article18

§13 Parables of Jesus (Matt. 13:1–58)

In chapter 13 we come for the first time to Jesus’ favorite method of teaching, the parable. The seven parables recorded in this chapter form Jesus’ third discourse as arranged by Matthew, There are in the first three Gospels about sixty separate parables. In the LXX the Greek parabolē almost always translates the Hebrew māšāl, which denotes a wide variety of picturesque forms of expression, including the proverb, metaphor, allegory, illustrative story, fable, riddle, simile, and parable proper. All forms of the Hebrew māšāl except the riddle are found in the New Testament, primarily in the Synoptic Gospels.

The parable is a simple story taken from daily life that illustrates an ethical or religious truth. William Scott observes, “Disinclined as he was to discursive exposition, the Semite practised the art of persuasion by thus skillfully appealing to the imagination” (HDB rev., p. 725). For many years the church allegorized the parables, ignoring the obvious meaning and finding support for theological positions. It was Adolf Jülicher’s famous Die Gleichnisreden Jesu (1888–99) that convinced interpreters to abandon the allegorizing approach and accept parables as didactic stories that made one essential point. The parable is an effective teaching method because it calls upon the hearer to discover the truth. It was not uncommon for rabbis to use the parable in controversy so as to veil the answer to the public and then explain it later to their followers (Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, pp. 141ff.). Many modern commentators have given up any attempt to find what a particular parable may have meant in its original setting and have concentrated on what it probably meant to the Gospel writer. Others believe that, although the parable is useful for teaching in a variety of settings, the Gospel writers have transmitted to their readers the meaning Jesus intended when he used the parable.

13:1–9 / Leaving the house, Jesus went and sat beside the sea. So many people crowded around him that he went aboard a small boat (probably one used for fishing) and sat down to teach. All the people stood on the shore. (Contrary to today’s practice, teachers in Jesus’ day normally sat down to teach.) He taught them many truths by means of parables. His first parable drew upon the agricultural life of Palestine. A sower went out to plant a field. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path worn through the field by villagers. Since plowing followed sowing (cf. Jer. 4:3), seeds that fell along the path would be easy prey for hungry birds (cf. Jubilees 11:11). Seed that fell on rocky places (in Palestine much of the soil is no more than a thin layer of earth over an underlying limestone shelf) quickly sprouted but, without an adequate root system, withered when the sun rose. Other seed fell among the brambles (akantha is a thorn plant; cf. Jesus’ “crown of akanthōn” at 27:29), which sprang up and choked the young plants.

Some of the seed, however, fell onto rich soil and yielded a harvest up to a hundred times as great as the seed that was sown. Although seven- to tenfold was considered average, a hundredfold was not impossible (Isaac’s crops reached that level “because the Lord blessed him,” Gen. 26:12; cf. Sib. Oracles 3:63–64). Here the figure probably has a touch of Near Eastern exaggeration. Jesus concludes with the admonition to think about what he has just said; there is more than appears on the surface (v. 9). A few verses later (vv. 18–23) Jesus will provide his disciples with an explanation of the parable of the sower. Writers who take this explanation as originating in the early church normally interpret the parable in its primary setting to mean that the kingdom, although experiencing considerable opposition and failure, will in the long run produce a rich harvest beyond all expectation (cf. Hill, p. 225; Stendahl, p. 785). As always, conclusions depend upon basic assumptions regarding the nature of the biblical text.

13:10–17 / When Jesus finished the parable of the sower, his disciples came to him with the question, Why do you speak to the people in parables? This question would be hard to understand if parables served to clarify truth by simple illustration. A different explanation is in order. Jesus answers their query by indicating that the privilege of understanding the secrets of the kingdom belongs to his followers but not to those who refuse to believe. In Jewish apocalyptic literature the “mystery of the kingdom” was the counsel of God disclosed only by revelation and enacted at the end of time (Bornkamm, TDNT, vol. 4, p. 818). The Greek mystērion is found only here in the Gospel (and in the parallels). The mysteries of the kingdom go beyond a general understanding of the nature of the kingdom to the crucial fact that in Jesus the divine rule has become a historical reality. Bornkamm says that the mystery revealed to the disciples is “Jesus Himself as Messiah” (TDNT, vol. 4, p. 819). Those to whom this basic insight has been revealed will in turn grasp a great deal more, whereas those who do not understand that in Jesus the kingdom has come will forfeit what little they do understand (v. 12).

