from this incident we may infer that they are never too numerous for him. (5) The man when healed is said to have been in his right mind, indicating the insanity of sin. (6) The new convert was not allowed to go with Jesus, but was made a missionary to his own people) to tell them of the great things the Lord had done for him. (7) The Gadarenes besought him to leave their borders. Matthew Henry says that these people thought more of their hogs than they did of the Lord Jesus Christ. Alas I this tribe is by far too numerous now.

Following the Harmony, we find that after crossing back to the other shore Jesus revisits Nazareth and teaches in their synagogue. Here he was rejected as at first. He did some works there, but was limited by their unbelief. Their questions as to his origin indicate their great stupidity and throw light on the question of “the perpetual virginity” of Mary, showing that the Romanist contention here is utterly groundless. Before leaving them Jesus announced a fact which has been experienced by many a man since that time, viz: that a man is often least appreciated by his own people.

In Section 55 (Mat 10:1-42 ; Mar 6:7-13 ; Luk 9:1-6 ) we have the first commission of the twelve apostles. The immediate occasion is expressed in Mat 9:36 . (See the author’s sermon on “Christ’s Compassion Excited by a Sight of the Multitude.”) These apostles had received the training of the mighty hand of the Master ever since their conversion and call to the ministry, and now he thrusts them out to put into action what they had received from him. The place they were to go, or the limit of their commission, is found in Mat 10:5-6 . This limitation to go to the Jews and not to the Gentiles seems to have been in line with the teaching elsewhere that salvation came first to the Jews and that the time of the Gentiles had not yet come in, but this commission was not absolute, because we find our Lord later commissioning them to go to all the world. What they were to preach is found in Mat 10:7 and what they were to do in Mat 10:8 . The price they were to ask is found in the last clause of Mat 10:8 . How they were to be supported, negatively and positively, together with the principle of their support, is found in Mat 10:9-11 . The principle of ministerial support is found also, very much elaborated, in 1Co 9:4-13 , and is referred to in 1Co 9:14 as an ordinance of our Lord. The manner of making this operative on entering a city is found in Mat 10:11-12 . The rewards of receiving and rejecting them are found in Mat 10:13 , while the method of testimony against the rejectors is expressed in Mat 10:14-15 .

The characteristics of these disciples are given in Mat 10:16 : “Wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” If they should have had the characteristic of the dove alone they would have been silly; if the serpent alone, they would have been tricky. But with both they had prudence and simplicity. In this commission we find also that they were to be subject to certain hazards, recorded in Mat 10:18 . Their defense is also promised in Mat 10:19-20 . The extent of their persecutions is expressed in Mat 10:21-22 . Their perseverance is indicated in the last clause of Mat 10:22 . In Mat 10:23 we have the promise that the Son of man would come to them before they had gone through all the cities of Israel. What does that mean? There are five theories about it, all of which are amply discussed by Broadus (see his Commentary in loco).

The consolations offered these disciples, in view of their prospective persecutions, are as follows (Mat 10:24-31 ): (1) So they treated the Lord, (2) all things hidden shall be made known, (3) the work of their persecutors is limited to the body, but God’s wrath is greater than man’s and touches both soul and body, and (4) the Father’s providential care. The condition of such blessings in persecution, and vice versa, are expressed in Mat 10:32-33 . From this we see that they were to go forth without fear or anxiety and in faith. The great issue which the disciples were to force is found in Mat 10:34-39 . This does not mean that Christ’s work has in it the purpose of stirring up strife, but that the disturbance will arise from the side of the enemy in their opposition to the gospel and its principles, whose purpose means peace. So there will arise family troubles, as some yield to the call of the gospel while others of the same family reject it. Some will always be lacking in the spirit of religious tolerance, which is not the spirit of Christ. In this connection our Lord announces the principle of loyalty to him as essential to discipleship, with an added encouragement, viz., that of finding and losing the life. In Mat 10:40-42 we have the identity of Christ with the Father which shows his divinity and also his identity with his people in his work. Then follows the blessed encouragement of the promise of rewards. When Jesus had thus finished his charge to his disciples, he made a circuit of the villages of Galilee preaching the gospel of the kingdom.

