Matthew 13:53

HOW JESUS WAS REGARDED BY HIS RELATIVES. ( = Mar 6:1-6; Luk 4:16-30). (Mat 13:53-58)

And it came to pass, that, when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Mat 13:53-55. When Jesus had finished these parables — Namely, those last mentioned, delivered in the house, which he added to the others spoken before in public; he departed thence, (see Mar 6:1,) and came once more into his own country — Namely, Nazareth: but with no better success than he had had there before: for though he preached in their synagogue with such wisdom and eloquence that they were astonished, and also performed some miracles, yet the Nazarenes were not disposed to believe on him, taking offence at the poverty and meanness of his family and relations. They said, therefore, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? — Whence? certainly from above, for you yourselves acknowledge that they are too extraordinary to be ascribed to a poor uneducated man. Is not this the carpenter’s son? — In Mark it is, Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary? — Although the word, ο τεκτων, rendered carpenter, may mean one that works either in wood, iron, or stone, yet it is probable that a carpenter, properly so called, is here intended. Accordingly Justin Martyr tells us that Jesus, before he entered on his public ministry, was employed in this occupation: and the ancient Christians were all of the same opinion. The Jewish canons required that all parents should teach their children some trade; and, probably, the poverty of the family engaged Christ, while he was at home with Joseph, to work at his. What an additional proof is this of the humiliation of the blessed Redeemer for our sakes! The four persons here mentioned and termed the brethren of Christ, it appears, were his cousins, the sons of his mother’s sister, the wife of Cleophas, or Alpheus. By James is meant James the Less, whom St. Paul calls the Lord’s brother, Gal 1:19. Joses, or Joseph, (for the name is the same,) is the only son of the virgin’s sister, who never was an apostle. Simon is the same who is called the Canaanite, or Zelotes, to distinguish him from Simon Peter. And Judas, or Jude, is the author of the epistle that goes under that name: wherein he is styled the brother of James.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

§ 55. — JESUS REVISITS NAZARETH AND IS AGAIN REJECTED THERE, Mat_13:53-58.

53. Had finished these parables — Being SEVEN in number; FOUR to the people at the sea side, and THREE to the disciples at his own residence, all illustrating the principles of the divine probationary kingdom or government of God. He departed thence — He left Capernaum.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL NOTES

Mat_13:54. His own country.—The district of Nazareth.

Mat_13:55. The carpenter’s son (see Mar_6:3).—Joseph was an artificer, for the word “carpenter” must not be interpreted in its narrowed modern import. The word “carpenter” originally meant “cart-maker.” But the term employed by the Evangelist rather corresponds to our more general word “wright,” which properly means just a workman, being etymologically connected with the word “work” or “wrought.” Like the Evangelist’s Greek term, it would originally designate an artificer, who worked, indeed, in wood, but not exclusively so. (Morison). His brethren.—An exceedingly difficult question here arises, What were these “brethren” and “sisters” (Mat_13:56) to Jesus? Were they:

1. His full brothers and sisters? or:

2. His step-brothers and step-sisters, children of Joseph by a former marriage? or:

3. His cousins, according to a common way of speaking among the Jews respecting persons of collateral descent? On this subject an immense deal has been written; nor are opinions yet by any means agreed. For the second opinion there is no ground but a vague tradition, arising probably from the wish for some such explanation. The first opinion undoubtedly suits the text best in all the places where the parties are certainly referred to (Mat_12:46 and its parallels, Mar_3:31 and Luk_8:19; our present passage and its parallel, Mar_6:3; Joh_2:12; Joh_7:3; Joh_7:5; Joh_7:10; Act_1:14). But, in addition to other objections, many of the best interpreters, thinking it in the last degree improbable that our Lord, when hanging on the cross, would have committed His mother to John if He had had full brothers of His own then alive, prefer the third opinion; although, on the other hand, it is not to be doubted that our Lord might have good reasons for entrusting the guardianship of His doubly widowed mother to the beloved disciple in preference even to full brothers of His own. Thus dubiously we prefer to leave this vexed question, encompassed as it is with difficulties (Brown).

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Mat_13:53-58

Jesus in Nazareth.—The end of this chapter is, perhaps, connected with the end of the last. Some of the people of Nazareth, including at any rate those amongst them who were nearest of kin to the Saviour, are described there as coming to Him; though not (apparently) in the spirit of sympathy with His work (Mat_12:46-50). Here we find Him, not impossibly on account of that visit, coming to them. The incidents related are such as to throw, first, some light upon them; secondly, more light upon Him.

I. Some light upon them.—Evidently, in the first place, they were not amongst the distinguished ones of the earth. Persons of culture, persons of learning, persons of influence were not common amongst them. When anyone came to “their synagogue” who could “teach” with effect it seems to have been a surprise. It was certainly so when they found the Speaker to be one of themselves—a man brought up amongst them—a man whose father, and whose father’s occupation as a “carpenter,” were known to them all—and whose other relations, also, of the nearest description, were all of them as well known to them, even by name (Mat_13:55-56). Who would have thought of such an one appearing amongst us? Are those who belong to Him, and who are “with us,” anything of the kind? Are they not rather, all of them, just the same as ourselves? Persons who make no pretension, and have no right to do so, to anything more? Evidently also, in the next place, like most common-place folk, they were a very prejudiced set. It was not only an “astonishment”—it was an “offence” to them—that there should be such a man in their midst (Mat_13:57). Far from glorying in the fact that He was “one of them,” they objected to Him the more on that ground. What right had He to be a man of such a different stamp? That He was so, and that both in word and deed, it was impossible to deny. The “wisdom” He spoke with, the “mighty works” which accompanied it, were as manifest as Himself (Mat_13:54). What exasperated them was that they could not make out how it was they were there. “Whence hath this man all these things?” The very language of prejudice ever since it was born. It will not accept what yet it cannot deny. It will not trace facts to their source. It will not submit to learn from them what they are intended to teach. It quarrels with them simply for being facts. It only wishes them out of their way.

II. More light upon Him.—Light, for example, on what He had been in the days of the past. Why were they so exceedingly astonished to see so much in Him now? Because they had seen so little in Him up to that time. It is evident that when He left Nazareth to be baptised of the Baptist, and to open His chief ministry, after a short probable stay in Judæa, in Capernaum and its neighbourhood (Mat_4:12, etc.), there was no one amongst them—with one possible exception (Luk_2:19), who knew the kind of man that He was. It is evident also (Luk_4:23) that they heard of His doings at Capernaum on this account, with no little surprise. And just as evident (as we have noticed) that, when He now brings His greatness amongst them, they are “astonished” still more. Evidently, once more therefore, there had been no preliminary scintillations of all this during those many years that He had been dwelling amongst them before the baptism of John. Whatever His thoughts, whatever His hopes, whatever His plans, whatever His powers had been during those thirty long years of dwelling amongst them up to that date—those years, on His part, had been years of long silence and self-restraint in more directions than one. It is a picture to mark! How singularly unobtrusive, how retiring, how meek His life then must have been! How much must have been repressed that they should now look on the opposite with such unmeasured surprise. What was Jesus of Nazareth to all outward appearance during all those years? Just a “Nazarene”—and no more. Light, in the next place, as to what He is to them now. How desirous to teach! Going into “their synagogue” where He would have the readiest opportunity for so doing; and availing Himself of it when He was there to offer them instruction. Little as they either expected or wished it, they should have the offer of light from His hands. How ready, again, to make allowance for such unpreparedness to hear on their part! He well knew that it was but with them as with all men in this world. No man likes to find one of his apparent equals claiming, for all that, to be one endowed with such gifts as to make him his superior in any important respect; least of all to make him so in such a capacity as that of a prophet” (Mat_13:57). If these His townsfolk, therefore, had such a feeling now with regard to Himself, He was the more disposed by it to feel sorrow than either disappointment or wrath. At any rate, it should not induce Him to withhold from them entirely that which He knew He was able to give. He would do some works among them, if not “many,” whatever their prejudices. They should have some witness among them, if not so much as some others, notwithstanding “their unbelief” (Mat_13:58). A most gracious answer indeed—as gracious an answer as the case admitted of—to such behaviour as theirs.

Let us learn from all this, for our own use and instruction:—

1. To beware of limiting God.—It is not for us to say where He is to look for the instruments of His work. No place, certainly, seemed less likely for such a purpose than Nazareth did at that time (Joh_1:46). Those who knew it best, its own inhabitants, thought so the most. Also, amongst its inhabitants no one appeared less likely for such a calling and that for the years of a “generation” than Jesus Himself. Yet never has there been called, from anywhere else, such a Teacher and Light—even the Light of the world.

2. To beware of despising any.—Probably greater prejudice, and less excuse for it, there never was in the world than amongst these townsfolk of Jesus. Yet, with all the scorn that they showed to Him, and all the multitudes waiting to hear Him elsewhere, there is no contempt in His treatment of them. If He does not give to them what is due rather to others, He still has something for them. He has something for them, though they, on their part, have only prejudice and anger for Him.

HOMILIES ON THE VERSES

Mat_13:55. The carpenter’s son.—Consider how the fact that Jesus was a carpenter should be a help to our faith.

I. This fact is a sign of the humility of Christ.—It is true that when He came down the tremendous way, from heaven’s glory to man’s humiliation, it did not signify so very much to Him whether He alighted at a king’s palace or a peasant’s cottage. The condescension would not be appreciably different in the two cases. Yet to us the humility of Christ is more apparent in His lowly earthly lot.

II. This fact is a proof that Jesus Christ went through the experience of practical life.—Work takes up a large part of life. It has its difficulties, its disappointments, its weariness. We all know them, whether we work with the hand or with the brain. Christ knew them too. Work has also its special requirements, its duties, its obligations. The apprentice must learn the various branches of his trade, if only that he may afterwards understand how to direct and judge of the work of the mechanics who will be under his control. Christ knows good work. When we serve Him let it be with the thoroughness He so well understands and has a right to expect.

III. This fact shows that Christ found the school for His spiritual training in His practical work.—As He bent over His task with care and diligence to do it well, His soul was growing silently in those excellencies which were ultimately revealed when His disciples “saw His glory full of grace and truth.”

IV. This fact sheds a glory over the life of manual industry.—Everything that Christ handles becomes beautiful beneath His touch. His presence in the workshop throws a holy light over its commonest contents. As the carpenter handles his tools, shall he not remember that he is doing the very work his Master did before him, and so exalted and consecrated work?

V. This fact should attract working men to Christ.—How strange that it should be said that working men are not so interested in Christianity as other classes. It must be because they are repelled by the artificial respectability of the church. It cannot be that they see anything in Christ Himself that is less attractive to them than to others. For He was a working man Himself.—W. F. Adeney, M.A.

