CHAPTER III: THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE
4. VARIOUS OPINIONS ABOUT THE WORK OF JESUS
HOME | Contents | Chapter III: < PART III | PART IV: 76.The Centurion of Capharnaum | 77.The resurrection of the widow's son at Naim | 78-79.The mission of the Baptist and the mission of the Son of Man | 80.The pardon of the sinful woman | 81-83.The true kindred of Jesus | PART V >.
|
The Centurion of Capharnaum (76).
Luke
vii.1-10; Matthew viii.5-10, 13.
[Along with Fillion we follow Luke's narrative as it is
more detailed.]
After the Sermon on the Mount Jesus went back to Capharnaum.
Here St. Luke,
without any show of introducing His reader to an historical situation with
which he would be unfamiliar, writing as a man writes when he knows that his
reader will understand, makes allusion to an interesting feature of the social
and religious condition of Galilee.
At Capharnaum there was a centurion,
that
is an officer of subordinate rank supposed to have a hundred men under his
command.
Though he was a pagan he nevertheless could have been in the service
of Herod Antipas, if that tetrarch was as rich as his father, Herod the Great,
and hence able to hire mercenary soldiers. [Cf. Josephus,
Ant. XVII, viii, 3.]
We read in the Old Testament how
of old the kings of Juda had captains of a hundred men. [4
Kings (2Kgs), xi.9, 15.]
But whenever St. Luke
speaks of a centurion he always uses the word of Roman officers.
The centurion
was to the Roman legion what the mainspring is to a watch.
Centurions were
employed likewise in the auxiliary cohorts of the army.
Perhaps the Romans
had established a small post of soldiers on the frontier of the territories
governed by Antipas and Philip, and if they did so no one was in a position
to object to it.
This centurion, then, was probably in the Roman service;
he seems evidently to have been trained in the principles of Roman discipline.
But, like many pagans of that day, he felt a strong attraction for the Jewish
religion.
Contemporary philosophers, even those who held the doctrines of pantheism
or practised idolatry, preferred to speak of the one God.
They could not but
see that the Jews were more logical in worshipping no other god but Him.
This
man had not followed, up that line of reasoning so far as to profess Judaism,
but at any rate he seems to have been on excellent terms with the Jews.
Hence
he asks them to carry his request to Jesus.
He had a servant who was sick unto
death, and this servant was very dear to him.
Not all the people of the ancient
world, particularly in the East, were
insensible to the instincts of human nature to the degree which is implied
in the cruel treatment of slaves by the Roman Law.
Indeed, there often existed
a real affection between a master and a good slave.
Encouraged by what he
had heard about the extraordinary powers of Jesus,
the centurion begged Him
to come and heal his servant.
The Jews to whom he entrusted his request were
sure that Jesus,
Himself a good Israelite,
would not refuse the favour to
this man who, though a foreigner,
had been so kind to the Jews as to build
the local synagogue,
and in that synagogue Jesus Himself had often prayed
and heard or explained the Law.
[At Tell-Hum, ancient Capharnaum,
the ruins of a synagogue have been discovered,
and even the ruins prove what a splendid building it must have been.
But they are the ruins of a synagogue which could not have been built before
the end of the second century AD.
Still, it may easily have been built on the site of the former synagogue.]
They make known to Him their request and
in reply Jesus follows them.
But already a scruple had entered the good centurion's
mind.
Doubtless the Jews had often come into his house without fearing to
contaminate themselves, for they always took care to purify themselves afterwards.
But could he expect the same of a man like Jesus, if indeed He was a man?
For
perhaps the centurion thought He was one of these demi-gods that people spoke
of.
If he had not dared to approach in person to present his request to Jesus
how then could he invite such a being, one powerful enough to work miracles,
to cross the threshold of his house?
And so he sends his friends to tell Him:
'Lord, trouble not Thyself,
for I am not worthy that Thou shouldest enter under my roof. ...
But say one word so that my servant may be healed.'
He
is well aware of the wonderful effect of the spoken word,
he knows the power
of a word of command.
An order goes out from our lips and, as it were, travels
out into the distance in order to accomplish its object.
How often has he not
experienced the same thing in dealing with the men under him!