From this incident come three important lessons for us: First, we have here the origin and development of a call to the ministry as follows: (1) Christ’s compassion for the perishing and leaderless, (2) prayer to God that he would send forth laborers, and (3) a positive conviction that we should go. Second, there is also suggested here the dangers of the care for fine preaching: (1) If it has its source in anxiety and selfishness it restrains spirituality; (2) it manifests itself in excitement and excess which adulterates spirituality; (3) it leads to weariness or self-seeking and thus destroys spirituality. Third, we have here several encouragements to the preacher: (1) The cause is honorable; (2) the example is illustrious; (3) the success is certain; (4) care is guaranteed; (5) the reward is glorious; (6) the trials become triumphs; (7) the identification with Christ.

The account of the miracles wrought by the disciples of Jesus on this preaching tour impressed Herod Antipas, as well as those wrought by Jesus himself, the impression of which was so great that he thought that John the Baptist was risen from the dead. The account in the Harmony throws light on the impression that was made by the ministry of John. Some were saying that Jesus was Elijah or one of the other prophets, but Herod’s conscience and superstition caused him to think it was John the Baptist, for he remembered his former relation to John. Then follows here the story of how John had rebuked Herod which angered his wife, Herodias, and eventually led to John’s death at the band of the executioner. Josephus gives testimony relative to this incident. (See chapter X of this “Interpretation.”)

There are some lessons to be learned from this incident. First, we are impressed with the courage and daring of the first Christian martyr, a man who was not afraid to speak his convictions in the face of the demons of the pit. Second, the life must leave its impress, but that impress will be variously interpreted according to the antecedents and temperaments of the interpreters. Third, the influence of a wicked woman, often making the weak and drunken husband a mere tool to an awful wicked end. Fourth, the occasion of sin and crime is often the time of feasting and frivolity. Just such a crime as this has often been approached by means of the dance and strong drink. Fifth, we have here an example of a man who was too weak to follow his conviction of the right because he had promised and had taken an oath. He had more respect for his oath than he had for right. Sixth, there is here also an example of the wickedness of vengeance. It is a tradition that when the daughter brought in the head of John and gave it to Herodias, her mother, she took a bodkin and stuck it through the tongue of John, saying, “You will never say again, It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.”

QUESTIONS

1. Give the time, place, circumstances, and lesson of Jesus stilling the tempest.

2. Tell the story of the two Gadarene demoniacs.

3. What two difficulties here, and how is each explained?

4. What seven important lessons for us in this incident?

5. Give the story of the second rejection of Jesus at Nazareth and its several lessons.

6. What was the immediate occasion of sending forth the twelve apostles on their first mission?

7. What preparation had they received?

8. Where were they to go, or what was the limit of this commission?

9. Why was it limited, and was it absolute?

10. What were they to preach, and what were they to do?

11. What price were they to ask?

12. How were they to be supported, negatively and positively, and how do you harmonize the Synoptics here?

13. What was the principle of their support and where do we find this principle very much elaborated?

14. How is this principle referred to in 1Co 9:14 ?

15. What was the manner of making it operative on entering a city?

16. What rewards attached to receiving and rejecting them?

17. What was the method of testimony against those who rejected?

18. What was to be the characteristics of these disciples?

19. To what hazards were they subject?

20. What was to be their defense?

21. What was to be the extent of their persecution?

22. What was text on the perseverance of the saints, and what was its immediate application to these apostles?

23. Explain “till the Son of man be come.”

24. What were the consolations offered these disciples?

25. What was the condition of such blessings?

26. In what spirit were they to go forth?

27. What great issue must they force? Explain.

28. What principle of discipleship here announced?

29. What proof here of the divinity of Jesus Christ?

30. What promise here of rewards?

31. What did Jesus do immediately after finishing his charge here

32. What lessons here on the origin and development of a call to the ministry?

33. What dangers of the care for fine preaching?

34. What seven encouragements from this incident to the preacher of today?

35. How was Herod and others impressed by the miracles of Jesus and his disciples?

36. What several conjectures of Herod and others?

37. What part was played in this drama by John? by Herod? by Herodias and by Salome, the daughter of Herodias?

38. What testimony of Josephus on this incident?

39. What lessons of this incident?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

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?