Mat_13:56. The originality of Jesus.—When Jesus began to be a force in human life, there were four existent types on which men formed themselves, and which are still in evidence. One is the moral, and has the Jew for its supreme illustration, with his faith in the eternal, and his devotion to the law of righteousness. The next is the intellectual, and was seen to perfection in the Greek, whose restless curiosity searched out the reason of things, and whose æsthetic taste identified beauty and divinity. The third is the political, and stood enthroned at Rome, where a nation was born in the purple and dictated order to the world. And the last is the commercial, and had its forerunner in the Phoenician, who was the first to teach the power of enterprise and the fascination of wealth. Any other man born at the beginning of the first century could be dropped into his class, but Jesus defied classification. As He moved among the synagogues of Galilee He was an endless perplexity. One could never anticipate Him. One was in despair to explain Him. Whence is He? the people whispered with a vague sense of the problem, for He marked the introduction of a new form of life. He was not referable to type; He was the beginning of a time.—John Watson, M.A.

Mat_13:57. The world’s offence in Christ.—What is there offensive in Christianity to-day—why do so many people now find in Christian teaching a cause of vexation, an incitement to opposition, or, at least, an excuse for indifference?

I. One chief cause of the opposition is the very widespread misunderstanding about this religion of Christ as to its aims and spirit.—This misunderstanding may be traced to some extent to the imperfect teaching of the church in the past. But the chief cause is want of attention, the absence of any serious desire to understand which marks the attitude of so many people. In a certain tropical country, where rains were rare and streams were small, a period of drought had brought great distress upon the people. The ground was baked hard by the burning sun, the grass withered and died, the rivulets failed, the cattle began to suffer. Water even failed for the supply of the households. Things got worse and worse. Many lost their all; some even perished in the bush from thirst; when one man, more keen-witted than the rest, and having a little more knowledge of things, managed to sink a well on his farm. He soon tapped a spring, and, by a rude arrangement of buckets and ropes he was able to draw sufficient water for all his needs. He filled the great trough which ran along the front of his house, and sent to all his neighbours to tell them the good news, and to invite them to share his good fortune. But the story had gone about among the people that the man was a wizard, and that he had obtained the water by magic, and, moreover, that what was life to him would be death to everyone else. So they refused to come, and hundreds suffered and even perished in the very presence of the saving fountain. This is an allegory.

II. There is a certain unworldliness about Christ.—The kingdom He founds is a spiritual one, and such teaching is not appreciated by the greater number of people. Robert Buchanan describes a meeting on London Bridge between himself and a weak and miserable old man, with bare and bleeding feet—this is Jesus, the Jew. And presently he pictures Him arraigned before “the spirit of humanity,” as His judge—

“Humanity itself shall testify

Thy kingdom is a dream, Thy word a lie,

Thyself a living canker and a curse

Upon the body of the universe.”

Many there are who could echo such words if they dared. But there is one fact which stands in the way and confronts them. Christ’s kingdom lives! It lives and has greater vitality to-day than it ever had.

III. Men stumble at this teaching because of the slow progress and imperfect results of the preaching of Christianity.—I grant that it is a natural cause of hesitation, and at first sight a difficulty. The condition of society in Christian countries—in England and America to-day—is not creditable to our professions, and must be an “offence.” While Christianity has power to uplift all who submit to it, it has not the power to compel men to submit. And I shrewdly suspect that if it attempted to usurp such a power, those who now complain of it as imbecile would be the first to attack it as tyrannical. But the very argument seems to allow the fact on which I lay stress. It seems to acknowledge that Christ intended to make a complete reform of society, that at least this was the ideal He set before Himself and His followers. And this is admitting a great deal. If, however, people would use their reason a little more carefully they would surely see that no religion can, by its very nature, have a power of compulsion. Christianity aims at what is radical; it touches the springs of life; and, while people are debating, fault-finding, arguing, this kingdom of Christ is quietly going on its way. It is working out its destined ends; it is renewing hearts and ennobling lives.—P. W. Darnton, B.A.

Prejudice against Jesus.—It was once said to a sceptic: “Sir, I think you would be about the last man that would willingly do injustice to any one.” He smiled and gracefully bowing said, “Certainly.” “Well, then, sir,” was the reply, “I hope you will not do injustice to Jesus Christ.” “Pooh!” said he, and turned away.—C. Clemance, D.D.

Prejudice.—Richard Cecil illustrates the obvious tendency of man’s predilections to bias the judgment, by a watch which a gentleman put into a watchmaker’s hands, as it went irregularly. “It was as perfect a piece of work as ever was made. He took it to pieces and put it together again twenty times. No manner of defect was to be discovered, and yet the watch went intolerably. At last, it struck him that possibly the balance might have been near a magnet. On applying a needle to it, he found his suspicions true. Here was all the mischief. The steel work in the other parts of the watch had a perpetual influence on its motions, and the watch went as well as possible with a new wheel. If the soundest mind be magnetised by any predilection, it must act irregularly.”

Prejudice unreasonable.—A gentleman was one day stoutly asserting that there were no gold fields, except in Mexico and Peru. A nugget, dug up in California, was presented to him as evidence against his positive assertion. He was not in the least disconcerted. “This metal, sir, is, I own, extremely like gold; and you tell me that it passes as such in the market, having been declared by the assayers to be indistinguishable from the precious metal. All this I will not dispute. Nevertheless, the metal is not gold but auruminium; it cannot be gold, because gold comes only from Mexico and Peru.” In vain was he informed that the geological formation was similar in California and Peru, and the metals similar; he had fixed in his mind the conclusion that gold existed only in Mexico and Peru; this was a law of nature—he had no reasons to give why it should be so; but such had been the admitted fact for many years, and from it he could not swerve.—Lewes.

Mat_13:58. Unbelief a hindrance to miracle.—

I. Our Lord’s conduct in Nazareth.—He did not perform many miracles in Nazareth because of the unbelief of the Nazarenes. This is the very opposite of what we might have been disposed to anticipate. Surely we should have thought beforehand that where there was most of unbelief there would have been the largest employment of miracle in order to overcome it. Miracles were for the production or the confirmation of faith. Moreover, our Lord had been brought up in Nazareth; all His earliest associates were there. His human breast was filled with patriotism, and therefore, doubtless, He yearned for the welfare of the Nazarenes. Yet it is of Nazareth, where there was so much unbelief, and so much prejudice to be overcome, that we are told, “He did not many mighty works there,” etc. What is the explanation of this? Observe:—

1. That although Christ did not work many miracles in Nazareth, He did work some.—“Not many” implies some (see Mar_6:5). He wrought sufficient to arouse attention and excite inquiry (Mat_13:54).

2. The evidence afforded by a miracle is not enhanced by its frequent repetition.—The very opposite is really the case. The probability is that had our Lord multiplied miracles in Nazareth He would only thereby have enhanced the guilt and aggravated the final punishment of these Nazarenes, inasmuch as the greater the evidence which they resisted, the greater the guilt which would have attached to them, and the more severe the condemnation to which they would have been thereby exposed. And then there is another reason:—

3. In the dealings of grace God invariably treats men as morally accountable and responsible beings.—He does enough to enable those to whom the gospel is sent to believe, but no more. He does not compel the men to believe. But why was it, after all, that the unbelief of the Nazarenes restrained the wonder-working arm of the Redeemer? In St. Mark’s Gospel we are told, “He could do no mighty works there because of their unbelief,” as though to tell us that the arm of the Redeemer was paralysed by the unbelief of those amongst whom He sojourned. I think there is a deep reason to account for this; and in order to perceive that reason we should bear in mind the two-fold design with which all the miracles which Christ wrought upon earth were performed. The miracles were evidences of the Divine commission which Christ bore; but they were more than this. They were types of those wonders of grace which Christ is still able and willing to work in behalf of men’s souls. In almost every instance where Christ wrought a miracle, He required in the subject of the miracle faith, as a condition of its performance. Why? Because the miracle was intended to foreshadow His mode of acting in the economy of grace.

II. The lessons which our Lord’s conduct afford to ourselves.—

1. If not converted to God under the ordinary means of grace you have no right to expect that extraordinary means will be employed, or that, if employed, the result would be different from what it is.

2. That the great secret why we do not make greater progress in religion is unbelief.—Dr. Bickersteth, Bishop of Ripon.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

THIRD SECTION

Christ Manifests Himself as the High Priest in his Sufferings; Being Rejected—(a.) By his own City Nazareth

Mat_13:53-58 (Mar_6:1-6; Luk_4:14-30)

53     And it came to pass, that45 when Jesus had finished these parables [of the kingdom of heaven], he departed thence. 54And when he was come [having come, ἐλθών] into his own country,46 he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch [so] that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works [the miracles]?4755Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren 56[brothers],48 James, and Joses [Joseph],49 and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? 57And they were offended in [at] him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. 58And he did not many mighty works [miracles] there because of their unbelief.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

According to Schleiermacher and many others, the passage before us is identical with Luk_4:16. But this view is controverted by Wieseler, Ewald, and Meyer. The opinion of Schleiermacher is, however, supported by the fact, that in both passages the people of Nazareth are described as putting the question: Is not this the carpenter’s son, or the son of Joseph? and that in both cases the Saviour replies that a prophet is not without honor, etc. But the chronological arrangement seems to be rightly given by Luke, as his narrative fully accounts for the removal of Jesus to Capernaum. Matthew indeed furnishes different details as to the time and circumstances of this occurrence ( Mat_13:53-54). But we would suggest as probable, that the Lord may, after His controversy with the Pharisees, have retired for a time with His disciples into the mountains and to Nazareth. This may explain the introduction of this narrative. When recording the stay at Nazareth, Matthew, in his usual pragmatic method, also relates some events which had formerly taken place there. At the same time, it will be observed that the Evangelist only states the great outlines of this conflict of Jesus with His fellow-citizens, without repeating the details connected with it.

Mat_13:54. His own city.—On the situation of Nazareth, and the meaning of the word, comp. the Exegetical Notes on Mat_2:23.

Whence hath this man?—τούτψ. By way of contempt, as if they were inquiring what schools He had attended while in their city.

Mat_13:55. The carpenter’s son.—The word τέκτων (artifex), faber lignarius in the widest sense (carpenter, wright, etc.).

[The occupation of a carpenter was always regarded as an honorable and respectable employment; hence this question was not a question of contempt, but of surprise. The Nazarenes regarded Jesus not as their inferior, but themselves as His equals, and doubted only His claim to superiority, which was forced upon

them by His wisdom and miracles. It is the same natural surprise which is always felt if an old acquaintance meets his former humble associates with a distinguished rank or reputation as a scholar, or artist, or statesman, or merchant-prince.—P. S.]

A prophet.—A fact of experience—exculpatory in its general bearing, but condemnatory in its special application in this instance.

Mat_13:58. He did not many miracles.—Mark: “He could there do no mighty works;” i. e., He found them not prepared to receive, and therefore would not as He could not. The latter expression indicates not a want of power, but the moral limits which Himself imposed on the exercise of His power. However, it also implies that we are not to regard these displays of Christ’s power as merely the manifestations of absolute might.

Mat_13:55-57. The brothers of Jesus.

Mat_13:55. James, Joses,50 Simon, Judas (Mar_6:3).

Mar_15:40.      James the Less, Joses, their mother Mary.

Joh_19:25.      (Mary the wife of Cleophas.) The Apostles.