'Go!' he
had said, or 'Come!',
and the thing would be done.
Jesus showed admiration for him, not altogether without that air of surprise
which is characteristic of every feeling of admiration;
for, as we have said,
Jesus in everything followed the normal conditions of human nature.
Then He declared:
'I say unto you,
I have not found so great faith,
not even in Israel.'
At that same moment the centurion had the joy of seeing his servant healed.
The Church has
done him the honour of putting his words on the lips of those who are
about to receive the Eucharistic Body of Him who comes for the healing of the
soul.
top
The resurrection of the widow's son at Naim (77).
But Jesus showed still greater power;
by His word He recalled a soul from
that mysterious abode where disembodied spirits dwell.
The touching scene of
this event is described by St. Luke in words of delicate pathos:
a young man
stricken down by death being carried to the grave on a stretcher,
the only
son of a widowed mother:
the crowd moved by emotion:
our Lord stirred to pity,
venturing to say to the mother:
'Weep not!'
Then He touches the open coffin,
commands the young man to arise,
and restores him to his mother.
Whereupon the people cry:
'A great prophet hath been raised up amongst us;
God hath visited His people.'
Not merely did they wonder at that sovereign
power:
they are constrained to love that goodness also.
The memory of this
incident is still recalled by the name Nein which belongs to a tiny village
lying to the south-east of Nazareth (en-Nasira as it is called) and almost
opposite Thabor.
top
The mission of the Baptist and the mission of the Son of Man (78,79).
Luke vii.18-35; xvi.16; Matthew xi.2-19.
If God had visited His people, it meant that the Messiah had come.
Hence
there began to be discussion about this great question.
More especially must
it have been the subject of passionate discussion among John's disciples,
for their master from the first had warned them of the approach of Him who
was to come, and had pointed out Jesus to them as the one who was destined
to take away the sins of the world.
And now John was in prison.
Josephus
tells us that the place of his imprisonment was Machaerus on the mountains
overlooking the Dead Sea from the east, and consequently a long way from
Galilee.
There his disciples were allowed to see and talk with him, and they
reported
to him the different stages of Jesus' activity, narrating how He was proclaiming
the kingdom of God as John himself had done, and also driving out devils
and healing the sick.
Such activity was extraordinary, but it by no means
proved that He was the Messiah.
It was the common opinion of the rabbis that
the prophets of old had worked miracles;
Elias and Eliseus, indeed, had even raised the dead.
The mission of the Messiah
was held to be something altogether different.
John's disciples, therefore,
did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah.
But John had already expressed
his mind on the subject;
was he to go back on his word,
to have doubts about
the vision he had seen at Jesus' baptism,
and to contradict himself by doubting
about Jesus?
It is not possible that St. Matthew and St. Luke thought so when
they related John's plan of sending two of his disciples to ask Jesus:
'Art Thou He that cometh,
or look we for another?'
'He that cometh' are the very
words John had used [Matthew iii.11.] to designate
Him who was to baptize in the Holy Ghost and cleanse the threshing-floor of
the chaff.
St. Matthew does not forget this
; on the contrary, we may say that he here reminds us of it.
That very fact
throws light on what was the Baptist's own state of mind, which was surely
this:
why did the Mighty One whom he had announced delay to fulfil in a most
glorious manner the role allotted to Him?
Would not people naturally conclude
that they must look for another?
He does not entertain any doubts about the
mission of Jesus,
but all the same the time seems long while he lies in prison
at Machaerus.
Moreover, he thinks of his disciples whose doubts have not yet
been dispelled.
The reply of Jesus can hardly be understood as a mere affirmation of what
John already knew, and what his disciples also knew since it was they who had
told him about it.
Before we can understand its true significance we must first
have an idea of what is the force of an argument drawn from Scripture.
It was
commonly thought, as we have already said, that the working of miracles was
not a sufficient proof of the Messiah.
Yet it is to be noticed that miracles
are given as such a proof by Isaias [Isaias xxix.18 ff.
and lxi.1.], and everyone would easily recognize
his words even though Jesus does not name the prophet:
'In that day the deaf shall hear the words of the book;
Without shadow and without darkness the eyes of the blind shall see.
The humble shall rejoice in Jahweh,
And the poorest shall exult in the Holy One of Israel.'
