Thursday, November 26, 2020

Mark 6:5-6: The True Humanity of Jesus

 

 

And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them. And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching. (Mark 6:5-6)

 

This passage in the Gospel of Mark presents a strong “humanitarian” Christology (one I would argue that onlyLatter-day Saint Christology is can be consistent with if one also believes inHis personal pre-existence) as well as one that is very “Open Theistic.” Note the following commentaries from an Anglican and two Roman Catholics on this text:

 

5 There is a delightful irony in the juxtaposition of the two clauses of this verse: for most people the healing of a few invalids by laying hands on them would hardly constitute οὐδεμία δύναμις. Matthew’s statement that οὐκ ἐποίησεν ἐκεῖ δυνάμεις πολλάς avoids the paradox, but also loses the vividness of Mark’s language. Both evangelists attribute Jesus’ ‘minimal’ miraculous activity to the ἀπιστία of the people of Nazareth, but Mark’s οὐκ ἐδύνατο is bolder, in suggesting that not even the ἐξουσία of Jesus is unlimited. Mark often highlights the importance of πίστις in healing and other miraculous contexts (2:5; 4:40; 5:34, 36; 9:23–24; 10:52; 11:22–24), so there is no surprise in seeing the opposite effect attributed to ἀπιστία, but the description of Jesus as unable to work miracles is christologically striking, and is not greatly alleviated by the mention of the ὀλίγοι ἄρρωστοι who were the exception to the rule.. . . 6 The mention of Jesus’ surprise (only here in Mark; the verb is more normally associated with the crowds) further underlines the ‘human’ character of Mark’s portrait of Jesus. It also highlights the contrast between Jesus’ reception in Nazareth and the general popularity which he has come to enjoy in the lakeside towns. The immediate mention of teaching in other villages of the neighbourhood (κύκλῳ indicates that he remained in the hill country around Nazareth rather than returning yet to the lake) suggests that he did not stay long in Nazareth, but rather followed the principle which he is about to enunciate in v. 11. The specific mention that Jesus was διδάσκων is typical of Mark’s summaries (1:21–22; 2:13; 4:1–2, etc.); it is not to be interpreted as exclusive (teaching and not performing miracles), since there is no indication that other villages shared Nazareth’s hostile attitude, and the similar statement in 1:21–22 leads straight into miraculous activity (which is itself remarkably described as διδαχή). (R.T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text [New International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002], 244)

 

5. he was unable to do any mighty deed: The reason for this inability appears in 6:6a, the unbelief of his friends and family. This means that Jesus does not come as a magician or miracle worker who dazzles his audience with works of power that compel belief (see 15:32: “come down from the cross that we may see and believe”). It does mean that where there is no openness to the power of God (6:2) or where that power becomes a stumbling block to preconceptions the “mighty work” as an invitation to deeper faith and discipleship cannot take place.

apart from healing a few sick people: Bultmann sees a contradiction between vv. 5a and 5b and views it as evidence that the whole incident here is artificially composed (History of the Synoptic Tradition 30). Matthew rewrites the whole of Mark 6:5 to say simply that “he did not do many mighty works there” (13:58), thus removing any hint that Jesus’ power was limited. Mark’s exception implies that the object of the disbelief by the townspeople was the complete prophetic mission of Jesus (his wisdom and mighty works). Jesus still retains the power to do mighty works in the face of disbelief. What he cannot do is compel acceptance. There may also be a very subtle allusion to Isa 53:3–5 here. Though God’s Servant is without honor and rejected by all people in v. 3, in v. 4 he is said to bear the infirmities of the people who are healed through his suffering (53:5).

6a. he was shocked at their unbelief: “Shock” (ethaumazen) is a normal (positive) reaction by crowds to the power of Jesus. It is used only here of Jesus and represents a paradoxical counterreaction to unbelief. Matthew omits this reaction of Jesus in line with his other editorial changes of passages in Mark that might seem to diminish the power or dignity of Jesus. Though “unbelief” (apistia) is used only here and in 9:24 (“help my unbelief”), it reflects the stark alternatives in Mark between belief and unbelief and between understanding and lack of understanding. It also functions here much like blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in 3:29, that is, as a misuse of human freedom that closes the person to the action of God. Matthew softens Mark’s stark alternatives by describing the followers of Jesus as people of “little faith” (6:30; 8:26; 14:31; 16:8). (John R. Donahue and Daniel J. Harrington, The Gospel of Mark [Sacra Pagina; Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 2002], 185-86)

 

Further Reading


Latter-day Saints have Chosen the True, Biblical Jesus


An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology 

Blog Archive