Mat_10:3. James (the son of Alphæus or Cleophas).Simon Zelotes.Lebbeus (Thaddeus) (or Judas, the brother of James. Luk_6:16).Act_1:13. James, the son of Alphæus.Simon Zelotes.Judas, the brother of James.From the above we conclude:

(1) That three brothers of the Lord bore the names of James, Simon, andJudas;

That three Apostles also bore the names of James, Simon, and Judas:

(2) That James, the brother of the Lord, had a brother called Joses [Joseph];

That the Apostle James, the son of Alphæus, had a brother called Joses:

(3) That the father of the Apostle James the Less bore the name of Alphæus;

That the father of Joses, the son of Mary, bore the name of Alphæus:

(4) That the Apostle Judas had a brother called James;

That Judas, the brother of Jesus, had a brother called James:

(5) That the wife of Clopas or Cleophas was called Mary, and that she was the mother of James and Joses.

(6) Hence that

Cleophas was the father of James and Joses;

Cleophas was the father of the Apostle James;

Cleophas was the father of Judas, the brother of James.

(7) Besides, we have Simon, Brother of the Lord; Brother of James (brother of the Lord); Apostle of the Lord.

Manifestly, then, the brothers of the Lord and the Apostles whom we have just named are identical. The relationship existing between them was probably as follows: Clopas (Cleophas), or Alphæus, was a brother of Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus (Eusebius, Mat_3:11). It is a mistake to suppose that Mary the wife of Cleophas was the sister of the mother of the Lord.51 Alphæus probably died early [?], and Joseph [the poor carpenter?] adopted his family [of at least six children? and this, when their mother was still living, Joh_19:25?—P. S.]; so that the cousins of Jesus became His adopted brothers, and in the eye of the law were treated as His brothers. Probably they were older than Jesus, and hence appear to have interfered on several occasions with His work. Although at an early period they were in the faith, some time elapsed before they attained to full obedience. Besides these sons, Alphæus seems also to have left daughters [?].

The idea that the Apostles James the Less and Judas were different from the brothers of the Lord, originated among the Judæo-Christian sect of the Ebionites. The oldest Catholic tradition, on the contrary, has always regarded them as identical (Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen).52 For further particulars, see my article Jakobus in Herzog’s Real Encyclop. [vol. vi., p. 406 sqq. Comp. also Alford on Mat_13:55; Dr. Mill: On the Brethren of our Lord (quoted by Alford and Wordsworth, as defending the cousin-theory), and Sam. S. Andrews: The Life of our Lord, N. Y., 1863, p. 104 sqq.—P. S.]

[Note on the Brothers of Jesus.—After a renewed investigation of this difficult exegetical and historical problem, I beg leave to differ from the cousin-theory, even in the modified form so plausibly defended by Dr. Lange here and elsewhere. I shall present as clearly and concisely as I can the principal exegetical data in the case, on which the right conclusion must be based. For a fuller treatment I refer to my monograph on James (Berlin, 1842), where the whole subject is discussed exegetically and historically, with special reference to James the brother of the Lord and his relation to James the Less. (Compare also my History of the Apostolic Church p. 378, and the notes in previous parts of this Commentary, on Mat_1:25; Mat_12:46-47; Mat_13:55 above.)

1. The brothers of Jesus, four in number, and bearing the names Jacob or James, Joseph (or Joses), Simon, and Jude, are mentioned with or without their names, fourteen or fifteen times in the N. T. (not ten times, as Alford in loc. says), twice in connection with sisters (whose number and names are not recorded), viz., twelve times in the Gospels, Mat_12:46-47; Mat_13:55-56 (ἀδελφοί and ἀδελφοί); Mar_3:31-32; Mar_6:3 (here the sisters are likewise introduced); Luk_8:19-20; Joh_7:3; Joh_7:5; Joh_7:10;—once in the Act_1:14;—and once by St. Paul, 1Co_9:5, to which must be added Gal_1:19, where James of Jerusalem is called “the brother of the Lord .” Besides, the Saviour Himself speaks several times of His brothers (brethren), but apparently in a wider sense of the term, Mat_12:48-50; Mar_3:33-35; Mat_28:10; Joh_20:17.

In the former fourteen or fifteen passages it is agreed on all hands that the term brothers must be taken more or less literally of natural affinity, and not metaphorically or spiritually, in which sense all Christians are brethren. The question is only, whether the term means brothers proper, or cousins, according to a somewhat wider usage of the Hebrew אָח.

2. The exegetical or grammatical (though not perhaps the dogmatical) a priori presumption is undoubtedly in favor of the usual meaning of the word, the more so since no parallel case of a wider meaning of ἀδελφός (except the well-known and always apparent metaphorical, which is out of the question in our case), can be quoted from the New Testament. Even the Hebrew אָח is used only twice in a wider sense, and then only extended to nephew (not to cousin), viz., Gen_13:8; Gen_14:16; of Abraham and Lot, who was his brother’s son (Gen 11:27, 31), and Gen_29:12; Gen_29:15, of Laban and Jacob his sister’s son (comp. Mat_13:13). Here there can be no mistake. The cases are therefore not strictly parallel with ours.

3. There is no mention anywhere of cousins or kinsmen of Jesus according to the flesh; and yet the term ἀνεψιός, consobrinus, cousin, is well known to the N. T. vocabulary (compare Col_4:10, where Mark is called a cousin of Barnabas); so also the more exact term υἱὸς τῆς ἀδελφῆς, sister’s son (comp. Act_23:26, of Paul’s cousin in Jerusalem); and the more general term συγγενής, kinsman, relative, occurs not less than eleven times (Mar_6:4; Luk_1:36; Luk_1:58; Luk_2:44; Luk_14:12; Luk_21:16; Joh_18:26; Act_10:24; Rom_9:3; Rom_16:7; Rom_16:11; Rom_16:21).

Now, if the brothers of Jesus were merely His cousins (either sons of a sister of Mary, as is generally assumed, or of a brother of Joseph, as Dr. Lange maintains), the question may well be asked: Why did the sacred historians not in a single instance call them by their right name, ἀνεψιοί, or υἱοὶ τῆς ἀδελφῆς τῆς Μαρίας, or τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ τοῦ Ἰωσήφ, or at least more generally συγγενεῖς?53 By doing this they would have at once prevented all future confusion among commentators: while by uniformly using the term ἀδελφοί, without the least intimation of a wider meaning, they certainly suggest to every unbiased reader the impression that real brothers are intended.

4. In all the passages where brothers and sisters of Jesus are mentioned, except in John 7 (where they are represented in conflict with the Lord), and 1 Corinthians 9 (which was written probably after the death of Mary), they appear in close connection with Him and His mother Mary as being under her care and direction, and as forming one family. This is certainly surprising and unaccountable, if they were cousins. Why do they never appear in connection with their own supposed mother, Mary the wife of Clopas (or Alphæus), who was living all the time, and stood under the cross (Mat_27:56; Joh_19:25), and at the sepulchre (Mat_27:61)?

Lange calls to his aid the double hypothesis of an early death of Clopas (whom he assumes to have been the brother of Joseph54), and the adoption of his children by the parents of Jesus, so that they became legally His brothers and sisters. But this adoption, if true, could not destroy their relation to their natural mother, Mary, who was still living, and one of the most faithful female followers of Christ. Besides, both the assumption of the early death of Clopas and the adoption of his children by Joseph, is without the shadow of either exegetical or traditionary evidence, and is made extremely improbable by the fact of the poverty of the holy family, who could not in justice to themselves and to their own Son adopt at least half a dozen children at once (four sons and two or more daughters), especially when their own mother was still living at the time. We would have to assume that the mother likewise, after the death of her husband, lived with the holy family. But would she have given up in this case, or under any circumstances, the claim and title to, and the maternal care of, her own children? Certainly not. The more we esteem this devoted disciple, who attended the Saviour to the cross and the sepulchre (Mat_27:56; Mat_27:61; Joh_19:25), the less we can think her capable of such an unmotherly and unwomanly act.

5. There is no intimation anywhere in the New Testament, either by direct assertion or by implication (unless it be the disputed passage on James, in Gal_1:19), that the brothers of Christ, or any of them, were of the number of the twelve Apostles. This is a mere inference from certain facts and combinations, which we shall consider afterward, viz., the identity of three names, James, Simon and Judas, who occur among the brothers of Christ and among the Apostles, and the fact that a certain Mary, supposed to be an aunt of Jesus, was the mother of James and Joses (but she is never called the mother of James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude), and with the fact of the eminent, Apostle-like position of James, the brother of the Lord, in the church at Jerusalem.

6. On the contrary, the brothers of Jesus are mentioned after the Apostles, and thus distinguished from them. In Act_1:13-14, Luke first enumerates the eleven by name, and then adds: “These all [the Apostles] continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brethren.” Here they seem to form a distinct class with their mother, next to the Apostles. So also 1Co_9:5 : οἱ λοιποὶ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ Κυρίου. Such distinct mention of the brothers after the Apostles was not justified if three of the four, as is assumed by the cousin theory, were themselves Apostles; consequently, only one remained to make a separate class. The narrative, Mat_12:46-50, likewise implies that the brothers of Jesus who stood without, seeking to speak with Him, were distinct from the disciples (Matthew 13:69), who always surrounded Him.

7. More than this: before the resurrection of Christ, His brothers are represented in the Gospel of John, in Mat_7:3-10, long after the call of the Apostles, as unbelievers, who endeavored to embarrass the Saviour and to throw difficulties in His way. This makes it morally impossible to identify them with the Apostles. Even if only one or two of the four had been among the twelve at that time, John could not have made the unqualified remark: “Neither did His brethren (brothers) believe in Him” (Mat_7:5); for faith is the very first condition of the apostolate. Nor would Christ in this case have said to them: “My time has not yet come; but your time is always ready; the world cannot hate you; but Me it hateth” ( Mat_13:6-7); nor would He have separated from them in His journey to Jerusalem. It will not do here to weaken the force of πιστεύειν, and to reduce their unbelief to a mere temporary wavering and uncertainty. The case of Peter, Mat_16:23, and that of Thomas, Joh_20:25, are by no means parallel. The whole attitude of the brothers of Christ, as viewed by Christ and described by John, is entirely inconsistent with that of an apostle. It is an attitude not of enemies, it is true, but of doubtful, dissatisfied friends, who assume an air of superiority, and presume to suggest to Him a worldly and ambitious policy. After the resurrection they are expressly mentioned among the believers, but as a distinct class with Mary, next to the Apostles.

All these considerations strongly urge the conclusion that the brothers of Christ were real brothers, according to the flesh, i. e., either later sons of Mary and Joseph, or sons of Joseph by a former marriage (more of this below), unless there are very serious difficulties in the way, which make this conclusion either critically, or morally, or religiously impossible.

Let us now approach these difficulties.

8. There are serious but no insurmountable objections to the conclusion just stated.

(a) The first objection is the identity in name of three of these brothers with three of the Apostles, viz., James, Simon, and Jude.55 But it should be remembered that these were among the most common Jewish names. Josephus mentions no less than twenty-one Simons, seventeen Joses’s, and sixteen Judes. Why could there not be two or three persons of the same name in the apostolic Church? We have at all events two James’s, two Simons, and two Judes among the twelve Apostles. This difficulty is more than counterbalanced by the opposite difficulty of two sisters with the same name.

