Mark Study 25
The Hometown Prophet
Mark Study #25 by Michael Spencer
Step into the study, pour yourself a cup of coffee, get comfortable and let's enjoy the Gospel of Mark.
Our scripture this week is Mark 6:1-6.
1 Jesus left there and went to his hometown, accompanied by his disciples.
2 When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed. "Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles!
3 Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.
4 Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor."
5 He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them.
6 And he was amazed at their lack of faith. Then Jesus went around teaching from village to village.
Those of you more familiar with the current scholarly debate about the Gospels may be familiar with the term "criteria of embarrassment." This cryptic sounding phrase merely means that the likelihood of an event in the Gospels being historically true is increased as the embarrassment of the event's implications increase. So certain events in Jesus' life would have been highly embarrassing to the early Christians and are unlikely to have been invented, since their existence must be explained. Among the most prominent of these are the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist, Jesus condemnation and crucifixion as a Roman criminal and today's passage, the rejection of Jesus in his hometown of Nazareth. Yet, skeptical scholars persist in listing this event as unlikely to have really happened, preferring to see it as a story invented to be "home" for a proverb in 6:4. By indulging in this methodology, they become examples of the very point of this passage.
The passage has been of some trouble to conservative scholars as well, particularly those who are reluctant to harmonize similar incidents with differing details. Matthew's version in 13:54ff comes after the sending out of the Twelve, which leads some scholars to assume it must be a different incident than Mark 6, which precedes the mission of the twelve. Luke's version, in Luke 4:14, happens immediately after the temptation of Jesus and before the twelve are even chosen. For those with a reluctance to see the evolution of the Gospels as individual literary documents, this presents an insurmountable obstacle and 2 (or 3) events are necessitated. The simpler and more obvious situation is that sometime in his ministry, Jesus made a "formal" visit to his hometown synagogue and was rejected as being a small town boy gone overboard. The visit was memorable for its preview of his later rejection in Jerusalem and the absence of the reputation-making miracles which were so prominent in the rest of Jesus' ministry.
In many ways, this is the "final" element in the opening picture of Jesus drawn by Mark. Jesus has been portrayed as chosen by God, having authority over nature, demons, illness and sin. Yet at the same time, there has been rejection of Jesus, a foreshadowing of what is to come. The religious leaders have already begun to pass judgment on him. (2:7, 16, 24; 3:6, 22) It appears his family does not understand or believe in him. (3:31) The Gentiles in the region of the Gerasenes beg him to leave despite a startling display of his power. (5:17) The mourners laugh at his claim to raise the dead (5:40) So we are not surprised to find his hometown elders rejecting him and taking "offense" at him. (6:2-3) While it may not be as neatly arranged as some commentators suggest, there is no doubt that we have "Faith" material in Mark that highlights those who believe and "No Faith" material that shows those who refuse to believe. In what is typically Markan, it is the disciples who live on the edge of these two groups, not unbelieving, but never able to quite believe as others do.
At 6:1 we lose track of any chronology we have been attempting in the previous chapters. The visit to Nazareth is simply some time later. The most striking contrast with Luke's version is that the disciples accompany Jesus, as does his reputation as a miracle worker from his Capernaum ministry. Nazareth is mentioned three times in Mark. Once to identify from where he comes to be baptized (1:9) and later in the same chapter by an evil spirit (1:24). The third time is in 10:47, where a blind man hails Jesus. His association with Nazareth is strong in all the Gospels, far outweighing the rather nutty assertion that the town is chosen by the Gospel writers to associate Jesus with the Nazarenes and their special vows of faithfulness to God.
Nazareth is only now yielding archaeological evidence of life in Jesus' time. It was a small village, perhaps with a population of 300. The primary industry seemed to be vineyards, which fits in nicely with a number of Jesus' parables and teachings. Most interesting for the current understanding of Jesus is the proximity of tiny Nazareth to the Sepphoris, the capital of Galilee and a town with a population of from 10,000 to 25,000 persons. Sepphoris was only four miles from Nazareth. Destroyed by the Romans in Jesus' childhood, the city was rebuilt in a glorious manner by Herod Antipas with many fine Roman style buildings and an amphitheater. If Jesus and Joseph were working craftsmen with wood or stone, they would have likely spent much time in this city; perhaps even years. Here would have been an entirely different world than the sort of countryside isolation we picture with Nazareth. Sepphoris was a place of Greek ideas and Roman culture, theater, politics, business and worldly gossip. Reading the teachings of Jesus with this in mind, it is not hard to see the world of Sepphoris present in Jesus' mind and vocabulary. (Some have even mentioned that Jesus may have met patrons in Sepphoris, such as the wealthy woman mentioned as the wife of Herod's house manager in Luke 8:3)
Teaching in the synagogue, as Mark expresses it, leaves a different impression than the larger story in Luke 4. Luke portrays Jesus as exercising his right to read and comment on the scriptures on a particular Sabbath. Mark and Matthew leave the impression that Jesus comes as a teacher and miracle-worker with a reputation and he speaks as one the community is eager to hear. Luke also tells us that the scripture Jesus read was Isaiah 61:1-2, a most messianic passage and one with particular first-person drama: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me..." etc. Luke's reaction to Jesus seems immediate, while Mark's feels more like a conclusion arrived at after hearing Jesus and discussing what was heard. We can see this in the two words used by Mark to describe the reaction to Jesus. The first is generally translated "astonished" and the second is "offended." It is reasonable to conclude that the first reaction in the synagogue was positive and that Jesus' teaching abilities were impressive. But then the audience began to consider what Jesus actually said and the implications of it within Judaism. If Luke reports this same incident, then Jesus certainly gave them a lot to think about with his conclusion "Today, this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing." (Luke 4:21) This would have been a straightforward claim to be Messiah. This would certainly offensive.