Ver. 54. And when he was come into his own country ] Which naturally draws our hearts to it by a kind of magnetic power and property. a Egypt was but a miserable home to Moses, and yet his heart hangs after it, while he lived in Midian; and therefore, in reference to it, he calls his eldest son Gershom, or a stranger there, to wit, where he now was, Exo 2:22 . Patriam quisque amat, non quia pulchram, sed quia suam, saith Seneca. Bishep Jewel, when he first began to preach, chose there first to break the bread of life where he first had breathed the breath of life.

Insomuch that they were astonished ] It’s a lamentable thing that men should hear, rejoice, and wonder at the word, and for matter of practice leave it where they found it. And yet what more ordinary? Men look round about a minister; and though they cannot but admire his doctrine, yet, if they can find ever a hole in his coat through which to slip out, as here, be it but the meanness of his birth, or the unsightliness of his person, or the letsomness of his delivery, &c., it is enough.

a Nescio qua natale solum dulcedine cunctos

Ducit, et immemores non sinit esse sui. Ovid.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Mat 13:54 . , in classics fatherland. Here and in parallels evidently = native town, home. Vide Mat 13:56 and Luk 4:16 . , singular, not plural, as in Vulgate. One syn. index of size of town (Grotius). , with infinitive: tendency and actual result. They were astonished and said: , wisdom and marvellous works; of the latter they had heard, of the former they had had a sample. Whence? that is the question; not from schools, parentage, family, social environment, or mere surroundings and circumstances of any kind.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

taught = was teaching

synagogue. See App-120.

this = this [fellow].

mighty works. Plural of dunamis. App-172.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

Mat 13:54.[652] , wisdom-, mighty works) supernatural powers: See 1Co 1:24. We ought to be carried forward, by admiration of the teaching and works of our Lord, to a believing (fidelem) recognition of His person; otherwise admiration ends in stupor.

[652] ) In the same way as He had gone forth into public, in a manner which was clearly His custom, at Nazareth, Luk 4:16 : so, having left Capernaum, He returned afresh to Nazareth. It was then that the people of Nazareth said those things which He had foretold in Luk 4:23 they would say. [See Gnomon there: where Beng. explains, Ye will say, etc., thus: This feeling, owing to which ye say (Mat 13:22), Is not this Josephs Son? will wax stronger, when ye shall hear of my future miracles, which, owing to your unbelief, shall be less numerous among you than others: You will then say, Physician, heal thyself.-ED.]-Harm., l. cit.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

The King in His own Country

Mat 13:54. 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?

With what emotion did our Lord return to his native place! How ready he was to associate with former friends, for “he taught them in their synagogue.” How eagerly they came together to hear their young countryman, who had made so great a stir! How amazed they were at the masterly way in which he touched great subjects, and wrought great deeds! Astonishment led to enquiry. They began to ask how it could be. The question, “Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? “might have been brought forward reverently, and have led to their obtaining a most instructive reply; but some flavoured their question with impertinent unbelief, and this cost them dear.

Lord, grant that my questions may never savour of incredulity. Give me to be astonished at what thou dost, and yet not to be astonished that thou shouldst be able to do such mighty works.

Mat 13:55-56. Is not this the carpenter’s 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?

His pedigree seemed to them to be of the lowliest. He had sprung from among themselves: his reputed father was a village artisan; his mother was plain Mary, and his relations commonplace parties enough. This ought to have gratified and encouraged them; but it did not. 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 carpenter’s 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 carpenter’s son.

Mat 13:57. 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.