Jesus gives a direct answer to the disciples (v. 13). He speaks to the crowds in parables because, although they go through life with their eyes open, they do not see, and for all their hearing, they do not hear or understand. The parallel in Mark states that Jesus spoke to those on the outside in parables “so that” (hina) they might neither see nor understand (Mark 4:11–12). This “staggering assertion” (Beare, p. 292) is not present in Matthew. The Greek hina (“in order that”) has become hoti (“because”). Jesus speaks in parables to those on the outside not to harden their hearts but because their hearts are already hardened (Schweizer, p. 299). At this point in his ministry Jesus deliberately adopted the parabolic method (cf. 13:34) in order to withhold from those who did not believe further truth about himself and the kingdom he was bringing. Since the knowledge of truth carries with it the responsibility of acceptance and appropriate action, the withholding of truth from those who were hardened against it should be interpreted as a desire not to increase judgment.

Many contemporary scholars think that the parables as spoken by Jesus were no more than simple illustrations. They were intended “to illustrate, clarify, and enforce truth and lead men to right decision as they faced his Kingdom teaching”(Filson, p. 160). The two explanations (vv. 18–23 and vv. 36–43) are held to be allegories added at a later time. This approach faces the serious difficulty of accounting for the parables’ having to be explained to the disciples (vv. 18, 36) as well as accounting for the logion in verses 16–17 that points out how fortunate the disciples were in learning truth that former generations of righteous people had longed to know. Parables were Jesus’ method of teaching believers about the coming of the kingdom while at the same time veiling the truth from those whose hearts had already hardened against the message.

For those who neither see nor understand, everything comes as parables (i.e., obscurely). They are the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy about a people whose spiritual faculties have grown dull. Isaiah 6:9–10 is cited almost word for word from the LXX. This is the only fulfillment quotation that is ascribed to Jesus himself. Because the heart of the nation has become callous, they refuse to turn to God and be healed. To his disciples Jesus exclaims how fortunate they are, for they are privileged to enter into truth that prophets and upright people have long desired to know; 1 Peter 1:10–12 also speaks of the Old Testament expectation about the times of the Messiah (cf. also Heb. 10:1; 11:39f.; and Eph. 3:4f.).

13:18–23 / It is Matthew (rather than Mark or Luke) who provides the title the parable of the sower. The parable itself deals with the kinds of soil into which the seed falls rather than with the action of the sower. An awkwardness is introduced by the fact that the seed is not the message itself but anyone who hears the message. The major difficulty, however, in the eyes of many contemporary writers, is that the interpretation of the parable is said to belong not to Jesus but to the allegorizing of the early church. One view is that it represents the efforts of a Christian evangelist to account for frequent failures in winning a steadfast following. Natural hazards of agricultural life become human dispositions that impede reception of the kingdom message. It is argued that people who had just been praised for their hearing would not need an explanation of what they had heard. Gundry counters with the observation (growing out of v. 12) that the explanation of parables comes as a gift to those who have, in order that they may have more, rather than as a gift to those who do not have (p. 259). Hill takes a somewhat mediating position by noting that, although the interpretation of the parable belongs to a later period, both parable and interpretation can bring us “echoes of the authentic teaching of Jesus” (p. 228).

In a succinct excursus (pp. 299–302) on current interpretations of the parable, Beare mentions Bernhard Weiss (the first of the great modern critics to recognize that the allegorical interpretation was a product of the early church), Jülicher (who firmly rejected every trace of allegory in interpretation), Bultmann (who holds that the original meaning of the parable is obscure), C. H. Dodd (whose realized eschatology leads him to take the sowing as the work of God with Israel in past centuries), Jeremias (who would recover the original setting in the life of Jesus and explain the parable of the sower as arising out of doubts stemming from the failure of Jesus to win over many of his hearers), and Bonnard (for whom the essential question is what the parable meant to the evangelist, as indicated by the setting in which he placed it in his Gospel). This rather widespread disagreement on how parables should be understood argues the fragile nature of critical conjecture. The interpretation that follows assumes that Jesus provided for his followers two models of how parables should be interpreted (vv. 18–23; 36–43). That the parables of Jesus are capable of multiple application follows from the nature of the literary form. That the synoptic writers place the sayings of Jesus in different contexts reflects the proverbial nature of Jesus’ logia and the freedom with which the Spirit uses the insights and perspectives of the Gospel writers to bring us the mind of God.

