The gospel lectionary reading for Trinity 6 in this Year B is Mark 6.1–13, and is yet another example of Mark’s highly concise storytelling that is packed with theological narrative significance.
The passage combines the conclusion of this section of Jesus ministry, and recounts the startling rejection of Jesus in his hometown of Nazareth (though Mark does not name it). It includes the repeated theme of conflict around the ministry of Jesus. Then the beginning of the next major section in the text sees Jesus sending out the disciples two by two; their return happens in next week’s reading.
Come and join Ian and James as they explore the text and the issues it raises.
We hope you enjoy the new video format.
Full written commentary will follow in the next post.
Buy me a Coffee
Thank you, as always, for the video discussion. I find Mary’s attitude towards Jesus very confusing. At the conception, she was told by the angel that the child that she was going to give birth to was God’s baby. Why then does she not understand the work what He is doing? Surely she was expecting Jesus to do something astounding! Why do you think she is unable to comprehend what is happening in Nazareth?
That is an interesting question. But there is no doubt that she is depicted negatively in this gospel. It is a salutary message: those who are closest relationally are not guaranteed to understand.
Mark is THE synoptic gospel to suggest that people new to the faith, or interested in Jesus, should read. It is shorter and more breathless than Luke, and there is less debate about the Old Testament than in Matthew (written for Jews).
I wonder if the KAI with which verse 4 opens can and should be translated as ‘FOR Jesus said to them…’, becaues then the passage explains why they took offence at him (as verse 3b states), just as Luke does. Luke also gives two moments of drama which Mark omits: Jesus telling them that the passage from Isaiah he had just read was fulfilled by himself (a passage he stopped reding immediately before it shifted to his Second coming); and Jesus walking through the hostile crowd – exactly what did they see in his face such that they melted away before him rather than throw him off the cliff as they had intended?
Verse 5 is remarkable, stating that Jesus COULD NOT do any great work there because of their unbelief. I have checked the Greek and there is no ambiguity of translation. There was no element of choice in Jesus’ failure to do more than heal a small number of folk: he was unable to. What would count as a great work, and what is going on in terms of Christology and/or the Holy Trinity here? Is there a lesson for lukewarm congregations in this?
Then there are verses 9&10, instructing his followers to preach of him but leave alone those who reject him and walk on. To say that the church has taken a differnt attitude in Europe would be a great understatment – fuelled largely by Augustine of Hippo’s errant exegesis of Luke 14:23.
And there is the casting out of demons from people. Liberal Christians today explain this in terms of human psychology. But the man whose sanity was restored when Jesus cast demons out of him into a herd of pigs, which immediately drowned themselves (Luke 8:26-39), shows that the demonic is a further facet involved in some individuals. No amount of human psychology can explain the change in behaviour of the pigs. (Some charismatics make the opposite error, of neglecting human psychology and ascribing everything to demons.)
Regarding Jesus being unable to heal many due to their unbelief, was it not the case that only a few came to him to be healed, thus showing the general unbelief in the local population? In other words the reason why many were not healed there was because many did not come to him.
Peter
Peter – I’m looking forward to the written piece tomorrow (no time to watch videos – no matter how good). There seem to be some cases (casting the demons out of the person who wasn’t in his right mind) where there was no suggestion that the individual actually had any faith – and the efficacy of the miracle did not depend on the recipient’s faith. On the other hand, most of the time, Jesus does seem to be asking the person to do the one thing they cannot do (e.g. pick up your mat and walk) – and if there isn’t any faith (or at least hope) present, the person is likely to turn around and say ‘are you trying to be funny?’ or ‘go and boil your head’ or something like that. There has to be some expectation within the individual that the impossible is actually a possibility.
Lazarus didn’t have much faith, because he was dead!
Anton – Lazarus was a man of faith. I’m reminded of the end of C.S. Lewis ‘The Great Divorce’. If you had gone marching through the pearly gates, found yourself in glory – and then the Good Lord told you to go back again to this earthly life, how would you react? Would you really be pleased about this?
…. the fig tree didn’t have much faith and didn’t get much of a choice either.
Thanks, that made me laugh. True because he didnt need it, he saw ‘face to face’. Though that depends on whether when you die you ‘experience’ heaven, or youre really dead and wont experience anything before the final resurrection. I have sympathy for that latter view but am not wholly convinced. And of course the other problem is that this happened pre-cross/resurrection, which is an added complication!