[Isaias xxix.18 (Condamin's translation).]
What was here taught by the Scripture was this:
that the significance of
miracles was not to be limited to the external act of healing.
People were
cured if they had sufficient faith to demand it, and their faith was increased
by the miracle.
Their ears hear the word, their eyes perceive the truth.
The
sum of it all is that 'the poor receive the good news of salvation.'
[Isaias Ixi.1, a saying which Jesus applies to Himself at
Nazareth.]
So the time has begun in which good reigns in the world.
John, as well as
Peter, was dreaming of a Messiah who was to appear in triumph.
But he must
leave Jesus to work in His own way,
seeing that he has recognized Him as one
who is doing the work of the Holy Spirit.
When Jesus concludes with the words:
'Blessed is he that shall not be scandalized in Me,'
He is not condemning His friend the Baptist;
on the contrary.
He is
about to pay him honour.
His intention is to warn us against that ever-present
temptation to ask from God striking signs and wonders through our failure to
realize that His ways are the ways of patience and gentleness.
John's disciples did not regard this reply as unsatisfactory and unworthy
of being taken back to their master.
But did they understand it?
When they
had gone, Jesus made known how John's mission and His own had been joined together
by God;
He declared what was the divine purpose in which the old covenant
was made subordinate to the kingdom of God.
He showed also how lacking in understanding
were the doctors of the Law who had failed to recognize John and now were failing
to recognize the Son of Man.
By associating Himself with John, He proves conclusively
that He did not consider him to be wavering in the testimony which, as the
forerunner of the Messiah, it was his duty to render.
[We
have explained this incident in the way that seems to us most consonant
with the text.
But another well-authorized opinion considers that John was
fully enlightened concerning Jesus and only sent his disciples to Him in their
own interest.]
Jesus asks the crowd whether they went out into the desert to see a reed shaken
by the wind.
But who would go to such trouble merely to see the thickets
of reeds growing on the banks of the Jordan or by the springs, waving with
every breath of wind?
The thought of John was still present to their minds,
so they must have understood well enough that Jesus was making a contrast
between him on the one hand, as the very type of unshaken constancy, and
a bending reed on the other.
Perhaps they went out to the desert to look
for a man clothed in all the refinements of luxury!
But they knew well enough
how poor and rough was his garb.
From the man beneath that garb, just like
what Elias of old had worn, they looked to hear the words of a prophet;
and John was indeed a prophet, charged to announce God's coming.
It was in
God's name that Malachias had written:
'Behold I shall send My messenger,
and he shall clear the way before Me.'
[Malachias iii.1, after Van Hoonacker's translation.]
Further on the prophet identifies the messenger with Elias:
'Immediately after the coming of the forerunner,
the Lord will make His entry into His palace or His temple;
that is.
He will come to abide in the midst of His people,
thus satisfying their impatient longing for Him.'
[Cf. Van Hoonacker's commentary in loco.]
Jesus knows
that this prediction is now fulfilled;
He fulfils it in His own person.
The
Elias who was to come before the Lord is in reality John the Baptist.
The messenger of the Lord is, then, more than a prophet, greater than all
the prophets, the greatest of all the sons of women.
No one, of course, would
presume to compare John with Him whom he has come to announce, seeing that
all the glory of John springs from his office as the herald of Christ.
Moreover,
the Baptist had been destined by God to serve as the last stage in the dispensation
of the Law and the Prophets.
After him was to begin the kingdom of God.
Already,
says Jesus, men are taking that kingdom by storm, the violent are laying hold
of it:
that is to say, there are some who are ready to sacrifice everything
in order to gain the kingdom of God.
So far is this kingdom superior to the
covenant made on Sinai,
so truly is it the goal foreseen by the prophets,
that
the least in the kingdom of God
is greater than John.
Jesus is not speaking here of rank in heaven -
He refused
to allot places there [Matthew xx.20 ff.] -
but of the surpassing dignity of each member of
the new dispensation.
Here the principle is laid down;
it was left for St.
Paul to explain how baptism,
received with faith in the redeeming death of
Christ,
ranks higher than the ancient rite of circumcision which preceded baptism.