“To you (hymeis in v. 18 is emphatic), then, my disciples,” said Jesus, “I will explain the parable of the sower.” The seed sown along the path represents the message of the kingdom that is not understood and therefore quickly snatched away by the evil one. To understand the message is to grasp the truth and make it one’s own. Seed sown on rocky places is the message received with enthusiasm but given up when persecution arises. Unless truth takes deep root in the human heart it will be recanted as soon as it meets any opposition. Thin soil produces superficial commitment. When the message of the kingdom falls on thorny ground, it produces no harvest, because worldly anxieties and the lure of wealth (v. 22) choke it out. To be caught up in the worries of everyday living and to fall prey to the seductive appeal of financial well-being is to guarantee a spiritual crop failure.

Seed that is sown on good ground is not only heard but understood as well. It sinks in with all its theological and ethical implications. Good soil yields a good return. These hearers bear a rich harvest. Some yield as much as a hundred … times the amount sown, others sixty, and still others thirty. Thus Jesus speaks of four ways that the message of the kingdom is received. His opponents have already demonstrated that in their case the seed fell alongside the road and Satan took care of it. Others who heard him preach wanted to believe but refused to take the message seriously. Persecution proved their commitment was shallow. Still others looked like genuine disciples, but they got so deeply involved in pursuits of this world that there was neither time nor energy to let the message produce a crop. The disciples who had left all to follow Jesus were good soil in which the message would produce a rich and abundant harvest.

13:24–30 / At this point in the sequence Matthew inserts the parable of the weeds (Mark has here the parable of the seed growing secretly; Luke includes neither). Since Mark is widely held to be the first Gospel to be written and a basic source for the other two, some scholars take Matthew’s parable of the weeds as a reshaping of Mark’s parable in order to accommodate it to the interpretation to be given later (vv. 36–43). Gundry calls it a “prohibition against rigorism in church discipline” composed by Matthew, who conflates the otherwise omitted parable (Mark 4:26–29) and the parable of the sower (pp. 261–62). Schweizer holds that if the nucleus of the parable went back to Jesus it would represent a strong protest against the Pharisaic tendency (also characteristic of the Qumran community and the Zealots) to delimit a sect of devout believers (p. 304). Once again, it needs to be stressed that later applicability of a parable does not argue against its rightful place in the teaching of Jesus. Jesus had already encountered strong opposition. In Matthew 12:34 he called the Pharisees snakes. Would it be unreasonable for him now to tell a parable that points out that this same kind of opposition would continue until the day of judgment, at which time a final separation would be made?

What happens in the kingdom is like what happens when a farmer sows good seed but during the night when everyone is asleep an enemy comes and sows weeds in the same field. When the blades of wheat begin to appear, the weeds (which are similar in appearance) spring up as well. That the sower’s workers slept does not mean that they are to blame for what happened: the point is that what the enemy did was done in secret.

When the servants ask, Where then did the weeds come from? the owner answers, “Some blackguard has done this to spite me” (Phillips). Shall we pull them up? they ask. No, because you might root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, then separate out the weeds first (bundle them ready to burn) and bring the grain into the barn.

The enemy, as we shall soon find out, is the devil. As in the parable of the sower, where seed sown alongside the path is gobbled up by the birds, Satan is the one who obstructs the growth of the kingdom. He is a “hostile man” (echthros in v. 39 is a qualifier) who stands over against the “man who sowed good seed” (v. 24). The “seed” he has secretly sown in God’s field are all those who appear to be somewhat like Jesus’ followers but whose basic allegiance will be made plain at the final harvest. The Old Testament commonly uses the figure of harvest for the last judgment (Jer. 51:33; Hos. 6:11; cf. Rev. 14:14–16). Quite often, after the grain had been cut with a sickle and removed, the remaining weeds and shorter stalks would be burned off. In Palestine, where wood was scarce, certain weeds would be cut and bundled together to be used as fuel. Grain was normally stored underground in large pottery jars or in pits lined with brick.

13:31–32 / Jesus illustrates the remarkable growth of the kingdom of heaven by comparing it to a mustard seed, which in time grows into a tree large enough to have birds nesting in its branches. The mustard seed was proverbial for its smallness. It was the smallest of the seeds commonly used in Palestine. Yet when it grew it became larger than any of the garden plants and became a veritable tree some eight to ten feet high. Its size attracted the wild birds, which would come and eat the little black seeds of the tree.