(b) The second objection, likewise of a critical and exegetical character, is derived from Gal_1:19 : “But other of the Apostles saw I none, save (εἰ μή) James, the Lord’s brother.” Here James, who was one of the brothers of Jesus, seems to be included among the Apostles, and this must have been James of Alphæus, or James the Less.56 But the passage bears the exactly opposite interpretation, if after εἰ μή we supply simply: εῖδον, and not εῖδον τὸν ἀπόστολον, viz.: “I saw none other of the Apostles (besides Peter, Mat_13:18), but only (I saw) James, the Lord’s brother.” This interpretation is very old,57 and is defended by some of the highest grammatical authorities of our age.58 I think with Meyer 59 that James is here distinguished from the twelve to whom Peter belonged, and yet at the same time mentioned with the Apostles in a wider sense of the term. In other words, he is represented as a man who, on account of his close natural relationship to Christ, and of his weight of character and piety, enjoyed an apostolic dignity and authority among the strict Jewish Christians. He was the acknowledged head and leader of this branch and the first bishop of Jerusalem, where he permanently resided and died, while the apostles proper were not fixed in a particular diocese, but traveling missionaries, with the whole world for their field of labor. That this was precisely the position of James is evident from various passages in the Acts, in the epistle to the Galatians, from Josephus, Hegesippus, and the traditions of the Eastern Church.”60

(c) The third objection is of a moral character, and derived from the consideration that Christ on the cross could not have commended His mother to the care of John if she had other sons (Joh_19:26-27). “But why,” we may ask with Andrews,61 “if James and Judas were Apostles and His cousins, sons of her sister and long inmates of her family, and it was a question of kinship, did He not commend her to their care? “The difficulty then remains, and must be solved on other grounds. The brothers of Jesus at that time, as appears from John 7, were not yet full believers in Christ, although they must have been converted soon after the resurrection (Act_1:14). Moreover, John was the most intimate bosom friend of the Saviour, and could better sympathize with Mary, and comfort her in this peculiar trial than any human being. If the modern interpretation of Joh_19:25 be correct, as it probably is, Salome (not Mary, wife of Clopas) was a sister of Christ’s mother, consequently John His cousin. But we would not urge this as an additional reason of the commendation, which must be based on a deeper spiritual affinity and sympathy.

(d) The fourth objection is religious and dogmatical, arising from the pious or superstitious belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary, and the apparent impropriety of the birth of any later descendants of the house of David after the birth of the Messiah. The perpetual virginity of the mother of our Saviour is an article of faith in the Greek and Roman Church; it is taught also in a few of the older Protestant symbols,62 and held to this day by many evangelical divines. Bishop Pearson says that the Church of God in all ages has maintained that Mary continued in the same virginity,63 Olshausen takes the same view, and Lange, though the latter only as far as offspring is concerned. Dr. Jos. Addison Alexander, a Presbyterian, who will not be accused of any sympathy with Romanism, says with apparent approbation: “Multitudes of Protestant divines and others, independently of all creeds and confessions, have believed, or rather felt, that the selection of a woman to be the mother of the Lord, carries with it as a necessary implication that no others could sustain the same relation to her; and that the selection of a virgin still more necessarily implied that she was to continue so; for if there be nothing in the birth of younger children inconsistent with her maternal relation to the Saviour, why should there be any such repugnance in the birth of older children likewise? … The same feeling which revolts from one hypothesis in some, revolts from both hypotheses in both.”64

A doctrine or feeling so old and widely spread must be treated with proper regard and delicacy. But it should be observed:

In the first place, that these doctrinal objections hold only against the view that the brothers of Christ were younger children of Mary, not against the other alternative left, that they were older children of Joseph by a former marriage.

Secondly, the virginity of Mary can be made an article of faith only as far as it is connected with the mystery of the supernatural conception and the absolute freedom of Christ from hereditary as well as actual sin. But neither His nor her honor require the perpetual virginity after His birth, unless there be something impure and unholy in the marriage relation itself. The latter we cannot admit, since God instituted marriage in the state of innocence in Paradise, and St. Paul compares it to the most sacred relation existing, the union of Christ with His Church.

Thirdly, the Apostles and Evangelists, who are certainly much safer guides in all matters of faith and religious feeling than even fathers and reformers, seem to have had no such feeling of repugnance to a real marriage between Joseph and Mary, since they not only frequently mention brothers and sisters of Christ, without any intimation of an unusual or indefinite sense of the word, but Matthew and Luke (Mat_2:7) call Christ the first-born son of Mary, and Matthew moreover says (Mat_1:25), that Joseph knew not Mary, i. e., did not cohabit with her as man and wife, till she had brought forth her first-born son. I admit that neither πρωτότοκος nor ἕως οὗ are conclusive in favor of subsequent cohabitation and offspring, but they naturally look that way, especially in a retrospective historical narrative, and in connection with the subsequent frequent mention of the brothers and sisters of Christ by the same writers. At all events, we are warranted to say that those terms could not have been used by the Evangelists if they had regarded legitimate cohabitation as essentially profane, or in any way degrading to Joseph and His mother. The Old Testament, it is well known, nowhere sustains the ascetic Romish views on the superior merits of celibacy, and represents children as the greatest blessing, and sterility as a curse or misfortune.

Finally, it may be regarded as another proof of the true and full humanity and the condescending love of our Saviour, if He shared the common trials of family life in all its forms, and moved a brother among brothers and sisters, that “He might be touched with a feeling of our infirmities.” This last consideration, however, has its full weight if we adopt Dr. Lange’s modification of the cousin-hypothesis, viz., the formal adoption of Christ’s cousins into the holy family.

9. It remains to be seen whether the cousin-theory is more free from difficulties. This theory is comparatively late and cannot be traced beyond the time of Jerome in the fourth century,65 but has since been adopted by the whole Latin Church, and by the older Protestant divines, who, however, paid very little critical attention to this question.66 Jerome’s view did not obtain credit and currency without an undue weight of dogmatical considerations connected with the perpetual virginity of Mary and the superior sanctity of celibacy (as is very evident from Jerome’s violent work against Helvidius). It has moreover to contend with all the facts presented under No. 1–7, which are as many arguments against it. And finally it has to call to its aid two assumptions, which are at least very doubtful, and give the theory an intricate and complicated character. These assumptions are:

(a) That Mary, the mother of James and Joses (Mat_27:56; Mar_15:40), was a sister of the Virgin Mary, and that consequently her children were cousins of Jesus. But who ever heard of two sisters bearing the same name without any additional one by which to distinguish them? Then, the only passage on which the alleged relationship of the two Marys is based, Joh_19:25, admits of a different and more probable explanation, by which the term “His mother’s sister” is applied to Salome,67 who stood certainly under the cross (see Mat_27:56; Mar_15:40), and could not well be passed by in silence by her own son, St. John, while he, with his accustomed modesty and delicacy, omitted her name, and intimated her presence by bringing out her relation to Mary.

(b) That Clopas, or Cleophas, the husband of Mary, the supposed sister of the Virgin Mary, is the same with Alphæuns, the father of James, the younger Apostle of that name, who is called Ἰάκωβος ὁ τοῦ Ἀλφαίου (Mat_10:3; Mar_2:14; Mar_3:18; Luk_6:15; Act_1:13). But this, though not improbable, and supported by the testimony of Papias, is at least not certain. Besides, Matthew (or Levi) was also a son of Alpbæus, Mar_2:14, and if Ἰον̓δας Ἰακάβου, and Simeon, two of the twelve, were likewise among the brothers of Christ, we would have four Apostles, of whom it is said in John 7 that they did not believe. Finally, Mary, it should be remembered, is called the mother of James and Joses only, but never the mother of Simon and Jude, the other two brothers of Jesus, and both of them supposed to have been Apostles, which Joses was not. It is nowhere intimated that she had more sons than two, or any daughters at all; and even from her two sons, one, Joses, must be exempt from being a namesake, since Joseph, and not Joses, according to the correct reading, in Mat_13:55, is the second brother of Christ.

Dr. Lange, it is true, avoids some of these difficulties by giving up the sisterhood of the two Marys, and assuming in its place the brotherhood of Clopas, or Alphæus, and Joseph,68 as the basis of the cousinship of their sons, and calling to his aid the additional hypothesis of the early death of Alphæus and the adoption of his children into the holy family,—but all this without a shadow of exegetical proof. The absence of all allusion in the Evangelists to Mary, the real and still living mother of these children, when they are collectively mentioned, is a surprising fact, which speaks as strongly against Lange’s hypothesis as against the older and usual form of the cousin-theory.

10. We conclude, therefore, that the strict grammatical explanation of the term brothers and sisters of Christ, though not without difficulties, is still far more easy and natural than the explanation which makes them mere cousins.

But from the exegetical data of the New Testament we are still at liberty to choose between two views:

(a) The brothers of Jesus were younger children of Joseph and Mary, and hence His uterine brothers, though in fact only half-brothers, since He had no human father, and was conceived by the Holy Spirit overshadowing the Blessed Virgin. This view may be supported by the ἕως and the πρωτότοκος in Mat_1:25 and Luk_2:7, and has been adopted by Tertullian, Helvidius, and many modern Protestant divines of Germany, as Herder, Neander, Winer, Meyer, Wieseler, Rothe, Stier, and by a few English divines, Alford (on Mat_13:55), T. W. Farrar (in W. Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. i., p. 231), and, though not decidedly, by Andrews (Life of our Lord, p. 114). This view of the case is the most natural, and would probably be taken by a majority of commentators, if it were not from the scruples arising from the long and widely cherished doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Once clearly and fully established on the testimony of Scripture and history, this theory would give a powerful polemical weapon into the hands of Protestants, and destroy by one fatal blow one of the strongest pillars of Romish Mariology and Mariolatry, and the ascetic overestimate of the state of celibacy. But the case is by no means so clear at the present state of the controversy that we could avail ourselves of this advantage; and Protestants themselves, as already remarked, differ in their views, or feelings, or tastes, concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary.

(b) The brothers of Jesus were older sons of Joseph from a former marriage, and thus in the eyes of the law and before the world, though not by blood, brothers and sisters of Christ. This view has the doctrinal advantage of leaving the perpetual virginity of Mary untouched. It seems, moreover, to have been the oldest, and was held not only among the Ebionites, and in the pseudo-apostolical constitution, but by several early fathers, as Origen, Eusebius (who calls James of Jerusalem a “son of Joseph,” but nowhere of Mary), Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Epiphanius (who even mentions the supposed order of birth of the four sons and two daughters), Hilary, Ambrose, etc.69 It is equally consistent with the Scripture data on the subject as the other alternative, and in some respects even more so. For it agrees better with the apparent difference of age between Joseph (who early disappears in the gospel history) and Mary, and especially with the patronizing and presumptuous air of the brothers of Christ, when they sought an interview with Him at a particular crisis (Mat_12:46), and when they boldly dared to suggest to Him a more expeditious and ostentatious Messianic policy (Joh_7:3-10). This is at least more readily explained, if they were older according to the flesh; while on the other theory some of them must have been almost too young to figure so prominently in the gospel history. It is true, they are nowhere called sons of Joseph;70 but neither are they called sons of Mary. The reason in both cases must be found in the fact, that Christ is the great central figure in the Gospels, round which all others move. On the other hand, however, it is difficult to believe that God should have selected an old widower with at least six children, as the husband of the mother of Christ. And the old tradition on which this view rests, may itself be explained as an attempt to escape the force of scriptural statements against the cherished belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary.—P. S.]