We can excuse those who listened to the Master and failed to understand this
mystery;
but there was no excuse for the scornful attitude adopted by the
spiritual leaders of Israel,
who arrogated to themselves the right to sit in
judgement on all things
and to condemn whatever did not meet their approval.
John the Baptist had come in ascetic garb.
That was all very well on the surface,
they argued;
but, after all, it might only be a cloak for some trickery of
the devil.
The Son of Man ate and drank like other men;
whereupon these critics judged that nothing could be expected from a person
like Him, a glutton, a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners.
What
could be done to satisfy such hyper-critics?
They were like a set of disagreeable
children who find fault with their companions whatever game they propose.
In
such a case the complaint of the latter is quite justifiable:
'We have piped
for you and you have not danced;
we have mourned and you have not beaten your
breasts.'
Thus these disdainful Jews stood apart, holding aloof from the religious
enthusiasm which God was enkindling amongst the people.
Happily there were
others who showed themselves more docile.
These are the children of Wisdom
who understand her ways;
the homage they pay her justifies her in the face of her calumniators.
In this lesson taught by Jesus on occasion of the question put by John's messengers
He accepts unreservedly the dispensation of the old covenant,
but at the same
time He places it in complete subordination to the new dispensation.
There
is no break of continuity, nothing of the old is abandoned,
but He shows in
the strongest terms possible how the new order is superior to the old.
The
whole of St. Paul's thesis is there.
The doctrine of Marcion, who rejected
the Old Testament and thus censured Wisdom anew though in another fashion,
is condemned before it is uttered.
There is no passage in the Scriptures from
which
it emerges more clearly how truly St. Paul was only what he professed himself
to be, a disciple of the Lord.
At the same time we perceive how different
from our Lord's is the quality of St. Paul's genius.
The latter uses the
argumentative method, proving his thesis from Scripture and reason.
But in
the words of his Master there is no trace of reflection or argumentative
effort.
Jesus sees the divine plan already in realization.
There is no tormenting
of the mind in order to find suitable words to express new ideas:
all is
simple and homely in character,
with examples and comparisons such as everybody
could understand.
The very letter of the Old Testament which He here cites
serves to reveal more clearly that the work which God was to come to do is
being done by Jesus.
If we reject the authenticity of these words,
then there seems no good reason
why we should attribute authenticity to anything He says.
And if He really
spoke in this fashion, what are we to think of Him?
But great as He reveals
Himself to be, there is not a word of His to give ground for any idle expectation
of a kingdom of God that will come down from heaven complete and perfect.
No,
the kingdom of God has already begun,
and in order to enter it some are using
a sort of violence;
others reject it with indifference,
for, having disregarded
the Baptist's message,
they now stop their ears against the Gospel.
They fail
to understand God's plan,
for they judge everything according to their own
ideas,
and always find some pretext for refusing to accept His will.
top
The pardon of the sinful woman (80).
The case of this sinner, the woman whose forgiveness is related by St. Luke,
is an instance of that holy violence done to the kingdom of God in the person
of Him who was contemptuously named 'the friend of sinners.'
Here, more than
anywhere, do we feel that we ought simply to read and shed tears instead of
making comments.
There were evidently some of the Pharisees who had not adopted the policy
of reserve towards Jesus, unlike those who never addressed Him except in order
to embarrass Him with their questions.
It seems at least that Simon, who invited
the Master to his table, felt some natural
sympathy with Him, though he did not on that account cease to watch Him.
The
scene took place somewhere in Galilee.
Jesus was reclining like the others
on a low couch, with knees doubled and feet naturally turned outwards away
from the table.
A woman comes in, a sinner, and known as such to the people
of that little town.
In her hands she bears an alabaster vase full of perfumed
oil;
her purpose is to anoint the feet of Jesus.
Having placed herself behind at
His feet, so that she is not visible to Him,
she stoops to pour the oil and
bursts into tears,
and her tears flow over His feet.
She had not foreseen this
outburst of emotion and, hurriedly loosening her hair,
she wipes the feet of
Jesus and kisses them before anointing them with the oil.
Jesus did not interrupt her.
It was evident, then, to all that her touch was
not abhorrent to Him;
He did not make a reproving gesture like a virtuous
person who feels himself placed in a false position.
