Gospel Notes by Michael Whelan SM
He left that place and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him. On the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astounded. They said, “Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What deeds of power are being done by his hands! Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. Then Jesus said to them, “Prophets are not without honor, except in their hometown, and among their own kin, and in their own house.” And he could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them. And he was amazed at their unbelief (Mark 6:1-6 – NRSV).
Introductory notes
General
All three Synoptic Gospels report the rejection of Jesus by the people in his hometown – see Matthew 13:53-58 and Luke 4:16-30. John also alludes to it in the Prologue to his Gospel (1:11). Though each of the Gospel writers situates it at different points and in different ways, it is reasonable to accept as a fact of Jesus’ life that there was some kind of significant conflict with his own people. One commentary notes of this report that it is “a narrative that is deeply rooted in the historical ministry of Jesus while being freely adapted to the theologies of the individual gospels” (J R Donahue, & D J Harrington, The Gospel of Mark, Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2002, 186).
Specific
brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us: Donahue and Harrington write of this text: “The most debated historical issue surrounding this section (and 3:20–21, 31–35) is whether the brothers and sisters of Jesus were biological brothers and sisters and the other children of Mary and Joseph. Throughout church history three major solutions have evolved: (1) These were the natural children of Joseph and Mary; this opinion was held in the ancient church by Hegesippus (2nd c.), Tertullian (160–220 c.e.), and Helvidius (4th c.), and is held today by many non-Catholic scholars and recently by the Catholic scholars Rudolf Pesch (Marksuevangelium 1:322–24) and John P. Meier (A Marginal Jew 1:327–32); (2) the “Epiphanian” solution is that they were the children of Joseph by an earlier marriage; and (3) the view of Jerome is that they were “cousins” of Jesus, perhaps the sons of Mary’s sister. One or other of these latter views has been held by most Roman Catholics and by many non-Catholics too (see Richard Bauckham, “The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus: An Epiphanian Response,” CBQ 56 [1994] 686–700).
“None of these views would necessarily compromise the doctrine of the virginal conception of Jesus, since even if the brothers and sisters were natural children of Joseph and Mary they could have been born after Jesus (see Matt 1:25). Since the sources pertinent to the discussion of this question range widely through the nt, a commentary on Mark cannot address the issue adequately, nor is resolution of this issue important to understanding Mark. In Mark the natural family of Jesus, whether they are blood brothers and sisters, stepbrothers and stepsisters, or cousins, is suspicious of Jesus as being mad, regards him as a source of shame to the family, rejects him at Nazareth, and is supplanted by the new family gathered in response to Jesus’ teaching and presence (3:31–35; 10:29–31)” (J R Donahue & D J Harrington, op cit, 188).
And they took offense at him: The Greek verb is skandalizō from the noun skandalon, meaning a “stumbling block”. In Matthew Jesus accuses Peter of being a skandalon to him – Matthew 16:23. We can understand the embarrassment of the family in Palestine at that time – to have one member step out into the public gaze as Jesus has done is deeply shameful for them. He and his behaviour are a “stumbling block” for them.
“Prophets are not without honor, except in their hometown, and among their own kin, and in their own house”: All four Gospels carry this aphorism in similar contexts. It is most likely something that has been said by Jesus or by someone associated with him in that context: “Its presence in all four gospels in different settings as well as its nature as an incident that would scarcely have been created by the early church confer a ring of authenticity on the rejection—especially since James, one of these relatives of Jesus, emerged as a leader in the early church (see Gal 1:19; 2:9, 12; Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; 1 Cor 15:7). Whatever the nature of the historical incident, the narrative has been enhanced by allusion to the ot motif of the rejected prophet” (J R Donahue & D J Harrington, op cit, 187).
“I am” contains “with you”
In today’s Gospel – Mark 6:1-6 – Jesus returns to his hometown with a shining reputation. People “kept on asking one another, ‘What is this? A new teaching—with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him.’ At once his fame began to spread throughout the surrounding region of Galilee” (1:27-28). Just before this homecoming, we have four of the great miracles of Mark’s Gospel – the calming of the storm (4:35-41), and the cures of the Gerasene demoniac (5:1-20), the woman with a haemorrhage (5:25-34) and the daughter of Jairus (5:21-24 & 35-43). Might Jesus therefore expect a warm welcome in his hometown?
At first blush, it does seem like his hometown echoes the appreciation Jesus has received elsewhere: “Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What deeds of power are being done by his hands!” But the next part of the hometown reaction has a sarcastic, even sneering, tone to it: “‘Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?’ And they took offense at him”.
The reference to Jesus being “the son of Mary” is probably a nasty jab. The normal expression would have linked Jesus to his father – “son of Joseph”. Is the reference to his mother a pious expression of the first Christians? Or might it suggest an undercurrent of gossip that has been attached to Mary – and Jesus – since his conception and birth?
This is a troubling thought. Whatever is happening here, there is animosity and a deep resistance to Jesus. So deep in fact, “he could do no deed of power there”.
For human beings, to be is to be with. This is the Maker’s stamp on our souls. It comes with our being made in the image and likeness of the I AM who is revealed to Moses on Sinai: “I am with you!” (see Exodus 3:1-12). Whenever I say, “I am”, I am also implicitly saying, “I am with you”. To deny or simply ignore the “with you” that is part of my “I am”, is to violate my very humanity. In becoming fully alive as a human being – wholly me – I must include “you”.
Jesus, in his humanity, includes “you”. “You” are part of his “I AM”. Jesus cannot imagine himself in any other way. He is disappointed therefore when he comes to his hometown and he finds his own folk saying, in effect: “We reject your ‘I AM’! If you want to be ‘with us’, you too must reject your ‘I AM’ and become an ‘I am’ of our making!” Ironically, they are implicitly rejecting their own “I am” with its universal “with you” in favour of the homemade “I am” and its parochial “with you”.
Listen to yourself say “I am”. Does it contain a universal “with you”?