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. In this narrative the Evangelist sets before us the circumstances under which the sufferings of our High Priest were introduced—by successive rejections of His person and claims. This in all probability induced him to relate in this connection that Christ was rejected even in His own city. But the historian drops a veil over the particulars and circumstances of His rejection. Nazareth adjoined Matthew’s native city, and, perhaps, lay even within the district of his home.

2. On the fact that our Lord had no uterine brothers or sisters, comp. my Leben Jesu, Mat_2:1, p. 139 sqq. To our mind, there seems nothing offensive in the idea, that Joseph and Mary lived on conjugal terms;71 but it appears to us inconceivable that the mother of Jesus should afterward have given birth to other children. Besides, the brothers of the Lord are introduced as speaking and acting like persons who claim to have more enlarged experience than Jesus, or, as we infer, as His seniors.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The question: “Is not this the carpenter’s son?” or prejudice.—How the people of Nazareth condemned themselves, while imagining that they judged Jesus.—How they unconsciously verified the exclamation of Nathanael: “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?”—How every prejudice against Christianity contains the germ of its own condemnation. For, 1. it evidences a want of proper faith, (a) in the power of God, (b) in humanity, (c) in the miracles of history, (d) in the deeper recesses of our own inner life; 2. and yet even prejudice must confess that the wisdom and the works of Christ are most mysterious and inexplicable. Hence such persons readily have recourse to lying and hostile criticisms.—The offence of the people of Nazareth on account of the humble origin of the Lord, a picture of all other offences in Him. 1. An offence, (a) in His terrestrial state and existence; (b) in His human lowliness; (c) in His brothers and sisters with their human weaknesses. 2. Yet an offence which will leave us self-condemned, since it implies an admission of His wisdom and of His deeds. 3. A most fatal offence, since unbelief deprives us of the blessings of Christ’s wondrous works.—The saying of Christ, “A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and in his own home:” 1. As an extenuation; 2. as a reproof.—Jesus rejected by His own city.—The rejection of Jesus in Nazareth a prelude to His rejection by the people.—Nazareth, so poor, yet casting out the Lord of glory: 1. Nazareth in Galilee; 2. the land of Judea so poor; 3. the earth so poor.—The inmost characteristic of unbelief is, that it implies contempt of our own being and higher nature.—Whenever we read that the Lord “could not do,” or else that He “knew not,” the circumstances connected with it show that it was not from weakness or ignorance, but that His infinite power and wisdom were controlled and limited by supreme love and faithfulness.—How the King gradually merged into the High Priest.

[Matt. Henry:

Mat_13:58. Unbelief is the great obstruction to Christ’s favor.—If mighty works are not wrought in us, it is not for want of power or grace in Christ, but for want of faith in us.—P. S.]

Starke:—Canstein: Jesus is in truth the son of the carpenter; but of that Carpenter who made heaven and earth.—Ungrounded prejudices are too often obstacles in the way of faith, Joh_7:40-42.—Jerome: Naturale prop modum est cives civibus in videre.—Homines familiaria con’emnere, peregrina exosculari et in admiratione ac pretio habere solent.72

Gerlach:—Carnal men look at the outward appearance; and this state of mind repels them from the Son of God, appearing in the form of a servant.

Heubner:—Jesus does not force His love or His blessings upon us.—Pride brings its own punishment. (Of this, history furnishes ample confirmation.)

Footnotes:

[45] Mat_13:53.—[That is an unnecessary interpolation placed before when in Cranmer’s and James’s versions, or before he departed by Tyndale and the Geneva Bible, and is omitted by Wiclif, the N. T. of Rheims, also by Conant in his work on Matthew, but restored before he departed, in the revised Vers. of the Am. Bible Union.—P. S.]

[46] Mat_13:54.—[Lange, as also de Wette, Ewald, and others, translate πατρίδα here: Vaterstadt, paternal (maternal) town, for Vaterland (Luther), fatherland. Nazareth is meant as the residence of his mother and reputed father. Euthym. Zigab.: λέγει τὴν Ναζαρὲτ, ὡς πατριδα τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ νομιζομένου πατρὸς αὐτοῦ, καὶ ὠς τραφεὶς ἐς αὐτῇ.—P. S.]

[47] Mat_13:54.—[Αἱδυνάμεις, de Wette: die Wunder; Lange: die Wunderkräfte; Ewald: die Heilsmächte, Comp. the note on Mat_11:20, p. 210. The definite article here is more emphatic than the demonstrative pronoun of the E. V.—P. S.]

[48] Mat_13:55.—[Comp. my note on Mat_12:46, p. 231.—P. S.]

[49] Mat_13:55.—B., C, and several translations read Ἰωσήφ. So Lachmann, Tischendorf. Many uncial MSS. D., E., F., G., etc., Ἰωάννης;—K., L., etc., Ἰωσῆς. In the parallel passage of Mark the reading Joses is by far better supported than Joseph. According to Lightfoot the Talmudists write יוֹסֵי for יוֹסֵף. Perhaps the person in question was called by both names already in the apostolic age. [Dr. Lange, in his German translation, retains Joses from the received text. But Joseph is undoubtedly the true reading according to the ancient authorities, including Cod. Sinaiticus, and is adopted also by Meyer, Tregelles, Alford Conant. The reading has some bearing on the question concerning the brothers of Christ. For if Ἰωσήφ be the true reading, there remains but one brother of Christ, viz. James, of the same name with one of the two sons of Mary, the wife of Alphæus (supposed to be the same with Cleophas), Mat_27:56 (“Mary the mother of James and Joses”); and this argues against the view defended by Dr. Lange, that the brothers of Christ were merely his cousins. See below.—P. S.]

[50](Or rather Joseph. See the critical note above.—P. S.]

[51]Comp. Wieseler in the Studien und Kritiken for 1840. p. Matt 648: “There stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and the sister of His mother—i. e. , Salome—, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.” Joh_19:25. Comp. Mar_15:40; Mat_27:56.

[52][But it must be added, that the oldest tradition, including the most distinguished Greek and Latin fathers, as Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Epiphanius, Hilary, and Ambrose, regarded the brothers of Christ as sons of Joseph by a former marriage. See the passages in full in my book on James, p. 80 sqq.—P. S.]

[53]Hegesippus (ap. Euseb. H. E. Mat_4:22) speaks of cousins of Christ, calling Simeon, the successor of James in Jerusalem: ἀνεφιὸν τοῦ Κυρίου δεύτερος.

[54]Hegesippus (in Eusebius’ H. E. iii. 11) asserts that Clopas was the brother of Joseph. Lange denies that Mary, the wife of Clopas, was the sister of the Virgin Mary. But Lichtenstein (Lebensgeschichte des Herrn, Erlangen, 1856, p. 124) assumes, that the two brothers, Joseph and Clopas, married two sisters, both named Mary. Clopas dying, Joseph took his wife and her children into his family. Schneckenburger reverses the hypothesis and assumes that Mary, after the early death of Joseph, moved to the household of her sister, the wife of Clopas.

[55]Dr. Lange, in his article Jakobus in Herzog’s Encycl., vol. vi., p. 412, calls this die Unhaltbarkeit einer dreinamigen Doppelgängerlinie in dem apostolischen Kreise, and afterward eine unerhörte swei- bis vierfache Doppelgängerei.

[56]So Schneckenburger on the Epistle of James, and all the commentators on Galatians who adopt the cousin-hypothesis, also Ellicott ad Gal_1:19, who, however, does not enter into a discussion of the general question.

[57]Victorinus, in his Commentary in loc., says: “Paul disclaims James as an apostle, saying, that he saw no other apostle besides Peter, but only James.”

[58]Winer, Grammatik, 6th ed., p. 557 (§ 67, sub I. e); who quotes for a similar use of εἰ μή Act_27:22 and Rev_21:27; Fritzsche, Comment. in Matt., p. 482. who translates: alium apostolum non vidi, sed vidi Jacobum; Bleek (in Studien und Kritiken for 1836, p. 1059), and, as to the inference drawn, also Meyer and Hilgenfeld ad Gal_1:19.

[59]In his Comment. on Gal_1:19.

[60]This subject is fully discussed in my book on James.

[61]The Lift of our Lord upon the Earth, p. 115.

[62]The Articles of Smalkald, Pars. I. art. IV. (p. 303. ed. Hase): “Ex Maria pura, sancta, semper virgine.” The Form of Concord, p. Matt 767: “Unde et vere θεοτόκος, Del genetrix est, et tamen virgo mansit.” Even Zwingli shared in this view, Comment. in Mat_1:18; Mat_1:25. and the Helvetic Confession speaks of Jesus as “natus ex Maria semper virgine.”

[63]Exposition of the Creed, art. III.

[64]Commentary on Mat_13:56, pp. 388 and 384, and in the same language. Com. on Mar_6:3. Dr. Alexander does not decide one way or the other (though leaning to the cousin-theory), and thinks that the difference of taste and sensibility on this subject is likely to continue to affect the interpretation until the question has received some new and unequivocal solution.

[65][Dr. Wordsworth and others would carry the cousin-theory to Papias in the second century, and quote a fragment, ascribed to his name, on the four Marys (ap. Routh, Reliquiæ sacræ, ex Cod. MSS. 2397): “I. Maria, mater Domini. II. Maria, Cleophæ sive Alphæi uxor, quæ fuit mater Jacobi Episcopi et Apostoli, et Simonis, et Thadei [Judæ Jacobi], et eujusdam Joseph. III. Maria Salome, uxor Zebedei, mater Joannis evangelistæ. et Jacobi. IV. Maria Magdalena.” But this extract is evidently a part of a dictionary written by a mediæval. Papias, which still exists in MS. both at Oxford and Cambridge.—P. S.]

[66]Calvin for instance regards the question as one of idle curiosity in Mat_1:25 : “Certe memo unquam hac de re questionem movebit nisi curiosus; nemo vero pertinaciter insistet nisi contentiosus rixator.”

[67]This explanation was brought out first clearly by Wieseler (in the Studien und Kritiken for 1840. p. 648 sqq.), and adopted by Meyer, Lange, and Alford. But the old Syriac version already implied this interpretation by inserting a καί before Μαρία, and translating: “And there were standing near the cross of Jesus, His mother, and His mother’s sister [Salome], and Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.”

[68]Hegesippus, in Eusebius’ H. E. iii. 11, comp. 4:29, asserts, that Clopas was the brother of Joseph, but it does not appear whether he uses the term brother strictly, or for brother-in-law.

