NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

Part V (con’t)

Verse 56b: How is He able to do these things?

In referring to the family of Jesus, when it comes to the name Mary (“Miryam”), with Moses’ sister being so highly thought of it became a popular female name, so it was easy to get women mixed-up. In one place, the Jews got Mary of Nazareth mixed up with Mary of Magdala (Magdalene), who was a hair dresser by trade.¹ This same mix-up is found in another Jewish document.² In still another place a Rabbi was told to go get Miriam “the woman’s hairdresser,” but he came back with Miriam “the children’s nurse.”³ This may or may not have been the Mary Magdalene we know from the New Testament.

Putting this all together, while neither Mary the mother of Jesus nor Mary Magdalene were spoken of by the Jews with any respect, there was no reason for them to disrespect Jesus because of His father’s low career occupation rating of a carpenter. After all, Rabbi Yehoshua said that Rabbi Zechariah was a butcher’s son.⁴ Furthermore, we also find that Rabbi Johanan may have been the son of a blacksmith.⁵ On this occasion, the Jews in Nazareth should have heeded the advice of Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra who said: “Be mindful of the honor due to the children of common people, for from them proceeds the laws.”⁶ Just keep this in mind: none of these women need the applause of men, they are already recognized by God as unique vessels used by Him for a special purpose.

When speaking of the brothers of Jesus, there are scholars who take both sides of the issue on whether Mary remained a perpetual virgin, or that she and Joseph had more children after Jesus was born. Two verses of Scripture seem to give us a clue. First we read: “When Yosef awoke he did what the angel of ADONAI had told him to do — he took Miryam home to be his wife, but he did not have sexual relations with her until she had given birth to a son, and he named him Yeshua.”⁷ The Aramaic Version agrees with this rendering, in particular the use of, “until.” This preposition certainly suggests that what was postponed “until,” then began and continued. But it also goes on to says: “until she had given birth to her first-born son.” This is how it reads in another Gospel account: “While they were there, the time came for her to give birth; and she gave birth to her first child, a son.”⁸

Now, there would be no reason to refer to Jesus as her “first” child if there were none that followed. Had she not given birth to additional children we would say, “her only son.” On the other hand, we know that at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry these brothers did not believe all the claims that Jesus made, even mocking Him and telling Him He needed to go to Jerusalem in order to prove Himself. If these brothers were from a previous wife of Joseph’s, we can see that they would have been older, and no doubt amazed that this young upstart, and only child of their father’s new wife would brand Himself as the Messiah.⁹ But Mary, Joseph and the brothers were not the only relatives of Jesus that might define His status among them.

We are not given the number of sisters, but by using the plural, it means there were, at least, two. Neither were their names revealed in Scripture. However, we do find that some early church writers did mention their names possibly being Mary and Salome, although the writer believes they were by another mother since he supported the ever-virgin status of Mary.¹⁰ Also, in one of the apocryphal writings, we read: “His sister and His mother and His companion Magdalene were each named Mary.”¹¹

When it comes to the brothers, Most scholars accept James as the one who wrote the Epistle as being this brother of Jesus. As far as Simon (also Symeon) is concerned, we read this in the Early Church Fathers: “After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Savior. For Hegesippus¹² records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.”¹³

Then Eusebius of Caesarea (260-339 AD), the Roman historian, in his history of the church mentions Symeon again: “And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord’s uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as the second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord. Therefore, they called the Church a virgin, for it was not yet corrupted by vain discourses. But Thebuthis, because he was not made the bishop, began to corrupt it.”¹⁴

He then goes on to tell us:

“Certain of these heretics brought accusations against Symeon, the son of Clopas, on the ground that he was a descendant of David and a Christian; and thus, he suffered martyrdom, at the age of one hundred and twenty years, while Trajan was emperor and Atticus governor.” And the same writer says that his accusers also when a search was made for the descendants of David, were arrested as belonging to that family. And it might be reasonably assumed that Symeon was one of those that saw and heard the Lord, judging from the length of his life, and from the fact that the Gospel makes mention of Mary, the wife of Clopas, who was the father of Symeon. The same historian says that there were also others, descended from one of the so-called brothers of the Savior, whose name was Judas, who, after they had given testimony before Domitian, on behalf of faith in Christ, lived until the same reign. He writes as follows: “They came, therefore, and took the lead of every church as a witness and as relatives of the Lord. And profound peace being established in every church, they remained until the reign of Emperor Trajan, and until the above-mentioned Symeon, son of Clopas, an uncle of the Lord, was informed against by the heretics and was himself in like manner accused of the same cause before the governor Atticus. And after being tortured for many days he suffered martyrdom, and all, including even the proconsul, marveled that, at the age of one hundred and twenty years, he could endure so much. And orders were given that he should be crucified.”¹⁵