But that’s for another time…
Jock – I think we agree. My point was to negate the rather common view that Jesus himself was unable to heal people there because there was an air of unbelief, which somehow reduced his ability to heal. In reality only those who showed some trust in him actually came to him to be healed (no doubt tentatively, which in my view is appropriate). Few people trusted him, so few people were healed. The rest werent bothered and stayed at home. Elsewhere in the Gospels it is strongly implied that if anyone came to Jesus for healing they were healed. Their coming to him is the sign of faith, not hyping up one’s ‘faith’ the way some modern-day charismatics do. It would have been no different here.
For me, the frustrating thing is that it seems so many come forward today for healing by Jesus, but he doesnt heal. If that had happened during his ministry, I suspect Christianity would have been left in the history pages.
Doesn’t your second paragraph rather undermine your first? Healing seems to go on where the church is persecuted and consequently faith is stronger.
Anton – I don’t think that Peter’s second paragraph undermines his first. It all depends on what you mean by faith. I have faith that I’m within the number of the Saviour’s family and that ultimately I’m going to heaven when I pass from this life to the next. I don’t really have confidence that God is going to do lots of ten-a-penny miracles on the way; the big issue has been dealt with. I find myself strongly sympathetic to what Peter wrote and the tendency that he is calling out here.
Hi Anton. Per your comment above, that is precisely why I find it frustrating. During Jesus’ earthly mission, it appears he ALWAYS healed those who came to him for healing. But once he physically left, healing is much more sporadic. I would accept the argument that Jesus was unique (God in person) and so we cannot expect the same thing with his followers, even if it is the Spirit doing the healing (or empowering them to heal, however one understands it). Of course the advantage to this ‘age’ now is that Jesus was geographically limited and so it seems was his healing.
To your second point, Im not convinced that healings etc are happening more in persecuted areas than anywhere else. But if they are, perhaps that is simply because if youre under pressure you tend to call out to God more frequently than when not. Plus most in the west very much depend on the medical profession for healing their ills. If you dont have the sort of medical infrastructure as ours you would tend to ask God first. Nevertheless it is obvious to me that God is still healing, to some extent, in the west. But if Im honest, perhaps like Jock my expectations are not high given many people’s experiences.
Peter – are there reported cases of miraculous healings where the person healed had dementia in its more advanced stages?
I havent heard that Jock, no. Though of course that doesnt mean it hasnt happened. If you are currently going through that with a parent, then I feel for you. Ive been through it with my mum.
Peter
Peter – thanks for this – yes – this is what is going on right now. It looks like an extraordinarily long good-bye and it isn’t very nice. In fact, I’d say it looks like the most horrible way to go that I’ve seen – and I don’t believe that any miraculous healing miracle will take place. She has been a good Christian all her life.
Yes it’s tough. Like any disease, it doesnt discriminate.
Praying for you and your mum, Jock.
Peter
Peter – many thanks for this – I appreciate it strongly.
From this, let’s go back to the subject of miracles, what they were for, why Jesus couldn’t do them in the face of unbelief. Clearly, there isn’t anything that is ‘fair’ about these miracles (no miracle performed on people who have been life-long disciples – and are left to depart this life in the cruelest of ways). Also, it isn’t completely clear that it really is for the benefit of the people on whom the miracles are performed (wouldn’t Lazarus have preferred to be in eternal heavenly glory? raising the daughter of Jairus seems to have been much more for the benefit of Jairus than the daughter – who would have entered the heavenly life).
As I indicated in the last discussion, I don’t think these miracles inspire faith in the teeth of hostility. After the lame man could walk (John’s gospel), the leaders of the synagogue were not ecstatically happy to see that the Messiah had come, but instead tried their level best to hide the fact that a miracle had taken place.
The function of miracles is to give people a reason for the faith that they have, faith that Christ has saved them for eternal glory. We do need to know that Jesus was who he claimed he was. So if the is nothing but hostility and apathy, then there is no reason for Jesus to perform miracles. That (of course) doesn’t answer the question of why the text says he ‘could not’; the answer to this probably lies in the whole question of what creation is for; why is there something instead of nothing at all, what is the purpose of the community of believers (in both this life and the next) – because existence of a believing praying community somehow seems to be a vital ingredient.
Who says Lazarus was denied eternal heavenly glory?
Was he “called back” from heaven? Jesus says he’s just sleeping.
Was he a previously righteous man who lost his faith during his “second run” at life? Is it likely that Lazarus of Bethany, having being raised from the dead himself as an adult by Jesus Christ, would subsequently lack faith? All things are possible I suppose, but it seems pretty unlikely.