They stumbled at that which should have been a stepping-stone for them. Poor souls! How like to many in these days, who must have glitter and pretence, or they think nothing of the profoundest wisdom! If they can understand a sermon, they conceive that it cannot be a good one; if a man acts simply and naturally, he cannot in their eyes be worthy of much notice. Still is it commonly the case that, where a man is known, his neighbours find it hard to think that he can be really great. Distance lends enchantment: a cloud increases the apparent size. This is folly.

Mat 13:58. And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

Unbelief bound his hands. Why should he spend his sacred energy among a people who would not be profited thereby? Where he would have chosen to do most, he was forced to do least, because he saw that all he did would be wasted on them. The Lord save us from such a state of mind!

Give us, O Lord, faith to the full; that for us, and in us, and by us, thou mayest be able to do many mighty works of grace!

Fuente: Spurgeon’s The Gospel of the Kingdom

when: Mat 2:23, Mar 6:1, Mar 6:2, Luk 4:16-30, Joh 1:11

he taught: Psa 22:22, Psa 40:9, Psa 40:10, Act 13:46, Act 28:17-29

they were: Joh 7:15, Joh 7:16, Act 4:13

Reciprocal: 1Sa 10:11 – What is this Pro 1:20 – Wisdom Isa 50:4 – a word Mat 4:23 – teaching Mat 7:28 – the people Mar 1:22 – they were Luk 4:15 – he Luk 4:22 – the gracious Luk 4:23 – thy country Joh 7:27 – we know Act 9:21 – Is not

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

3:54

Jesus was in Galilee all the time he was teaching these parables and hence he was already in his own country with reference to the province. Thus the term has specific reference to the vicinity of Nazareth where he had been brought up. Having lived there in his boyhood and early manhood, the people were acquainted with his humble life and hence they were astonished when they heard his teaching and saw his works.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Mat 13:54. Into his own country. Nazareth as the home of His parents and the place where he had been brought up (Luk 4:16).

Whence hath this man. As if to say: This is our townsman, what better schooling did he have than we; what his family is, we all know, etc.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

LX.

JESUS VISITS NAZARETH AND IS REJECTED.

aMATT. XIII. 54-58; bMARK VI. 1-6; cLUKE IV. 16-31.