[69]See my book on James, p. 80 sqq. Chrysostom may also be included in this class; at least he clearly separates the brothers of Christ from the apostles, for the reason that they were for a long time unbelievers (Hom. 5 in Matt.).

[70]Eusebius, however, H. E. ii. 1, calls James of Jerusalem a “son of Joseph.”

[71][In this point Lange differs from the view of the Greek and Latin Churches, which deny every conjugal intercourse as degrading the character of the holy Virgin.—P. S.]

[72][Comp. the proverbs: “Familiarity breeds contempt;” “Distance lends enchantment to the view;” “Es ist nicht weit her” (It is not far off).—P. S.]

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Subdivision 2. (Mat 13:53-58; Mat 14:1-36.)

Features of a day of rejection.

We return now to the personal history of the Lord, but to find in it also the foreshadow of such things as the parables have put before us. The fact of His rejection by man is now a governing thought; and this involves rejection for His people, and a path in separation from a world in estrangement from Him. This is especially what characterises the next portion of the Gospel which developer for us the features of a day of rejection; but in which grace still works, and finds among men not its objects only but its instruments. But the world is at the same time on the one hand a desert, on the other a stormy sea. Soon He Himself also is absent, and His disciples are left in the darkness, toiling over the waters in the face of the adverse wind. But again there is a change: He is coming back to them over the waters; and faith, discerning Him and seeking to be with Him, is fain to leave the boat and at His invitation walk upon the waters too to go to Him. Here the Church’s path is clearly presented to us, the boat imaging the position of that remnant of Israel which as to their hopes the disciples were, when He went away, and to which (accompanied by His heavenly people) He will again return. Then the wind ceases, and the boat having reached the shore, mercy flows out to men far and wide as it will in millennial days. Let us now seek to apprehend this in detail.

1. First of all, we have a two-fold witness to His rejection. All classes of men are concerned in this: for the reception of Christ alike wounds their pride and opposes their lust; and thus Christ Himself and he who would prepare His way must share together.

(1) First, Nazareth rejects Him, - the place where He had been so long, and where the glory of a life to which all else was darkness had shone before their eyes. They have perforce to own His wisdom and His mighty work; but what right has He to them? They know His mother and His kindred; and these suggest no such greatness. They ought surely to have argued therefore that all this in Him was not natural but supernatural - that there was more in Him than nature could account for: but no! they will rather discredit what they see and know, than accept such things from a carpenter’s son. Divine power must not work without human credentials. The root is out of a dry ground: the plant may be anything you please, but it is a sufficient condemnation of it that the ground is dry.

That was His glory for which they despised Him. He was no creature of His circumstances; He derived not from man; He received no honor from him. Nor could He thus, on His part, put honor on man, nor accredit him who had fallen away from God. He could serve, and for this come into the lowest place, when from man He could not accept the highest. Those who had not judged aright the world or themselves, could not judge Him aright. And still the proverb) holds that a prophet may be in honor anywhere rather than among those who know him in his earthly relations best. Did not this for long dim the eyes even of His brethren (Joh 7:5)? and does not its influence appear even in the tender solicitude of His mother?

So Nazareth shuts itself out from the blessing which was ready to be poured out upon them: "He did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief."

(2) Prince and people were alike in this; and now we hear of the murder of the Baptist at the hands of the licentious Herod. Conscience he has, enough to trouble him; religion enough to bind him to the abominable wickedness in which he is ensnared by the evil influences to which he has already surrendered himself. The spirit of uncleanness is quite ready to take to himself other spirits more wicked than himself, and with the key of the house in his hand, it is too late to shut the door upon them. Scrupulous the adulterer may be as to his oath, and for his honor before those who are at table with him, - the poor remains of honor which are so apt to increase in value in proportion to the little left. So the death of the prophet is cheaply purchased by the dance of a light girl, and the king’s oath is kept inviolate. What a world it is in every view that can be taken of it, whether in its pleasures, its morals, or its underlying passions and malignities! In such a world what an honor to be persecuted! what a reproach to be in esteem! The Spirit of God sums it up morally thus: "All that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," and adds that "it is not of the Father" (1Jn 2:16). The Father has been seen and hated in the Son (Joh 15:23-24).

2. The Lord accepts the news of the Baptist’s murder as His own rejection. He withdraws into a desert place apart; but those who are drawn to Him by their necessities flock after Him still, and He cannot withdraw Himself from the need which appeals to Him. The wilderness thus becomes a place of plenteous provision, and the Lord’s grace and power are manifest for all that come. He heals all the infirm among them; and as night comes on; and the disciples remind Him of the need of the multitude there in a desert place, He casts them for all this upon the disciples themselves: "They have no need to go away," He says, "give ye them to eat." But they do not realize what this implies, and that they can avail themselves of His power for ministry such as this. They have but five loaves and two fishes: how plainly we may read ourselves in them! What use to put such a pitiful morsel even into His hand to satisfy so many with! But He does not disdain it, or set it aside, to work independently. If a miracle were in His mind, this might seem more worthy of Him; but on the contrary He will rather lower the miracle than set aside those whom He would identify with Himself and use in service. They are to find the little that they have, enough, if but His blessing be with it; and so are we.

But they are to bring it to Him first, and to receive it from Him; and then He bids the multitude recline upon the grass: His way is to give rest and then refreshment. Then He blesses and breaks, and puts it back into His disciples, hands to distribute; and they distribute it all; and there is more than enough for all the multitude. How good to know that out of that insignificant quantity there is positively enough for every one there; yea, and more than enough: "twelve hand-baskets full of fragments that remained" over and above all that had been eaten! Thus there is actually more left than they had had at the beginning; and this is constantly the way of spiritual increase, scattering and yet increasing. Would that we all and always remembered it: - the responsibility of the possession of whatever ministers to the need of man; but above all, of that which ministers to what is truly life, - and then the gain resulting. Every particle of truth we have, brings with it corresponding responsibility, proportionate privilege, and opportunity of greater gain. "To him that hath shall more be given; and he shall have abundantly; and from him that hath not, even that which he hath" - hath and hath not, hath as if he had it not, without practical use or advantage - "shall be taken away."

Such grace was still going forth in Israel: the power of Jehovah was manifesting itself among them, to satisfy her poor with bread" (Psa 132:15). The twelve baskets full may point to the resources of power for them in the presence among them of their King; the five thousand men, the responsibility of such realized capabilities (5x10^3), which yet unbelief might make of no effect. And this is in fact the result. The stream of grace that was flowing then could not, indeed, be dammed back by all that unbelief could do, but it might be forced to flow in other channels; and this was in fact the result. The Gospel of John it is which gives us insight (Joh 6:1-71) into the spiritual condition of those to whom the Lord ministered here, and to whom He had to say, "Ye seek Me, not because ye saw the miracles," - not because ye realized divine power in them, - "but because ye did eat of the loaves and were filled." These were they who would after this carnal manner, "have taken Him by force, to make Him a king" (ver. 15). Such was the nation; and, as such, He had to turn away from them.

3. We find Him therefore urging His disciples to re-enter the ship, and go before Him to the other side, while He Himself, having dismissed the multitudes, goes up into the mountain apart to pray. This is simple, as significant of His present place and work, Israel being in the meantime left to the consequences of their unbelief. Gone up to God, He intercedes for His own; tossed on the sea of this world, and with the wind contrary: for Satan is "the prince of the power of the air," by whom "the course of this world" is directed (Eph 2:2). The "ship" does not represent, however, what is proper to the present dispensation; but the means by which, when faith has not Christ before it, we are sustained upon the waters. Such means are essentially Jewish, no doubt, and it was practically a Jewish remnant which the Lord left upon earth when He went up, as it will be a Jewish remnant to which He will by and by return. The question put by the disciples to the Lord immediately before His going up, "Lord, wilt Thou at this time restore the Kingdom to Israel?" (Act 1:6) shows how little beyond the national hope they were at this time. Long after, they "walked orderly," thronged the temple, and were "zealous of the law" (Act 21:20; Act 21:24), and Paul it is who speaks the decisive word by which the Christian company separate themselves from the Jewish ship to take the true path of faith upon the waters.

The ship speaks not properly of help given to faith, but of help to do without it. "The law is not of faith," and in the notable chapter in which Paul insists to the Hebrews upon the path in which the elders walked, and in which they obtained a good report, it is striking how little the times of walking orderly and keeping the law furnish him with examples (Heb 11:1-40.) Faith lives in the unseen and is built up by that which is spiritual, not natural. Nay, the mighty miracles of the wilderness did not beget a generation of believers, as we well know. The law, being the trial of man; gave every assistance to man naturally: the eye, the ear, the senses generally, through these the whole sensitive being, were appealed to, - only to end in more emphatic witness to his utter impracticability. The schoolmaster’s reign, therefore, is at an end, though the lessons learnt abide: "after that faith is come, we are no longer under the schoolmaster" (Gal 3:25).

Faith could not be more strikingly pictured than in this solitary man stepping out of the ship upon the waters to go to Jesus. And this has been in fact the Church’s path ever since. True, the "ship" has come back again; with the return of Jewish principles with church establishments and the patronage of the world; but this has made the picture only a more striking one, by separating even disciples from disciples, and making the Church’s path in result more absolutely the individual, isolated path, which for the saint, in character as such, it has ever been. Faith is, of necessity, personal and individual. A "Christian world" means only a corrupt and degenerate Church profession. The Church itself, as well as the open world, becomes a scene in which the word of the Lord calls for "overcoming" and more and more appeals to the individual only, - to him "that hath an ear to hear" (Rev 2:1-29; Rev 3:1-22.)

Indeed, this Figure on the water is not seen except by faith; even those who are disciples may count it an "apparition" only, and fear, instead of being drawn by it. Notice, that it is to the soul that invites the invitation that the Voice says, "Come." It speaks to no other. Nor does it speak other than approvingly, though the one inviting it proves thoroughly his weakness in his response to it. But he gets no rebuke for a rash venture. The other disciples might have given him that: there are many who are in no danger of this kind of failure, who would justify themselves by it from all such attempts; but the Lord says only, "Wherefore didst thou doubt?" And surely this doubting is as foolish as disastrous. For the moment, at least, he had proved the power of Christ: he had actually walked upon the water, and why should boisterous winds put him now in fear? The power was not his own; and he might reckon on it as much for rough water as for smooth. But with the eye off Christ, one cannot reckon right. He doubts and he begins to sink; but at his cry there is a Hand outstretched to him, and he is held up. It is not the ship that rescues him, nor is he taken from the path, but supported in it. Good is it to remember and realize this as grace which acts towards us in our failure now.

Peter and his Lord come back to the ship together; then the wind ceases; and those in the ship come and worship Him with the acknowledgment, "Indeed Thou art the Son of God." This is again not difficult to understand; for when He returns to Israel, we shall be with Him still, and for them and us the wind will be at rest. Satan’s power will be over, himself shut up in the bottomless pit, the power of Christ supreme over all.