Verse 2 notes the connection the hearers make between Jesus' words and his reputation for miracles. It is almost as if they were saying "He's a big talker and thinks he is a big doer!" Since Mark tells us that Jesus did not do many mighty works in Nazareth, the audience must have heard about what Jesus had done in Capernaum and the surrounding area. In other words, with the kind of teaching they heard from Jesus, the miracles either were a logical extension or an outrageous lie to match the rest of his claims. It is not hard to see in this response the sort of connection C.S. Lewis and others have always claimed were part of Jesus ministry from the beginning- the sort of outrageous claims and implications for his identity that created immediate offense or belief. Contrary to those who see divine claims for Jesus as an evolution of the church, this response, like the response of the religious leaders, indicates that Jesus claimed to be messiah and Son from the start (though it is reasonable to assume these may have been implications and not direct statements.)
Verse 3 contains some very interesting information about Jesus' background and family. He is called the carpenter and not the son of the carpenter as in Matthew. Carpenter is the translation of "teknon" which could be a worker in wood or stone. It was an honorable and respected trade and at least one prominent rabbi of the same era held the same sort of trade. The mention of Jesus' trade is not meant to belittle the profession but only to stress the commonness and familiarity of Jesus. The naming of Jesus' siblings is helpful, because it lets us know Jesus grew up in a large home and explains why he felt free to abandon his mother and go out into ministry. Some have suggested these are other relatives and not siblings but the language is plain. (In one of my Bible classes we discussed this possibility: Joseph married Mary as a second wife after being married before and being widowed. These children may have been Jesus older half-siblings!) After considering just how familiar they are with Jesus and comparing this with his reputation, the local elders are "offended" at him.(The idea of Jesus as an "offense" is expounded in I Peter 2:4-8, a passage well worth looking into and exploring further.)
The entire episode is build around a proverb, also found referenced in John 4:44. The saying does not occur in the Bible and may be original with Jesus, though that seems doubtful. The tradition of rejected prophets was quite familiar in Israel and the placing of Jesus in that tradition was familiar to the early Christians. Stephen ends his speech in Acts 7:51-53 with a powerful appeal to this kind of rejection. As we will see later in Mark, the entire mission of Jesus is described in a single parable, Mark 12:1-12, and the theme of the parable is the rejection of prophets culminating in the rejection and death of the Son. So what we have in Nazareth is not simply a local event, but a preview of what is really happening in the entire mission of Jesus: "He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him." John 1:11.
We should also note that Jesus is claiming to be a prophet, which is no insignificant action on his part. Note Deuteronomy 18:15 and 18. "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him." "I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him." It is important to know that Jesus self-understanding included this role, for a prophetic ministry is exactly what Jesus increasingly conveys in his interactions with the religious establishment. His identification with prophets is seen by everyone, as is observed in Mark 6:14-16 and in Mark 8:27-28: "Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, "Who do people say I am?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets." Everyone mentioned in this answer is a prophet. The ultimate fate of some of the prophets must also be in mind here.
Mark's use of straightforward and intense language is on display in verse 5 as he says Jesus "could not" do any miracles there beyond laying hands on some sick who were healed. The crowds and attention of the Capernaum days was not found in Nazareth. It was an atmosphere of skepticism and unbelief. Yet Mark's language is different from Matthew's alteration in Matthew 13:58. Matthew simply says Jesus did not, whereas Mark clearly says he was unable to do miracles there. Before going off into wild speculation about how human belief limits the hands of God, we ought to remember that the language does not necessarily imply causation. Mark is telling us that the absence of faith means that Jesus did not perform miracles because faith (of some kind) is usually present with miracles. But this is evidence of the barrenness of unbelief, not of the limitation of God. In John 9, there seems to be no faith present until after the miracle. Jesus often does miracles in the presence of little or no genuine faith. It is the presence of unbelief and the resulting rejection of Jesus that is underlined here, not some notion that Jesus was trying to perform miracles, but could not. I am a fairly skilled speaker in front of teenagers, but if the room is full of outright hostility or ridicule, I won't get very far. Not because of a lack of skill or "power" on my part, but because of the lack of "faith" and the presence of rejection and skepticism.