b1 And he went out from thence [from Capernaum]; and he cometh {aAnd coming} binto his own country; and his disciples follow him. c16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up [As to this city, see Mar 1:39, Mar 3:1, Mar 3:2). For comment on this usage of the synagogue see Isa 61:1, Isa 61:2; but the quotation embraces other lines from Isaiah.] where it was written, 18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, Because he anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor [Anointing was the method by which prophets, priests, and kings were consecrated or set apart to their several offices. This prophecy says that the Holy Spirit came upon Jesus because he was appointed to do [358] a work of divine helpfulness]: He hath sent me to preach release to the captives, And recovering of sight to the blind, To set at liberty them that are bruised, 19 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. [The prophecy set forth in physical terms what Jesus should perform in both the physical and spiritual realms. The prophecy closes with a reference to the jubilee year, which, being a time of liberation, forgiveness, and fresh starts, was a type of Christ’s ministry and kingdom.] 20 And he closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant [This officer corresponded to our sexton. Part of this duty was to take charge of the synagogue rolls], and sat down [Reader and congregation both stood during the reading; then, usually, both sat down to hear the passage explained. They stood out of reverence for God’s word]: and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fastened on him. [They had heard of his miracles, and were curious to see what he would say and do.] 21 And he began to say unto them, To-day hath this scripture been fulfilled in your ears. 22 And all bare him witness, and wondered at the words of grace which proceeded out of his mouth [The word grace refers rather to the manner than to the matter. The speech of Jesus flowed easily, and gracefully]: a54 And he taught {bbegan to teach} athem in their {bthe synagogue}: ainsomuch that bmany hearing him were astonished, aand said, {bsaying,} Whence hath this man these things? athis wisdom, and these might works? band, What is the wisdom that is given unto this man, and what mean such mighty works wrought by his hands? [They admitted his marvelous teaching and miraculous works, but were at a loss to account for them because their extreme familiarity with his humanity made it hard for them to believe in his divinity, by which alone his actions would be rightly explained. Twice in the early part of his ministry Jesus had been at Cana, within a few miles of Nazareth, and turning away from it had gone down to Capernaum. He did not call upon his townsmen to believe in him or his divine mission until [359] the evidences were so full that they could not deny them.] 3 Is not this the carpenter, cJoseph’s son? athe carpenter’s son? bthe son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? ais not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas? 56 And his sisters, are they not all bhere with us? [They brought forth every item of trade and relationship by which they could confirm themselves in their conviction that he was simply a human being like themselves. The question as to his identity, however, suggests that he may have been absent from Nazareth some little time. As to Jesus’ kindred, see 1Ki 17:8-16, and the second at 2Ki 5:1-14. Palestine was filled with poor people even in times of plenty, so there must have been large numbers of hungry people during the long-continued period of famine. There has always been a large number of lepers in the land, and surely if any disease ought to prompt a man to lay aside his prejudices that he might obtain healing it was leprosy; but as Nazareth was now rejecting Jesus, so their ancestors had despised the two mighty prophets. Not one of all the hungry would have received bread from Elijah by an act of faith, nor did one of all the lepers ask healing from Elisha.] 28 And they were all filled with wrath in the synagogue, as they heard these things [The Nazarenes were jealous enough of the claims of Jesus when put in their most modest dress; but when Jesus placed himself alongside Elijah and Elisha, and likened his hearers to widows for want, and lepers for uncleanness, they were ready to dash him to pieces]; 29 and they rose up, and cast him forth out of the city, and led him [they evidently had hold of him] unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might throw him down headlong. [Near the eastern end of Nazareth there is a cavern in the rock which forms a precipice down which, if a man were hurled, he would be killed. At the western end there is a perpendicular cliff about forty feet high, with a naked floor of rock at the bottom. To which place they led Jesus we can not decide.] 30 But he passing through the midst of them [361] went his way. [A simple statement of a marvelous fact. Miracles are not explained in the Bible.] b5 And he could there do no mighty work, a58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief. bsave that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them. 6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. [As to this statement that Jesus felt surprised, see page 273. “It should also be borne in mind,” says Canon Cook, “that surprise at the obtuseness and unreasonableness of sin is constantly attributed to God by the prophets.” The statement, therefore, is perfectly consonant with the divinity of Jesus.] c31 And he came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee. [We have followed the chronology of Mark, according to which Jesus had already been living in Capernaum for some time. Luke tells of the rejection early in his narrative, and adds this line to show that from the earlier days of his ministry Jesus made Capernaum his headquarters.]