And yet, thought Simon,
He must know who she is, if not by repute at least by His gift of prophecy
if He really is a prophet.
He was indeed a prophet, and He showed it by reading
his host's thoughts.
Then He propounds to him a parable:
there were two debtors
who could not pay.
The creditor forgave them what they owed,
one a hundred
denarii,
the other fifty.
Which of the two would love his benefactor most?
A pessimist would have taken this opportunity for declaring to what depths
human perversity can go:
the more benefits men receive the more hatred they
show.
Simon, a little surprised at being asked to solve so easy a problem,
replies nevertheless with Pharisaic gravity and good sense:
'I suppose he
to whom he forgave most.'
The Master gently points out that this sinner is in a similar case by comparison
with a good man like Simon.
The Pharisee, free from reproach in his own eyes
regarding his attitude towards Jesus, has omitted to show Him any of those
services which were paid to those held in honour.
His conduct has been correct,
barely so, and cold.
But this sinner. ..
With what kindness Jesus speaks
of her repentant love!
Luke has said that she kissed His feet;
He says:
'Since I came in,
she hath not ceased to kiss My feet,'
so touched was He by her repentance and love.
What conclusion will He draw?
The most logical inference from the parable would be:
'She hath shown much love
because much hath been forgiven her.'
But the Master does not bind Himself down to
an exact parallel between the parable and the reality with which the parable
makes a comparison.
The parable is meant merely to put the listener on the
right path to the truth.
The sinner is there awaiting forgiveness,
and God
forgives only those who love Him.
No soul can remain in a state of indifference
towards God;
it either loves or hates.
Sin is an obstacle to love:
where
love appears sin is blotted out.
Yielding to the prompting of His heart,
Jesus utters the words from which all the theology of forgiveness springs:
'Her many sins are forgiven her
because she hath loved much.'
The parable at the
same time strikes at people like Simon on the other hand:
there is not much
to be forgiven in their case, but they have very little love.
Does it mean, then, that we cannot have a great love for God unless we have
first offended Him?
God forbid!
The manifest intention of the divine Physician
is to give hope to sinners;
four centuries later St. Augustine's tears fell
when he thought of the woman who was a sinner.
Jesus also wished to give a
warning to those who think themselves dispensed from the obligation of loving
God on the ground of their being so good that there is nothing in their conduct
which calls for forgiveness on His part.
But all that has been said concerns offences against God and that love for
God which blots out our sins;
yet this sinner has shown love only for Jesus.
How simply He takes God's place,
counting as addressed to God those protestations
of repentance which she has just made at His feet!
Curiosity concerning the historical facts here asserts itself and brings us
down from the heights in order to ask the name of the woman.
This is a celebrated
problem.
The independent biblical critics of our own day maintain that this
anointing of Jesus by the sinful woman is merely another version of the anointing
which took place at Bethany.
[In Mark, Luke, and John. Cf.
No. 228 of the Synopsis.]
This was also the opinion of Clement of Alexandria,
due probably to a confusion of memory,
[Cf. Revue Biblique, 1913, pp. 504-532: Jésus
a-t-il été oint plusieurs fois, et par plusieurs femmes? ]
and several others among the Fathers
seem to be of the same mind.
In that case this woman could have been no other
than Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus.
But the two
anointings are different in place,
for one was in Galilee,
the other near Jerusalem;
in time, because one took place at the beginning
of the ministry,
the other eight days before the Passion;
and they differ
especially in spirit,
one ending in forgiveness,
the other being a foreboding
of burial.
It is true that a Simon appears on each occasion,
but the name was
a common one.
The common opinion among Catholic scholars is that the two anointings are
distinct.
In contrast with the former opinion, they hold that the text of the
New Testament provides no ground for identifying the sinful woman of Galilee
with Mary of Bethany to whom so much honour is paid.
[John xi, a should be understood of what the evangelist
is about to relate.]
It is of no use appealing
to tradition for the identification of the two women, for there is no coherent
tradition on the subject.
[Fr. Urban Holzmeister, S.J., thus ends his very careful
study of this question:
'From this enquiry there emerges very clearly one single conclusion:
to the question whether there is any coherent tradition (in favour of identity)
we must certainly not answer in the affirmative.' (Zeitschrift für katholische
Theologie, edited by the Jesuits of Innsbruck, 1922, p. 584.)]