4. We see now therefore in Gennesaret the mercy flowing out which will characterize this blessed time. "Gennesaret" may even mean "the protection of the prince." Sickness and distress are banished by the presence of the "Prince of life." It is but the shadow; what will the reality be?

F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 13:53. Ἐτέλεσεν, finished) These parables form a regular and perfect whole, which He is therefore said to have finished; see ch. Mat 11:1.[649] Thus, in Luk 7:1, we have ἐπλήρωσε, He completed. These parables contain, however, besides the general condition of the Church of the New Testament, a more special account of future events. Cf. Gnomon on Mat 13:3, and on Joh 16:13.—μετῆρεν, He departed, Lat. migravit)[650] He ended for the time His sojourn at Capernaum.[651] Thenceforward Jesus did not remain so long in one place, being harassed by Herod.

[649] sc. ἐτέλεσεν διατάσσων τοῖς δώδεκα.—ED.

[650] The word implies change of abode as well as departure.—(I. B.)

[651] In the same manner, the same word, μετῆρεν, is used in ch. Mat 19:1 of the last journey of the Saviour from Galilee to Judea, which He took before the Passion.—Comp. Jer 39:9. Therefore that verb is opposed to the dwelling which, for a considerably long time, Jesus had had at Capernaum, ch. Mat 4:13. Not long after, the Saviour returned thither afresh; but after having made a survey [lustratione, a purifying examination: see Joh 6:66-71] of His disciples, He presently departed again, Joh 6:22-71 [see Mat 13:24]. The same thing happened after the interval of nearly a year, Mat 17:24 : and this was the last of all His visits there. His address to the city of Capernaum, Luk 10:15, was delivered at a distance from it, when He had already finished no inconsiderable part of the journey which led to the Passion: comp. Luk 9:51. He subsequently addressed Jerusalem in the same manner from a distance, Luk 13:34.—Harm., p. 324.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat_13:53-58. The majority of more recent critics (Lichtenstein, L. J. p. 271 ff., de Wette, Baur, Bleek, Köstlin, Holtzmann, Keim) adhere to the view, received with special favour since Schleiermacher, that this narrative (which, moreover, in Mar_6:1 ff., comes after the raising of Jairus daughter) is identical with Luk_4:16-30. But, in that case, it becomes necessary to set aside the very precise statements in Lukes narrative on the one hand; and, on the other, to tamper with the rigid sequence so distinctly indicated by Matthew in Mat_13:53-54; Mat_14:1, as has been done in the most awkward way possible by Olshausen (he came once more to the town in which he had been brought up). It is not without ample reason that Storr, Paulus, Wieseler, chronol. Synopse, p. 284 f., Ewald, have insisted that our passage is not identical with Luk_4:16 ff. What Luke records is an incident that took place during the first visit of Jesus to Nazareth after the temptation in the wilderness. The only passage to which this can correspond is Mat_4:12-13, so that in Luke we get an explanation of what Matthew means by his καταλιπὼν τὴν Ναζαρέτ. How conceivable, likewise, that on two occasions Jesus may have been driven from Nazareth in a similar way, so that he would be twice called upon to utter the words about the prophet being despised in his native place, Nazarethanis priore reprehensione nihilo factis melioribus, Beza.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 13:53-58 . Visit to Nazareth (Mar 6:1-6 , cf. Luk 4:16-30 ). In Mk. this is the next section after the parables, deducting what had previously been reported in Mt. (chaps. 8 and 9), a pretty sure sign that our evangelist has Mk. under his eye. We can here see how he handles his source substantial reproduction of the contents, no slavish copying of style, editorial discretion in reporting certain details. No attempt should be made to connect with the foregoing passage, except perhaps by the general category of prevalent un-receptivity to which also the following narrative (Mat 14:1-12 ) may be relegated.

Mat 13:53 . μετῆρεν : in classics to transfer something from one place to another. Hellenistic, intransitive = to remove oneself; one of Matthew’s words (Mat 19:1 ).

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

We have here Christ in his own country. He went about doing good, yet left not any place till he had finished his testimony there at that time. His own countrymen had rejected him once, yet he came to them again. Note, Christ does not take refusers at their first word, but repeats his offers to those who have often repulsed them. In this, as in other things, Christ was like his brethren; he had a natural affection to his own country; Patriam quisque amat, non quia pulchram, sed quia suam - Every one loves his country, not because it is beautiful, but because it is his own. Seneca. His treatment this time was much the same as before, scornful and spiteful. Observe,

I. How they expressed their contempt of him. When he taught them in their synagogue, they were astonished; not that they were taken with his preaching, or admired his doctrine in itself, but only that it should be his; looking upon him as unlikely to be such a teacher. Two things they upbraided him with.

1. His want of academical education. They owned that he had wisdom, and did mighty works; but the question was, Whence he had them: for they knew that he was not brought up at the feet of the rabbin: he had never been at the university, nor taken his degree, nor was called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. Note, Mean and prejudiced spirits are apt to judge of men by their education, and to enquire more into their rise than into their reasons. "Whence has this man these mighty works? Did he come honestly by them? Has he not been studying the black art?" Thus they turned that against him which was really for him; for if they had not been wilfully blind, they must have concluded him to be divinely assisted and commissioned, who without the help of education gave such proofs of extraordinary wisdom and power.

2. The meanness and poverty of his relations, Mat 13:55, Mat 13:56.

(1.) They upbraid him with his father. Is not this the carpenter's son? Yes, it is true he was reputed so: and what harm in that? No disparagement to him to be the son of an honest tradesman. They remember not (though they might have known it) that this carpenter was of the house of David (Luk 1:27), a son of David (Mat 1:20); though a carpenter, yet a person of honour. Those who are willing to pick quarrels will overlook that which is worthy and deserving, and fasten upon that only which seems mean. Some sordid spirits regard no branch, no not the Branch from the stem of Jesse (Isa 11:1), if it be not the top branch.

(2.) They upbraid him with his mother; and what quarrel have they with her? Why, truly, his mother is called Mary, and that was a very common name, and they all knew her, and knew her to be an ordinary person; she was called Mary, not Queen Mary, nor Lady Mary, nor so much as Mistress Mary, but plain Mary; and this is turned to his reproach, as if men had nothing to be valued by but foreign extraction, noble birth, or splendid titles; poor things to measure worth by.

(3.) They upbraid him with his brethren, whose names they knew, and had them ready enough to serve this turn; James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas, good men but poor men, and therefore despised; and Christ for their sakes. These brethren, it is probable, were Joseph's children by a former wife; or whatever their relation was to him, they seem to have been brought up with him in the same family. And therefore of the calling of three of these, who were of the twelve, to that honour (James, Simon, and Jude, the same with Thaddeus), we read not particularly, because they needed not such an express call into acquaintance with Christ who had been the companions of his youth.

(4.) His sisters too are all with us; they should therefore have loved him and respected him the more, because he was one of themselves, but therefore they despised him. They were offended in him: they stumbled at these stumbling-stones, for he was set for a sign that should be spoken against, Luk 2:34; Isa 8:14.

II. See how he resented this contempt, Mat 13:57, Mat 13:58.

1. It did not trouble his heart. It appears he was not much concerned at it; he despised the shame, Heb 12:2. Instead of aggravating the affront, or expressing an offence at it, or returning such an answer to their foolish suggestions as they deserved, he mildly imputes it to the common humour of the children of men, to undervalue excellences that are cheap, and common, and home-bred. It is usually so. A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country. Note, (1.) Prophets should have honour paid them, and commonly have; men of God are great men, and men of honour, and challenge respect. It is strange indeed if prophets have not honour. (2.) Notwithstanding this, they are commonly least regarded and reverenced in their own country, nay, and sometimes are most envied. Familiarity breeds contempt.

2. It did for the present (to speak with reverence), in effect, tie his hands: He did not many mighty works there, because of their unbelief. Note, Unbelief is the great obstruction to Christ's favours. All things are in general possible to God (Mat 19:26), but then it is to him that believes as to the particulars, Mar 9:23. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation, but then it is to every one that believes, Rom 1:16. So that if mighty works be not wrought in us, it is not for want of power or grace in Christ, but for want of faith in us. By grace ye are saved, and that is a mighty work, but it is through faith, Eph 2:8.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

53–58. The Prophet in his own Country. Mar_6:1-6

where the incident is placed between the cure of Jairus’ daughter and the mission of the Twelve, Luk_4:16-30, where our Lord’s discourse in the synagogue is given at length. But many commentators hold with great probability that St Luke’s narrative refers to a different and earlier visit to Nazareth.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And his sisters,.... Whose names, according to Epiphanius (b), were Mary and Salome; whom he supposes were the daughters of Joseph, by a former wife; but rather of Alphaeus or Cleophas,

Are they not all with us? Lived in the same town with them, were well known by them, and familiar with them,

Whence then hath this man all these things? His wisdom and his mighty works; for since he had not them from any of their schools, and nurseries of learning, from their learned doctors and wise men; and could not have received them from his parents, and near relations, they could not devise from whence he should have them,

(b) Contr. Haeres. Tom. 2. 1. 3. Haeres. 78. &. lib. Ancorat.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

53 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence.

Ver. 53. He departed thence] As wanting, and yet waiting, the next opportunity to glorify God, and edify others. Ministers may hence learn, after their hardest labour, not to be weary of well doing, but to be instant (or to stand close to their work) in season and out of season, even then when that good word of God, that seasons all things, to some seems unseasonable. {a} Si decimus quisque, si unus persuasus fuerit, ad consolationem abunde sufficit, as Chrysostom hath it. Say but the tithe of our hearers be persuaded, say but some one of them, it is sufficient encouragement. But what if not one? yet our labour is not in vain in the Lord. The physician is both thanked and paid, though the patient recover not. And "though Israel be not gathered (as here Christ’s countrymen would not be reclaimed), yet I shall be glorious (saith he by his servant Isaiah) in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength," Isa 49:5.

{a} (επιστηθι) 2Ti 4:2. Dic importunus, Tu vis errare, Tu vi, perire, ego nolo. Aug.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mark relates this passage, Mar 6:1-4. Our Lord went up and down preaching the gospel: he having preached unto the people in the former parables, now he departeth from the seaside, where he preached as before,

into his own country, most interpreters judge Nazareth; he was born in Bethlehem, but we read little or nothing of any time he spent there afterward. Nazareth was the place where he was brought up, and therefore he was called Jesus of Nazareth. There he preached in the synagogue, or in the synagogues of Galilee. Mark addeth, on the sabbath day.

Insomuch that they were astonished: it is not said they repented, or believed, but they admired at him, and were astonished.

And said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? That is, a power to do these mighty works. Mark saith, Whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this that is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands? Astonishment and admiration flow from ignorance, and are no indications of any spiritual saving work upon men’s hearts: we shall see that these Jews, notwithstanding their astonishment, are by and by scandalized, and offended at Christ.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence. The formula marks the end of an excerpt from the discourses. (cf. Mat_11:1, note, and Introduction, p. 3) It is, however, to be noticed that the first and last words, kai ... ekeiyen , come in Mar_6:1, introducing the parallel passage to our following verses. But in the case of such common words this coincidence is, perhaps, to be considered as accidental. He departed (methren). Elsewhere in the New Testament only in Mat_19:1, where it comes in the same connexion as here.