AJ Bell – I didn’t mean to suggest that he was denied eternal glory – just that he had to wait for it a little longer and had to stay a while longer in this fallen sinful world.
AJ Bell – in previous exchanges, you indicated that John 3:16 – and everything in John’s gospel surrounding it to emphasise its clear and plain meaning – was of crucial importance for you – so I don’t understand why you don’t seem to have appropriated what it actually says. It’s a great message – which is that if you really have faith then you *don’t* lose it.
This is a basic message of John’s gospel: death is the state that we are in by nature, we are transported to life by the grace of God through belief, if we truly believe (present) then we have assurance of glory (future – which we start living the first fruits of here and now). John writes of the Paraclete, while Paul writes of the Spirit as a deposit *guaranteeing* what is to come.
I’ve honestly no idea what happened to Lazarus in the sense of his earthly body. We can take it that he really dead in the sense that rigor mortis had set in – like Monte Python’s dead parrot; Scripture tells us that it was a real miracle, so we can exclude the theory that the diagnosis was made by a team of duff doctors who failed to see that he was simply fast asleep. We do know that he was a man of faith – and therefore saved (i.e. a man whose eternal destiny was the heavenly kingdom and eternal communion with God).
We do have at least one example in Scripture of someone being called back (of course not in the same sense) – when King Saul calls up Samuel to find out how the battle will go the next day.
Jesus appears in history like a completely new kind of chess piece that looks like a pawn but can go in all directions , even down and up. He is not obstructed by, or destructive of other pieces on the board but transformative. Put it another way- everyone thought the game was Rock, Paper, Scissors then they find they are playing Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock!
I’m not sure about your game, but I do like your pawn! Recently I was reading the account of Jesus’ trial etc. It is clear that Pilate and Herod were basically non-plussed by Jesus. They could not make him out. He did not fit into any category with which they were familiar. He was (is) a king but not of a kind encountered before or after.
I added the game for fun. See Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock on youtube. I just imagine the religious leaders in Jesus’ day getting irritated in the same way.
apparently Parsons had 9 takes to get it right. I would add Seven-of-Nine in there – ‘I am Borg’. Says it all.
Interestingly the Borg cube reminds me of the New Jerusalem…
Peter,
Funny you should mention the Borg cube… yers
anyways…
Miracles are simply Jesus arranging everything in such a way that a meeting between us and Him can take place. Once it has happened we are then left with a decision to make, follow Him, or, be satisfied with our little epiphany/healing/restoration of whatever.
Miracles are but one side of the coin…the portcullis on a thrupney piece and the face of the monarch on the other side.
We know who you are, Jesus.
Just who do you think you are?
Where did Jesus get his identity from, his security, status, safety, belonging, acceptance? Whose Son is he, truly.?
(Just who is he really?
Just as the prophets were, just as Isaiah was so Jesus is: Isaiah 6:9-10).
Where do we? On what or on whom is it based? Adopted?
Hello Ian,
If the reason you don’t wish to leave the Church of England (and relayed to that if the reason you don’t want to give up your egalitarian views is so you will remain theologically compatible with the current C of E) is because you believe that a person with your gifts and life experience will not have a place anywhere else – let me tell you – that’s a lie. God has already made you ready for a different future – the only additional readiness you need will become yours when you act on God’s word with your whole life.
Here’s how I KNOW there will be a place for you – a place in which your gifts will be both necessary and appreciated. I am a musician – I can write songs – I am trained in music to university level – when I listen to music I know the notes – and yet despite this one thing I cannot do well (I found out at uni) is write in the style of other composers. The Lord has already revealed to me why I am like this – I am because he wants to ensure that I write in a style that ensures there is a place in the church for acoustic musicians (and choirs). I know that God is already making plans to ensure that the musicians linked with churches like All Souls and HTB who gave real faith will have a place when the Church of England is gone.
Not only that I put it to you that the emerging leaders of the resurrected church will be people who value theologians – they will be among the first to EFFECTIVELY connect the theological world with local church life for the good of both. You already grasp the need for this perfectly – you may be a fearful man but you are NOT an arrogant man. This UNIQUE website proves it. You let people of every station contribute here – to a fault! This is a truly rare thing – an academic who operates for the benefit of ordinary people!
You are also more ready than many in having first rate Apple and general tech skills. This is SO valuable.
God knows what he is doing Ian. Let go – trust him. Act as if money grows on trees – because it does in the will of God.
I am looking forward to seeing what God does with you (as you dare with your whole life to believe that he has not overlooked you).
Enjoy the journey – and thank you for what you have given to so many people.