[FFG 358-362]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

CHAPTER 30

JESUS AGAIN REJECTED AT NAZARETH

Mat 13:54-58, & Mar 6:1-6. He went out from thence, and came into His own country [i.e., He went from Capernaum to Nazareth]; and His disciples follow Him; and it being the Sabbath, He began to teach in the synagogue; and many, hearing, were astonished, saying, Whence are these things to Him? and what wisdom is given to Him? Such miracles are performed by His hands! Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary? Is He not the brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us? And they became offended in Him. And Jesus said to them, A prophet is not without honor except in his own country, among his relatives, and in his own house. And He was not able to do any miracle there, except, laying His hands on a few sick people, He healed them. And He was astonished on account of their unbelief. Matthew says, He did not many miracles there on account of their unbelief. You remember, early in our Lords ministry, when He first returned to Nazareth, after receiving the Holy Ghost at the Jordan, and the celestial fire flashing from His eyes, radiating from His countenance, and flaming along His words, interpenetrated the deep-seated carnality in the subterranean chambers of their fallen spirits, burning them intolerably; so they not only reject the truth, but determine to kill the Preacher, superinducing the necessity on His part to turn over humanity to the Divinity or become a martyr at that early day. Now that eighteen months have rolled away, and His mighty works and stupendous revelations have not only filled all Galilee and Judea, but aroused the heathen world from the slumber of four thousand years, turning on Him all eyes; again, actuated by the deep and unutterable love of His native land where He spent nine-tenths of His earthly life, He comes back, and gives them another chance, only to meet such a rebuff and rejection that He never more came back, but left them to settle the matter at the judgment-bar. While they long listened to the wonderful wisdom which flows spontaneously from His mouth, and remember His mighty works at Capernaum, only forty miles distant, and the resurrection of the widows son at Nain, only five miles from their own city; while they were astonished, electrified, and even delighted, they can not survive the remembrance, This is no one but that young carpenter, reared in our midst; the son of a poor mechanic, without education or any extraordinary opportunities; the brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon, whom we know so well; and His sisters are living here with us this day. What was the consequence? They could not brook these facts. And so they were offended in Him; i.e., they went back on Him, and could not acquiesce in the conclusion that He is a mighty prophet, sent down from heaven. N.B. He said He could not do any miracle at Nazareth on account of their unbelief, involving the legitimate conclusion that human faith is a necessary condition of Gods mighty work, both in the healing of the body and the salvation of the soul. If He had wrought miracles at Nazareth, doubtless His old acquaintances would have believed on Him; and so it is throughout this wicked world, going at race-horse speed to the bottomless pit, but we can not reverse the Divine order. We must believe in order to receive the mighty works of the Omnipotent Christ in behalf of both soul and body. We should not forget our Saviors maxim, A prophet is not without honor except in his own country. For this reason we have go in the Commission, as well as preach. We dare not change the Commission, and stay at home. Myriads of holy men and women, called of God to preach the gospel and save souls, paralyze their energies and bury their talents by staying at home.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Verse 54

His own country; Nazareth.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

13:54 {10} 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?

(10) Men not only sin because of ignorance, but also knowingly and willingly they lay stumbling blocks in their own ways, that when God calls them, they may not obey, and so most plainly destroy and cast away themselves.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

The opposition of the Nazarenes 13:54-58 (cf. Mar 6:1-6)

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Jesus’ hometown was Nazareth (Luk 4:16). The local synagogue attendees wondered where Jesus obtained His authority. The wisdom in His teaching and the power in His miracles demonstrated remarkable authority, but where did He get it? Did it come from God or elsewhere (Mat 12:24)?

This is the last of Matthew’s references to Jesus teaching in a synagogue. From now on, Jesus appears increasingly outside the structures of traditional Judaism. [Note: France, The Gospel . . ., p. 547.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

1. The opposition of the Nazarenes and Romans Mat 13:54 to Mat 14:12

The theme of opposition continues from the Parables about the Kingdom. Jesus’ reaction to opposition by Israel’s leaders was to withdraw (cf. Mat 10:23). Matthew recorded Him doing this twice in this section. The first instance of opposition came from the people among whom Jesus had grown up in Nazareth (Mat 13:54-58). The second came from the Roman leadership of the area in which Jesus was ministering (Mat 14:1-12). Both sections show that opposition to Jesus was intense, from the Jewish common people to the Roman nobility.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

A. Opposition, instruction, and healing 13:54-16:12

This section records the course that Jesus’ ministry took because of Israel’s rejection of Him. Opposition from several quarters led him to withdraw to safer places where He continued to minister to Jews and Gentiles and to prepare His disciples for what lay ahead.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

V. THE REACTIONS OF THE KING 13:54-19:2

Matthew recorded increasing polarization in this section. Jesus expanded His ministry, but as He did so opposition became even more intense. The Jewish leaders became increasingly hostile. Consequently Jesus spent more time preparing His disciples. Jesus revealed Himself more clearly to His disciples, but they only understood some of what He told them. They strongly rejected other things He said. The inevitability of a final confrontation between Jesus and His critics became increasingly clear. The general movement in this section is Jesus withdrawing from Israel’s leaders (Mat 13:54 to Mat 16:12) and preparing His disciples for His passion (Mat 16:13 to Mat 19:2).