And although it is true that there is one tradition
in the Latin Church which identifies them, nevertheless this tradition dates
only from the time of St. Gregory the Great;
moreover, the Greek Church has always held the opposite view.
If, then, the sinful woman cannot be Mary of Bethany
and Mary of Bethany is
identified with Mary Magdalen,
it follows that the sinful woman cannot be Mary
Magdalen either.
But neither is it possible to identify Mary of Bethany with
Mary of Magdala, who came from Galilee to follow Jesus.
St. John distinguishes
them very clearly.
As Mary Magdalen was not Mary of Bethany, since she came
from Galilee, she might possibly be the sinful woman.
This question depends
for its solution entirely on St. Luke.
Immediately after the scene of the woman's
forgiveness he mentions the women cured by Jesus and describes how they showed
their gratitude by providing for His needs.
One of these women was Mary surnamed
Magdalen, that is, native of Magdala, out of whom He had cast seven devils.
St. Luke, therefore, introduces her as a figure of whom he has not previously
spoken.
Diabolic possession by no means implies a sinful life, nor does it
exclude it.
Strictly speaking, we might suppose that Luke did not want to disclose
the sins of Mary Magdalen, who had become a
fervent disciple of Christ revered by the early Christians, and hence deliberately
refrained from identifying her with the woman that was a sinner.
Thus the
latter, though she certainly cannot be Mary of Bethany, might be one with
Mary Magdalen.
But if it be true that Luke wished to hide their identity
we certainly cannot gather that fact from his text;
the contrary rather would
seem true.
And if he had other intentions he kept them to himself.
Those who maintain that these three women are one and the same have recourse
to psychological arguments in order to support their contention.
They profess
to recognize in all three the same person, with the same disposition, the same
manner of behaviour, and the same ardent love.
There is some weight in this
argument as regards Mary the sister of Martha in the gospel of St. Luke, and
Mary the sister of Martha in the fourth gospel:
the woman who listens eagerly
to Jesus without bestirring herself to serve Him is very like the woman who
stays at home until her sister calls her, while it is Martha who waits on Jesus
and runs to meet Him.
Has that Mary -
without question tremendously loving and
very much loved,
but at the same time so calm -
has she the disposition of Mary
of Magdala, so fervent, active, and anxious, dreaming of the impossible,
such
as St. John reveals her at our Saviour's tomb?
Mary of Magdala and the sinner
would be more of the same stamp.
Perhaps we had better conclude with Bossuet:
'It is more in harmony with the letter of the Gospel to distinguish three persons.'
[Quoted by Fillion, Vol. II, p. 329.]
M. Pillion, along with Fr. Knabenbauer, prefers to take this course,
which, indeed, can claim the support of 'great scholars like Estius, Tillemont,
Calmet, and Mabillon.'
top
The true kindred of Jesus (81-83).
Luke viii.1-3; Mark iii.20-21; Luke viii.19-21; xi.28; Mark iii.31-35; Matthew xiii.46-50.
By choosing the Twelve Apostles Himself Jesus taught once and for all that
spiritual authority in His Church is to be conferred on men specially called.
But in their work they find splendid helpers in those devoted women who, consecrated
to God or else living in the world, take the lesser cares of the Church under
their charge.
This too was foreshadowed in the public life of our Lord:
nay
more, the beginnings of it were present in that group of women who also wished
to follow Jesus out of gratitude for His goodness to them, and who in their
generosity used their possessions to contribute towards his needs, for His
preaching no longer left Him opportunity to support Himself with the work of
His hands as He had done for so long. St. Luke names some of these women:
Mary, distinguished from the other Marys by her surname Magdalen;
Joanna the
wife of Chusa, Herod's steward-we might call him minister of finance were it
not too pretentious-and last of all Susanna.
But he adds that there were many
others.
Doubtless we should be in error were we to picture all these people
following the Master always in procession, so to say.
Rather they arranged
that some should always be with Him to attend to His needs.
Although the Twelve
were not always with Him,
yet it certainly seems that Peter, James, and John
never left Him, at least while He was in Galilee.