Vers. 53-58. (see also Mar_6:1-6) The defying of conviction.

What is written in this passage is not to be understood as following close upon the speaking of the four parables from the ship, and the three following upon them, and which were spoken in the house. Nevertheless, the Evangelist Matthew furnishes us with the suggestive link, which consists of the fifty-third verse. The parables, with all their Divine fulness of meaning, whether more or less mystic, and whether those to the multitude and disciples, or to the disciples alone, are for the present "finished." But "wisdom and mighty works" are not finished; and he who speaks the wisdom and who does the mighty works journeys untiringly elsewhere, and with his face toward "his own country." Notice

I A CERTAIN POSITION OF HUMAN NATURE HERE DESCRIBED VIZ. CONVICTION ITSELF, CONFRONTED BY A STUMBLINGBLOCK. The "wisdom" and the "mighty works" are not denied, are not doubted; are asserted and proclaimed. The material of conviction was all present, and its work asserted itself. The way is surely perfectly plain for the human mind, and what further need be said?

II A CERTAIN ATTITUDE OF HUMAN NATURE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED. It is an uneasy attitude, one of uncertainty, one of casting about, how it is possible to make a difficulty, to get over, and conquer plain duty. It may be readily granted that there did exist a difficulty not inconsiderable for those who are here spoken of; that a difficulty was present in the very existence of so great a cause for wonder; that the difficulty was not lessened by the fact that he who was now the centre of observation and of admiration, and, to say the least of it, of unparalleled surprise, had been one familiarly known, and his family familiarly known, and familiarly known not as among those who were princes of the world in wealth, or in station, or in power and exalted sphere of influence.

III A CERTAIN UNSATISFACTORY, INCONSEQUENTIAL, AND UTTERLY RECKLESS TREATMENT OF THE DILEMMA BETWEEN THE DIFFICULTY AND THE CONFESSED TO CONVICTION. It is the treatment called defiance. The difficulty is not reasoned out to the end; nor is it treasured in reverent patience to await further light; nor is its comparative, practical, unimportance acknowledged, and permitted to relegate it to its proper subordinate place. But the difficulty is petted and made much of, while conviction is defied, and conscience is dishonoured. These are bowed off the solemn scene; and with them another retreats awhile at least. It is he of whom it is said, "He could do no mighty work there, save that he laid his hands on a few sick folk, and healed them;" and again, "He did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief;" and, "He marvelled because of their unbelief." Some day later, when their eyes were perforce opened, and something beside their eyes also, what a marvel, what a reproach, what a remorse, that identical instance and working of "unbelief" must have been to them! B.

Vers. 53-58. Prejudice.

"When Jesus had finished these parables this cycle or system of parables, affording a general view of the conditions of the Church under the new dispensations departed" from Capernaum. "And coming into his own country," arriving at Nazareth across the lake, (see Luk_4:16) he taught the Nazarenes in their synagogue. They had formerly rejected him, and now he receives from them no better treatment. In the narrative before us we see evidence of

I THE UNREASONABLENESS OF PREJUDICE.

1. The Nazarenes were astonished at his wisdom.

(1) His parables, the fame of which had probably reached them, evinced it. Not only do they open the mysteries of spiritual wealth. They prophesied also things to come. A fool could no more utter a parable than a cripple gracefully dance. (see Pro_26:7)

(2) It was evinced in his teaching in their synagogue. Not only was his doctrine astonishing, but also the manner in which he was wont to confound the doctors when they ventured to question him.

2. So were they astonished at his miracles.

(1) He had, probably, formerly wrought miracles among them. The fame of his wonderful works at Capernaum had certainly reached them (see Luk_4:23) They had ocular proofs of his power in that he now "laid his hand upon a few sick folk, and healed them". (see Mar_6:5)

(2) The wisdom and power of Jesus should have conducted them to a believing recognition of his Person. They rested in astonishment. Astonishment is no substitute for faith. It can consist with prejudices. Miracles may confirm, but they cannot produce, faith. Faith is of the heart. It is in the honest heart from God.

3. They rejected the evidence of both. Prejudice has its reasons, but they refute themselves.

(1) The Nazarenes rejected the claims of Jesus because they did not see whence he derived his wisdom and power. The rational conclusion would have been that if he did not receive them from the doctors of the Law or from any human source, then he must have had them from heaven.

(2) They objected that he was the "carpenter"s Son." But the carpenter was of the house and lineage of David. (see Mat_1:20 Luk_1:27) And Messiah must be the "Son of David" in order to satisfy the prophets.

(3) They objected that "his mother was called Mary." She was of too humble a station to have any splendid title. Yet was this Mary by descent a princess of the great house of David. Moreover, she was the mother of the Son of God. Mary"s miraculous conception seems to have been unknown to them. Prejudices are fostered by ignorance.

(4) They could name his brothers, and his sisters they knew, though they did not deem them worthy of being named. Note: Those who should know Christ best are often most ignorant of him. "Mean and prejudiced spirits are apt to judge of men by their education, and to inquire more into their rise than into their reasons" (Henry). "His sisters, are they not all with us?" Note: How thoroughly is Christ one "with usImmanuel!

II ITS DIREFUL CONSEQUENCES.

1. It hardened the Nazarenes in their unbelief.

(1) "They were offended in him." Their astonishment was their offence. Prejudice is offended in wisdom, and resists the demonstration of power. Superior merit is envied, and envy turns the knowledge it has to the disadvantage of the envied.

(2) If we approach the Scriptures in a cavilling humour we shall remain in ignorance, and become hardened in unbelief.

2. It exposed them to the reproof of Christ.

(1) "Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house." Note: A prophet should have honour. A man of God is a great man. The Son of God, how great!

(2) But familiarity breeds contempt. The contempt a prophet experiences abroad is nothing to that he experiences at home. Even Columbus, when meditating the discovery of America, had to seek patrons out of his own country.

3. It led to their abandonment.

(1) "And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief." Unbelief is an impediment to the performance of miracles. Hence the question, "Dost thou believe that I am able to do this?" "Unbelief is a sin that locks up the heart of a sinner, and binds up the hand of the Saviour" (Flavel).

(2) Christ did not judge it suitable to obtrude his miracles upon the Nazarenes. "A few sick folk" among them had faith to be healed. "Many" remained in their misery "because of their unbelief.

(3) "The reason why mighty works are not wrought now is not that the faith is everywhere planted, but that unbelief everywhere prevails" (Wesley). "All things are possible" to the faith of promise. (cf. Mat_19:26 Mar_9:23 Rom_1:16 Eph_2:8)

(4) Soon after this Jesus finally abandoned the Nazarenes. Their pride and envy and resentment became their desolation and destruction. And those who now reject the claims of Christ are even less excusable than they, since they despise the additional evidence of his resurrection and ascension, and the coming of the Holy Ghost. J.A.M.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

He departed thence - He crossed the lake from Capernaum: and came once more into his own country - Nazareth: but with no better success than he had had there before.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

A Visit to Nazareth.

v. 53. And it came to pass that when Jesus had finished these parables, He departed thence.

v. 54. And when He was come into His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom and these mighty works?

v. 55. Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? and His brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

v. 56. And His sisters, are they not all with us? Whence, then, hath this man all these things?

Jesus now closed this series of parables. For a time at least His disciples would be kept busy digesting the great spiritual truths which He had made known unto them. He went away from Capernaum; literally, removed Himself thence. Coming to His old home, Nazareth, He taught His former neighbors in their synagogue. This was undoubtedly a second visit, different from that spoken of Luk 6:16-30. But the results differed little from that time. At first His hearers were almost stupefied with amazement; they wondered at His wisdom, at His powers, at His ability to perform miracles. But on second thought they remember His youth in their midst. He is nothing but the son of a carpenter, a worker in wood. We know all the members of His family. The text here points very strongly both to natural brothers and sisters of the Lord. "Whence, then": an expression of contempt; they thought they knew His whole bringing-up. They evidently did not realize that they were condemning their own town and its schools in disparaging the worth of a native son: He certainly could not have gotten all that from us!

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Observe here, 1. Christ’s tender and compassionate regard to his own countrymen, the people of Galilee and Nazareth: he preached to them in their synagogue.

2. The effect which his doctrine had upon them: They were astonished at it, but not converted by it; they admired, but did not believe.

3. The cause of their rejecting Christ’s ministry was the meanness of his person, the contemptableness of his outward condition, the poverty of his relations: is not this the carpenter’s son? Mar 6:3. He is called the carpenter; whence the fathers concluded, that our Saviour during the time of his obscure privacy, wrought at the trade of Joseph his reputed father; and Justin Martyr says he made ploughs and yokes. Sure we are, our Lord spent no time in idleness, though we are not certain how he employed his time before he entered upon his public minstry.

Note, That the poverty and meanness of Christ’s condition was that which multitudes stumbled at; and which kept many, yea most, from believing on him. None but a spiritual eye can discern beauty in an humble Saviour: Is not this the son of the carpenter?

2. That it is no impediment to, or hindrance of, our faith, that we never saw Christ’s person in the flesh, nor knew his parentage and education; for here are his own countrymen, who daily saw his person, heard his doctrine, and were witnesses of his holy conversation, yet instead of believing in him they were offended at him.

Our Saviour tells them, he doth not wonder that so many of his own countrymen, to whom he had been so familiarly known, did despise his person, and reject his doctrine; a prophet generally has least esteem where he has been brought up; because, perhaps the follies of his childhood, and indecencies of his youth, are remembered and reported to his disparagement.

Learn, 1. That there is a real tribute of honour due and payable to every prophet, or faithful minister of Jesus Christ.

2. That the ministers of Christ, for the most part, have least honour from their own countrymen, to whom they are best known.

3. That although it be so, yet this may not be through their own fault, for Christ was so amongst us.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

53, 54. When he was come to his own country. To Nazareth, where he was brought up. Compare Mark 6:1–6 and Luke 4:14–29. He taught them in the synagogue. On the Sabbath day (Mark 6:2). Whence hath this man this wisdom? While admitting it, they were offended at it (verse 58).

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

53–58. THE PROPHET IN HIS OWN COUNTRY

Mar 6:1-6; Luk 4:16-30

In Mark the incident is placed between the cure of Jairus’ daughter and the mission of the Twelve; in Luke our Lord’s discourse in the synagogue is given at length. But many commentators hold with great probability that St Luke’s narrative refers to a different and earlier visit to Nazareth.

53. μετῆρεν. Only here and ch. Mat 19:1 in N.T. The seemingly intransitive use of αἴρειν comes from the familiar phrase αἴρειν στόλον, ‘to start an expedition,’ then, the object being omitted, as in many English nautical phrases, ‘to start.’ This use of the compound μεταίρειν however does not appear to be classical.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

53-58.] Teaching, and rejection, at Nazareth. Mar 6:1-6. See Luk 4:16-29 and notes.

53,

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

(E) 53. And it came to pass, when Jesus finished these parables.] For this formula, see Introduction, p. lxiv.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.