It is quite common for writers to interpret the birds as symbolic of the flocking of Gentiles into the kingdom. Though it is true that birds symbolize gentile nations in 1 Enoch 90:30, 33, 37, it is highly unlikely that Jesus intended to convey that specific bit of theology in this parable. That birds are able to roost in the branches of the tree indicates its size. During the period of Jesus’ earthly ministry the kingdom was small, like a tiny mustard seed. In time, it would grow into something immeasurably larger.

13:33 / Next Jesus compares the kingdom to leaven that a woman worked into a large batch of meal until it had completely risen. During the three Jewish festivals that required all the men to appear before the Lord, yeast was not permitted in any of the sacrifices (Exod. 34:25; 23:18). For the seven days of Passover, all yeast was to be removed from the house: the only bread to be eaten must be unleavened (Exod. 12:15–20). Against this background it is easy to see why leaven came to symbolize that which was unclean or evil (cf. Gal. 5:9; 1 Cor. 5:6–8). In this parable, however, the leaven does not carry that idea. Jesus is not saying that the kingdom is in certain respects evil! Lohmeyer explains that from the Jewish standpoint the tax collectors and sinners were unclean but would turn out to be those who initiate the redeemed community (pp. 220ff.).

The parable of the yeast is not unlike the parable of the mustard seed; in both, great results stem from small beginnings. Leaven was normally a small piece of dough kept from a previous baking and allowed to ferment. Three measures of flour would be about a bushel (all that a woman could handle at one time) and would produce enough bread to feed a large family. It may be that the parable of the yeast emphasizes the pervasive action of the kingdom in society.

13:34–35 / The parables in chapter 13 divide into two sections. Up to this point Jesus has spoken his parables to the crowds. From here on, he addresses the disciples. Verses 34–35 are a summary statement indicating that in fulfillment of Scripture Jesus spoke to the crowds only in parables. The passage quoted is Psalm 78:2. It is “prophetic” in the sense that the entire Old Testament points forward to the coming kingdom. Since the Psalm is ascribed to Asaph (who in 2 Chron. 29:30 is called a seer), some have accounted for the prophetic reference in that way. Codex Sinaiticus and several other manuscripts have “Isaiah the prophet” (which Metzger explains as a possible correction for Asaph, TCGNT, p. 33).

Jesus’ use of parables is a fulfillment of the Old Testament prediction that he would speak to the crowds in enigmatic sayings (the Greek parabolē is the LXX translation of the Hebrew māšāl, which carries this idea). Since they refused to hear him, his message would fall on their ears as difficult and obscure. The truths that Jesus revealed to those who by faith had taken the first step toward understanding were secrets concealed since the beginning of time. Only in fulfillment, and then only to those who have the insight of faith, are the truths of God’s sovereign reign made clear. To outsiders they come as riddles and meaningless sayings.

13:36–43 / There is rather wide agreement among New Testament scholars that the interpretation of the parable as found in this section is Matthew’s own composition (Gundry, p. 274; Beare, p. 311). Jeremias has identified thirty-seven linguistic indications of Matthean authorship (The Parables of Jesus, p. 82). The emphasis in the parable on allowing the wheat and the weeds to grow up together has shifted to one of final judgment. Hill suggests that we are dealing with a free adaptation of Jesus’ teaching to the needs and conditions of the early church, but that in the application the authentic kernel is not lost (p. 235).

Note, however, that linguistic characteristics of the Gospel writer are to be expected in his presentation of the parable and its interpretation. The style of each of the evangelists is clearly evident in all their work. Further, the very nature of parabolic teaching allows for application to related situations. An adaptation of Jesus’ words to a later situation should come as no surprise. What must be maintained is that in this further application the essential intent of the parable is not changed. For those who hold to a high view of Scripture the doctrine of inspiration guarantees this end.

Jesus now leaves the crowd and goes into the house, where his disciples question him about the meaning of the parable of the weeds. Their question indicates that the meaning of the parable is somewhat obscure. Although it can be said that the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to them (13:11; cf. 13:16), they still need help to understand the full implications of Jesus’ teaching.

The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, seen as the place where both the good seed of the gospel and the weeds of the devil are sown. The parable is neither an account of final separation between real and professing Christians within the church nor a statement about the destiny of the human race. It assumes the universal proclamation of the gospel and therefore a final division between those who belong to the kingdom and those who have their origin in Satan’s activity. The grouping of people into two radically different camps is characteristic of Jewish thought (cf. 1QS 2.4; 4.17).