John 14:2-3 ESV
In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.
Hi Philip. I don’t have ‘egalitarian’ views, and I certainly don’t hold my views to fit in with anyone. I think women can exercise authority ministry because that is what scripture teaches consistently.
I have no plans to leave the C of E—because its doctrine is sounds and biblical, as a Protestant and Reformed church. I look forward to the day when its bishops are honest and faithful. At the moment a good number are neither.
I don’t think its bishops have ever, en masse, been honest and faithful. But I am not singling out the CoE: in all church hierarchies, the higher you go, the worse it is. That’s why the NT system has many overseers (episkopoi) in each congregation, and nobody above them once the founding apostolos had gone to glory. There is plenty of faith in the CoE but it is despite the bishops, not because of them. Men like JC Ryle are the exception.
My posts have resulted in egg being on my face. I have behaved like someone who has spent too long with their kidnapper. No long term harm done however – I need only to wipe the egg off.
I want to attribute good motivations to you Ian – I want to believe that you do what you do for people for reasons other than to prove how clever you are – or so you can get an ego boost from being linked with the Church of England. But you are telling me in the clearest possible terms that I have you wrong. You are a Church of England guy – not a kingdom guy. You therefore ignored the HEART behind my post about the relationship of scholarship to the local church – there is no other reason for you to do so. I have to accept that the reason you did is because you do what you do so you can be noticed – and so my ideas about how to ensure scholars can serve the church submitted to it are unattractive to you – even a threat.
I will hopefully not make this mistake twice – since there is in my mind at this moment absolutely no room for hope that you will allow yourself to be blessed in the way that I described.
What should be the relationship of the scholar to the local church?
1. Scholarship. I see biblical scholarship as all information and insight that isn’t making spiritual judgements which may assist teachers in the church to exercise their gift. It might be commentary advice – or the backgrounding of bible passages.
2. Biblical Application. Researching and teaching the way that the truth relates to specialty areas. The church elder shouldn’t for example be required to have the expertise to rightly respond to IVF – or even to politics – but the church could/should still be present in these areas through the help of the scholar working alongside church members who operate in various fields. Sharing their conclusions with the church in an accessible way.
3. Teaching. The wish to not show favouritism works both ways – there should be no bias against the scholar just as there should be no bias toward the scholar. To the extent to which a scholar is both wise (as distinct from clever) and a model in their behaviour they should be able to contribute to the pastor/teacher work of the church.
4. Original language learning.
I don’t believe that scholars need to be pastors to be earthed – I believe only that they must be local churched!
So – in summary – I am imagining a local church website with an extra ministry category called Scholarship and Biblical Application.
Yes. I call it ‘my blog’!
Was I not clear? I was arguing that the scholar should submit to the leadership of local churches IN THEIR WORK AS SCHOLARS. Instead of people leaving their local churches to be part of a scholar run community who ends up deciding whether said people get to lead churches. The latter system leads to two problems:
1. Those of higher intellect end up being shown favouritism. Clever people instead of wise people – often without superior character to those they lead – end up leading churches.
2. The work of scholars loses direction. They end up pursuing work which is ends up being only for other scholars – instead of advancing the kingdom of God.
Here be curious things
The history of the people of Nazareth is one of unbelief;
Some acknowledgement perhaps, but no belief or faith.
If we do not believe in miracles then we should not be surprised
that we do not see them.
In Capernaum there were mighty miracles, a few people of faith
But no corresponding belief or faith in general
Shortly Jesus would pronounced a woe upon it ;
Mat 11:23 G2584
And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven,
shalt be brought down to hell:
for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee,
had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
There was then a significant change for the disciples [learners]
They were now to be Apostles [sent ones]
Their simple message “repent and believe”
If the message is not received shake of the dust,
contamination of the place and move on.
It is not recorded that Jesus ever returned to Nazereth.
I am not sure what Philip Benjamins’
posts are about,they seem to be part of a
private conversation.
Is it refering to some kind of existential crisis?
Alan – I didn’t get it either. I take it that P.B. doesn’t like the C. of E. very much and seems to want Ian to leave that organisation and be more involved with music. If you bring the existential crisis that you suggested into it, then perhaps P.B.’s idea is that the two of them go to a London Underground station, put out a hat, get out their guitars and start singing the blues.
But Mark 6 teaches us that when Jesus was met with hostility, to such an extent that nobody had faith and he couldn’t perform his miracles, he didn’t have an existential crisis about it – instead he went to a different place where the people were enthusiastic about the miracles, prepared to listen to the message and believe on Him.