Mark finally says that Jesus was amazed at their lack of faith. This stands in contrast to the examples of faith in the previous chapter. I do not suppose that Mark is saying that Jesus was surprised at their lack of faith, but that the irony of the situation stood alongside his proverbial analysis. But viewed alongside the entire Bible, this is typical. The scriptures are both amazed and unsurprised by human unbelief. Depravity surprises no one in its unbelief, yet the refusal of the human heart to trust a good a gracious God is truly amazing. In this we see that God is not surprised by unbelief but is grieved by it nonetheless.
Taking this passage as a whole, what do we see?
Certainly, familiarity is fertile ground for the rejection of Jesus. It is a hard word to hear, but unbelief does well among those who are familiar with the things of God and easily use the language of religion. It is our tendency to trust in our own understanding rather than be open to the living God, that breeds the sort of rejection we see here. Those of us who desire the salvation of our own children and have brought them up in familiarity with the Bible would do well to be warned that the Gospel of Jesus is frequently rejected by its "grandchildren." Part of this is human nature and its tendency to rebel against whatever Godly influence has been given but not chosen. I see this in our ministry as many students come to us with a wonderful Christian upbringing, but now are in full scale rebellion against Christianity, sometimes in the extreme. How often do our children see and sense the reality of a living faith rather than the dead shell of religiously imposed expectations? Does our faith lead children to the reality of God or inoculate them with just enough religion to keep out the real thing? The rejection of Jesus by those most familiar with him is a sobering reality and a continuing possibility.
Also, the initial response to Jesus may not be the ultimate response. The initial amazement becomes offense. We have already been warned of this in the parable of the soils, but it seems to be a point largely lost in today's decisionistic atmosphere that puts almost the entire emphasis of Christianity on the initial profession of faith. Anyone who walks to the front or prays a prayer is considered a Christian. Is this really Biblical? Is it even rational? One of the major problems here is that it accepts any sort of faith as saving faith and there is no reason to make such a sweeping conclusion. Scripture clearly teaches that there is such a thing as temporary faith which is not saving faith. Much of evangelicalism seemingly cannot understand the idea that true faith has perseverance as one of its defining characteristics.
Finally, even the worst tide of unbelief does not eliminate the truth. We live in a relativistic time where the very existence of objective truth is ridiculed. If the current cultural atmosphere denies the existence of God, then the person who believes in God becomes intolerable and offensive. Christians are easily discouraged in such an atmosphere, and a weak compartmentalized faith is not unusual these days. Polls show that even professed Christians disagree with the foundational notion of objective truth. Yet, the existence of objective truth is a crucial and central part of the Christian worldview. While we can dialog with any opposing worldview, it is from the anchored position that truth is real and the God of the Bible exists, speaks and acts. Christianity cannot live in an atmosphere where truth is denied. Yet, even in an atmosphere of rejection and unbelief, Jesus still was the Son of God and some experienced his healing power. I cannot read this without thinking of our own times, as most reject and ridicule Jesus, yet he continues to touch lives even in these dark times. The lack of faith of our generation may seem overwhelming, but Jesus is still Lord.
Questions
Explain what is meant by the "criteria of embarassment" and how this passage qualifies.
As you read the versions of this event in the synoptics, do you see different events or different versions of the same event?
Michael believes many with a high view of scripture do not respect the Gospels as individual documents with unique developments and arrangements. Why doesn't inspiration mean that the four Gospels must be identical in every detail?
How has the rejection of Jesus been foreshadowed by Mark up to this point?
The Gospels writers are not bashful is showing that many people did not believe in Jesus during his lifetime. Why didn't they whitewash this fact?
How does the association of Jesus with the city of Sepphoris change the way we think about Jesus himself?
How could Jesus' hearers go from being astonished to being offended?
Christians often get disturbed if unbelievers don't like church, worship or Christianity in general. Is this the right reaction?
Many changes in worship today are justified on the basis of making Christianity more interesting and acceptable to unbelievers. Reading the story of Jesus' rejection at Nazareth (and the comments in I Peter 2 on Jesus as the stone of offense) what do you think is the Biblical evaluation of this approach?
Jesus' words apparently revealed him as a miracle-worker, even when he worked few miracles. (See verse 6:2) How do we respond to those who say that Jesus never worked or claimed to work miracles?
What things might we as believers gain from remembering that Jesus was a businessman? A child of a large family? Possibly misunderstood by those who knew him best?
The theme of the rejected prophet was common in Israel. What did this mean to Jesus? To us?
Do you think Jesus could not or would not perform miracles in Nazareth? How does belief or unbelief effect God's workings in the lives of people?
Michael says the Bible both expects unbelief and is amazed by unbelief. How can both be true?
Have you seen examples of familiarity with Jesus breeding contempt for Jesus?
What are the hazards of being raised in a Christian family?
Do you believe Christians are influenced by the relativism of our age? How?
Is all faith saving faith?