It is somewhat strange that the good seed is identified with those who accept it and the weeds with those who belong to the evil one. Yet such freedom is characteristic of the parabolic method. To be a “child of the kingdom” means to be obedient to its authority. The harvest is the end of the age (cf. Joel 3:13; Jer. 51:33; 2 Bar. 70:2; etc.), and the harvesters are angels (cf. 1 Enoch 46:5; 63:1). Matthew emphasizes with this parable that a period of final judgment awaits the return of Christ.

What it will be like at the end of the age is illustrated by the gathering and burning of the weeds. Beginning with verse 41, the interpretation of the parable gives way to a description of final judgment in the traditional terms of Jewish apocalyptic. The Son of Man will send out his angels to uproot from his kingdom “everything that is spoiling it” (Phillips) and “all who violate His laws” (Weymouth). The same scene is portrayed later in the Olivet Discourse (24:30–31). Some find it strange (Beare calls it “grotesque,” p. 313) that angels rather than demons inflict punishment, but in Revelation 14:18–20 angels are very much involved in carrying out the vengeance of God on the wicked.

The fiery furnace (v. 42) into which evildoers are thrown is a common feature of apocalyptic judgment (2 Esdras 7:36; Rev. 20:14). The gnashing of teeth is typically Matthean (brygmos occurs six times in Matthew and only once elsewhere in the New Testament). In contrast to the fate of the wicked, the righteous will shine like the sun. Matthew speaks both of the kingdom of the Son of Man (v. 41) and of the kingdom of the Father (v. 43). The former is the sovereignty given to the Son following his resurrection (cf. 28:18), and the latter is God’s eternal reign which appears to all following final judgment (cf. Paul’s similar schema in 1 Cor. 15:24–28). The message is important, so if you are able to hear, pay attention.

13:44 / The next two parables (vv. 44–46) occur only in Matthew. Both stress the same basic point that the kingdom of heaven is of such supreme worth that everything must be sacrificed in order to attain it. The kingdom of heaven (the other evangelists use “kingdom of God”; the terms are synonymous) is like a man who happens onto a store of money (or valuables) hidden in a field. In ancient times people often hid money and articles of value in the ground (cf. the “one-talent man” in Matt. 25:25): without banks, and in view of frequent invasions by enemy forces, this was a sensible thing to do. Many caches were lost or forgotten and are even today being dug up in Palestine.

The man in question appears to have been a farm laborer, undoubtedly poor. He was working (probably plowing) in a field that belonged to someone else when he came upon a treasure. Immediately he hid it again so no one else would know of it and, filled with joy, returned to sell all that he had in order to buy the field. Since we are dealing with a parable we should not get sidetracked into a discussion of the morality of the transaction. It is worthy of note, however, that according to rabbinic law, money that was found belonged to the finder. By purchasing the field, he would eliminate any basis for contesting ownership of his find. The kingdom of heaven is of supreme value. When we find it (“fully grasp its infinite worth”), we will joyfully let go of all competing claims on our lives and make it our one great possession.

13:45–46 / Although the parable of the fine pearl makes the same point as the preceding parable, the contrasts are of interest. Instead of a poor man who accidentally stumbles onto buried treasure, we have what appears to be a well-off traveling business man (emporos rather than kapēlos suggests this distinction). Along with gold, pearls were considered to be of great value. Produced by a living process in the sea, they were sought both in the Red Sea and in the Persian Gulf. The great harlot in Revelation 17 adorned herself with “gold, precious stones and pearls” (Rev. 17:4; cf. 18:16–17).

When the merchant found the “pearl of great price” (AV) he sold everything he had (panta is neuter, indicating he sold everything he owned, not simply the other pearls) and bought the one great pearl. The kingdom of heaven is like that pearl: it is of inestimable value and calls for us to let go of everything else in order to obtain it.

13:47–50 / The kingdom of heaven is now compared to the dragnet that gathers in a large catch of fish of various sorts. The fish are drawn onto the shore, where the good ones are separated into baskets and the bad ones are thrown away. In Jesus’ day it was common to fish with a dragnet, a large square net that was made to hang upright in the water by means of weights. It was pulled into shore by ropes attached to the corners. By means of this seine net all sorts of fish would be gathered in. The worthless fish would be those forbidden by Jewish law (Lev. 11:10–11;) or perhaps simply those that were inedible. Legend (perhaps based on John 21:11) has it that there were 153 different kinds of fish. The Sea of Galilee is said to contain 54 different species.