Thus there was formed around
Him the nucleus of a new spiritual family,
and He taught that all might belong
to this family,
encouraging them to come by letting them see that it depended
only on themselves.
In this could be clearly traced the Church of the future,
at least in its outlines.
In these days, so loose are the bonds which formerly bound together the members
of one people or tribe, so slender are the ties which attach us to any outside
our own immediate family circle -
and even there the bond is often of a very
weak kind -
that it is hard for us to realize the strength of those ties by
which people of the ancient world, both of West and East, were bound together
to make up that larger family we call the clan.
In our own day that primitive
constitution of society will be found best preserved in the East.
It gives
rise to a self-sacrifice that is admirable;
it is also the occasion frequently in the East of serious obstacles to the
independence of the priest, for a priest must treat all the members of his
flock alike, whether they are of his own clan or not.
In Greece and in Italy
at the time of Jesus the city was a tiny local fatherland, formed by the grouping
together of various clans who lived under the protection of the city's laws;
and such a city thus became the object of men's noblest affections.
In Palestine
there
existed only the clan-family which held itself responsible for the welfare
of its members who, though united with all other Israelites by one national
bond of fellowship, yet belonged more intimately to the clan-family.
Hence
it was only natural and in accordance with custom that the kinsfolk of Jesus
should show concern about that consuming activity of His which threatened
to wear out His strength.
One day in particular the crowd so hemmed in the house where He was with His
disciples that He was unable even to take food.
'His own people' -
evidently
not the disciples, seeing these were in the house with Him, but relations in
a wide sense -
came from their homes to take charge of Him,
for people were
saying: 'He is beside Himself.'
[I at first translated 'they (the relations) said':
but I think we must accept the arguments of Mr. Turner (in the Journal of
Theological Studies, XXV, pp. 383 ff.), who maintains that the relations
came because they had heard people saying.]
This step was surely prompted by kindness.
They wonder whether Jesus is not going to excess or in danger of being misguided,
and their intention is to bring Him back to the family circle and to persuade
Him to return to His ordinary occupations.
Perhaps, too, they are in fear of
being made to shoulder the responsibility for all this disturbance.
That Mark
has recorded this incident is sufficient of itself to prove his perfect candour
and truthfulness.
Where did these relations come from?
Some would be from Capharnaum itself;
but disquieting rumours may have reached Nazareth, and some of the relations
probably came from there.
It is at the moment of their arrival at Capharnaum
that the Mother and brethren of Jesus appear on the scene, according to the
first three evangelists.
Not that it was His Mother Mary who was responsible
for these proceedings:
the initiative came from those at the head of the clan.
But the outcome could hardly be a matter of indifference to a mother's heart;
her place was there, little as she shared the general anxiety about her Son.
Her confidence in Him at the marriage feast of Cana had already showed that she
was not likely to let herself be overcome by such fears.
The brethren of Jesus
are those whom St. Mark calls 'His own,' and consequently relations who were
not necessarily brethren in our sense of the word.
Finding it impossible to get through the crowd,
the relatives of Jesus send
a message asking Him to come out.
Someone says to Him:
'Thy Mother and Thy brethren are outside seeking Thee.'
He answers:
'Who are My Mother and My brethren?'
Then, looking round on those Milling with Him,
He says:
'Behold My Mother and My brethren.
Whosoever doth the will of God,
he is My brother, and My sister, and My mother.'
[Mark iii.33 ff.]
Thus did He inaugurate spiritual relationship, that great family which includes, in the words of St. Luke, all
'those who hear the word of God and do it.'
[Luke viii.21.]
In this reply, therefore, is contained a fundamental point of His teaching.
It manifests the nature of His preaching;
a most cordial appeal to men of good will,
along with an assurance that if
they come to Him they will find a heart lull of the most tender human affection.
So much is perfectly clear, but other considerations may be drawn out of His
words.
The sacred duties that are owing to the family lire by no means denied:
Jesus
does not renounce His Mother.
What we do see, however, is that He attaches
more value to her devotion towards God than to the care she showed for
her Son when He was an infant in the cradle.
The Church has given us the true
meaning of His words in placing Mary at the head other Son's new spiritual
family, far above all the Saints.
top