Eusebius goes on to tell another story:

“Of the family of the Lord, there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord’s brother according to the flesh. Information was given that they belonged to the family of David, and they were brought to Emperor Domitian by the provocateurs. For Domitian feared the coming of Christ as Herod also had feared it. And he asked them if they were descendants of David, and they confessed that they were. Then he asked them how much property they had, or how much money they owned. And both of them answered that they had only nine thousand denarii, half of which belonged to each of them; and this property did not consist of silver, but of a piece of land which contained only thirty-nine acres, and from which they raised their taxes and supported themselves by their own labor.” Then they showed their hands, exhibiting the hardness of their bodies and the callousness produced upon their hands by continuous toil as evidence of their own labor. And when they were asked concerning Christ and His kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they, answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the living and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works. Upon hearing this, Domitian did not pass judgment against them, but, despising them as of no account, he let them go, and by a decree put a stop to the persecution of the Church. But when they were released they ruled the churches because they were witnesses and were also relatives of the Lord. And peace being established, they lived until the time of Trojan.”¹⁶

Knowing this, we can now more easily accept what Matthew tells us about the brothers of Jesus:

Verse 57: So they had a problem accepting Him. But Jesus said to them, “People everywhere give honor to a prophet, but in his own home and hometown a prophet gets no honor.”

Early church theologian, Origen, gives us his explanation on how we might understand this saying: “We must inquire whether the expression has the same force when applied universally to every prophet. Does it mean that every one of the prophets was dishonored only in his own country? Or does it mean that every one who was dishonored was dishonored in his country? Or does it mean that because of the expression being singular, these things were said about only one? If these words are spoken about only one, then these things that have been said make sense insofar as they refer to what is written about the Savior. But if the point is generalized to indicate all prophets, then it is harder to defend historically. For Elijah did not suffer dishonor in Tishbeth of Gilead, nor Elisha in Abetmeholah, nor Samuel in Ramathaim, nor Jeremiah in Anathoth.”

Origen continues: “But, figuratively interpreted, this saying is absolutely true. For we must think of Judea as their country and that famous Israel as their kindred, and perhaps of the body as the house. All suffered dishonor in Judea from the Israel that is according to the flesh while they were yet in the body. As it is written in the Acts of the Apostles, ‘Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute, who declared beforehand the coming of the righteous One?’¹⁷ And Paul says similar things in the first epistle to the Thessalonians: ‘For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea; for you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all people.’¹⁸”¹⁹

Verse 58: Jesus did not do many miracles there, because the people did not believe in Him.

This verse appears ambiguous at first. Some scholars think that Christ refused to perform miracles because the people would not believe in Him as the Messiah. Others suggest that He was unable to perform miracles because the causative agent of faith was absent. The truth is, Jesus was not kept from doing miracles in His hometown of Nazareth because of the people’s doubt, but He refrained from doing them because He did not want to reward their doubt. Believe me, if just one sick person would have believed, they would have been healed because of their faith.

Christ was more than willing and able to heal but the necessary power cord of faith was not plugged in, it had been severed by unbelief. This brings up an interesting comparison between “disbelief,” “misbelief.” and “unbelief.” Disbelief is when a person sees something they cannot bring themselves to believe, such as we see in magic. Misbelief is when a person has faith in something, but it is predicated upon faulty evidence and therefore is easily disproved, such as the cults. But unbelief is when a person sees it, could believe it if they wanted to, they know it is true, but they refuse to accept it anyhow because of their own biases, pride, or the changes in thinking it may require; such as we see in this case of Jesus in His hometown of Nazareth.

One of the church’s earliest theologians gives his explanation on why Jesus did not perform many miracles in His home town of Nazareth. He says: “It is just this way in regard to the production of miracles. The complete work resulting in a healing is not displayed without those being healed exercising faith. Faith, of whatever quality it might be, does not produce a healing without divine power.”²⁰ Then early church preacher Chrysostom makes this point: “Why did Jesus not do them? Because He wasn’t concerned with the spectacle [of miracles] but with their usefulness.”²¹ And early church writer Peter Chrysologus had this to say: “Power has no effect where unbelief does not deserve it.”²²

Jesus did not go back home to be a showman. He had no interest in wowing the crowd with His divine power. But He no doubt felt an obligation to return to the area and the people who knew Him best, not to show them what He could do but to show them what God could do. And should this not be the same mentality and intent of every servant of God? No matter how spectacular or renown a preacher’s ministry may be, it must all be for the glory of God.