Father Maas’ Commentary on Matthew 13:54-58

PRELIMINARIES: The following verses (54-58) inform us of Christ’s rejection in Nazareth. How can the present passage of the first gospel be harmonized with its seeming parallel of the third [Lk. 4:16–30]? Augustine, Chrysostom, Faber Stapulensis, Jansenius, Maldonado, Barradas, Sylveira, Lapide, Grimm, Schanz, Cornely, etc. contend that the two gospels refer to the same incident, the time of which must be determined either by the third or the first gospel. Both of these views are open to serious difficulties. Again, the third gospel mentions incidents connected with our Lord’s visit to Nazareth not only different from those recorded in the first and second [Mk. 6:1 ff.], but incompatible with them; e. g. the miracles related in the first and second gospel cannot be placed before the attempted violence [Lk. 4:23] nor after it, while the violence narrated by Luke is hardly compatible with the peaceful narratives of Matthew and Mark. Then, why should Matthew especially, intent as he is on proving the guilt of those Jews who rejected Jesus, omit the violence of the men of Nazareth, if he narrated the visit to Nazareth described in the third gospel? Finally, it is highly probable that Jesus gave his fellow citizens more than one opportunity of entering the kingdom. Arnoldi, Schegg, Bisping, Fillion, Keil. Edersheim, Storr, Wieseler, Ebrard, Godet, Krafft, Tischendorf, Knabenbauer, etc. are therefore justified in assuming that the gospels speak of two different visits of Jesus to Nazareth, the first [Lk. 4:16–30] occurring about December of our Lord’s first year of public life, the second nearly a year later Mt. 13:53 ff.; Mk. 6:1 ff.].

But how harmonize Mk. 6:1 ff. with the present passage of the first gospel? According to the second gospel a number of events intervene between the parables and the visit to Nazareth [cf. 4:35–6:1], while the first gospel narrates the visit immediately after the parables. But the connecting clause is not so stringent in the first gospel as to exclude the events narrated in Mk. 4:40–6:1 from between the parables and the rejection in Nazareth.

Mat 13:54  And coming into his own country, he taught them in their synagogues, so that they wondered and said: How came this man by this wisdom and miracles?
Mat 13:55  Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude:
Mat 13:56  And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence therefore hath he all these things?
Mat 13:57  And they were scandalized in his regard. But Jesus said to them: A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.
Mat 13:58  And he wrought not many miracles there, because of their unbelief.

And coming into. “His own country” is the city of Nazareth where Jesus had been brought up, and where his mother lived [cf. Mt. 2:23]. When teaching in “their synagogues” [cf. 4:23.], the people were amazed and said: How came this man [a term of contempt; cf. Jn. 6:42] by this wisdom in his words and power in his action [cf. Origen, St Bruno, Alb. Cajetan, Dionysius, Tostatus, Maldonado, Barradas, Lapide], or by his knowledge and power to work miracles [Chrysostom, Theophylact]? In any case, Jesus must have wrought the miracles mentioned in verse 58 before his appearance in the synagogue. The Greek word rendered “carpenter” may mean a worker in iron, stone, wood, gold, silver, or any other material [cf. Cajetan, Maldonado, Barradas], though it refers more frequently to the “carpenter”; Hilary, Ambrose, Bede, are of opinion that Joseph was a smith, and that our Lord worked at the same trade [cf. Mk. 6:3], but Justin [c. Tryph. 88], Theodoret [E. H. iii. 18], Suicer [cf. Thes. ii. p. 1255], Evang. infantiæ [Arab. c. 38; Tisch. p. 201], Evang. Thomæ [græce c. 13; Tisch. p. 152], testify that Joseph was a carpenter, and according to Mk. 6:3 Jesus followed the same trade, though Origen [c. Cels. vi. 36] must have had a different reading of Mark before him, since he says that Jesus is not called “carpenter” anywhere in the gospel. Concerning the “brethren” and the “sisters” of the Lord, see 12:47. James, called James the Less, was son of Alpheus [Mt. 10:3; Lk. 6:15; Mk. 3:18; Acts 1:13] and of Mary Cleophas [Mt. 27:56; Mk. 15:40; Lk. 24:10; John 19:25]; he was also the “brother of the Lord” [Gal. 1:19], and brother of St. Jude [Lk. 6:16; Acts 1:13; Jude 1]; he was, moreover, “one of the Twelve” [Mt. 10:3], and surnamed the Just [Eusebius H. E. ii. 23]; he was finally first bishop of Jerusalem [Eusebius H. E. ii. 1], and as such took a prominent part in the first Council of Jerusalem [Acts 15:13, 19], received the news of Peter’s release from prison [Acts 12:17], and was favored by a special vision of our Lord [1 Cor. 15:7]. Jude, also called Thaddeus or Lebbeus [Mt. 10:3], and Simon the Zealot [Mt. 10:4], too belonged to the Twelve [cf. Cornely, Introd. iii. pp. 595, 649]. The “sisters” must have been related to Jesus in the same manner as the “brethren”; usually, two are named [cf. Thilo. cod. apocr. p. 363], either Mary Salome and Mary Cleophas [Epiphanius, Theophylact], or Ester and Tamar Hippolytus ap. Niceph. ii. 3]. Though their wonder and their question [vv. 54, 56] should have led to a different result, “they were scandalized,” not as if in strict logic they had derived Christ’s wisdom and miracles from the devil [Tostatus, Dionysius, Maldonado, Arnoldi], but their envy [Chrysostom, Jerome] and the common human weakness which always despises the known and familiar [cf. 1 Sam. 16:11; 17:28; Jn. 4:44; Lk. 4:25 f.; Jerome, Theophylact, Euthymius, Thomas Aquinas, Dionysius Seneca, De ben. iii. 3; Pliny, Hist. nat. xxxv. 36; Grotius] did not permit the rude inhabitants of Nazareth to submit in humble faith to their reputed equal or inferior. This throws additional light on the complete obscurity of the hidden life. The repetition of what had been said on the occasion of Christ’s previous visit to Nazareth [Lk. 4:24] agrees well with similar repetitions of other sayings [cf. Mt. 7:16 and 12:33; Mt. 5:29 and 18:8; Lk. 8:16 and 11:33]. The “unbelief” of Nazareth was not a physical, but a moral impediment of our Lord’s miracles. Chrysostom, Euthymius, Jerome, Bede, Paschasius, are of opinion that Jesus did not work more miracles because he did not wish to increase the guilt of the unbelievers, already inexcusable by reason of those that had been wrought in their city; but the text assigns their unbelief as the reason of our Lord’s limited beneficence.