Some writers think that verses 49–50 do not belong to the original parable. In verse 48 the fishermen sit down on the shore and separate the good fish from the bad. In verse 49 the separation is done by angels at the end of the age. It is often mentioned that though bad fish would be thrown back into the water or perhaps buried for fertilizer, they would not be burned (as in v. 50). Such “difficulties” result from a failure to realize that verses 49–50 are an eschatological interpretation of the parable itself. As fish are separated in the parable, so also will people be separated at the end of the age. That is the point of the parable. It was not intended to teach that “the appeal of the Gospel makes no discrimination of rank or class, wealth or poverty, trade or profession” (Beare, p. 316), although that, of course, is also true. The interpretation repeats the theme of verses 40–42.

13:51–52 / Jesus now asks his disciples whether they understand what he has just been teaching them in parables. Their answer is that they do. On that basis, then, he can say that every teacher of the law who understands the truths of the kingdom is like the master of the house who knows how to bring out from his treasury things new as well as old. The order new and old is probably significant. Stendahl (p. 786) notes that Matthew is anxious to relate Jesus’ messianic manifestation and teaching (the new) to the promises of the Old Testament (the old). The old is all the teaching of the Old Testament that had to do with God’s work in the world. The new is the messianic teaching of Jesus regarding the kingdom of heaven. The new does not replace the old, but it builds upon it.

Some are tempted to take the saying one step further and see in it an understanding of the role of the first-century New Testament teacher of the law. In this case the old would be the teachings of Jesus and the new would be their interpretation and application to fresh situations in the early church. But the therefore in verse 52, coming in response to the acknowledgment that the disciples had grasped what Jesus had taught, argues that Jesus himself is that teacher who brings out truths both old and new.

13:53–58 / The fourth major section of Matthew’s Gospel begins at this point. It comprises a narrative that runs through the end of chapter 17 followed by instruction in chapter 18. The account of Jesus’ rejection at Nazareth is placed earlier in Luke (4:16–30), where his sermon in the synagogue led to an attempt to take his life. In both Mark and Matthew, Jesus returns to his ancestral home, where his message is heard but not accepted.

When Jesus finished teaching the series of parables listed by Matthew in chapter 13, he moved on from there (Capernaum?) and returned to his hometown. The basic meaning of patris is fatherland (the place of one’s patēr), but as Luke indicates, it refers to the town of Nazareth (Luke 4:16) rather than the country in which Jesus was born (see above on Matt. 2:3–6). There he began to teach (edidasken is imperfect) the people in their synagogue. It is sometimes noted that the Greek autōn (their) reflects the attitude of the church at the time of Matthew’s writing. However, the account itself discloses an antagonistic setting that is more than adequate to account for referring to the synagogue as their synagogue rather than “the synagogue” (as the GNB has it).

Those who heard Jesus were impressed by his teaching and his power to do the miraculous. Yet they refused his message and undermined his role as prophet. Their question about where Jesus received wisdom and miraculous powers was not an honest inquiry. The Greek touto (“this fellow”) in verse 54 is contemptuous. Isn’t he simply the carpenter’s son, and aren‘t we fully acquainted with his entire family? How could he have come by all of this? So they “began to find a cause of stumbling in him” (Rotherham).

Since in Palestine at the time of Jesus timber was scarce and houses were normally made of stone, the Greek word usually translated “carpenter” (tektōn) probably meant “stonemason.” The mention of Jesus’ mother, brothers, and sisters, without reference to his father, supports the conjecture that Joseph was an older man and probably had died by this time. Although his brothers did not believe in Jesus at this point (cf. 12:46–50; John 7:5), they later became prominent in the church. James was a leader in the Jerusalem congregation (Acts 15:13ff.) and wrote one of the books of the New Testament, as did Jude (Judas) as well. Jesus’ brothers were children of Joseph and Mary born after Jesus (see commentary on 12:46).

The people of Nazareth were disturbed by Jesus’ teaching and the impact of his presence. Moffatt says they were “repelled by him.” Jesus responds with the proverbial saying, Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor (v. 57). Familiarity breeds contempt. Even though they recognized that Jesus’ words and works were extraordinary, they refused to believe (apistia in v. 58 reflects a basic unwillingness to believe). Because of their unbelief, Jesus performed only a few miracles there. That he was rejected by his own family is especially disturbing. It does, however, support the canonical accounts of his boyhood against the noncanonical infancy narratives that relate all manner of miraculous activity by the boy Jesus.