Skip to main content

Why Jesus couldn't do many miracles in Nazareth - a suggestion.

Mark 6.1-6

We are told that Jesus 'could do no deeds of power' in his home town.
Why could he do no 'deeds of power' there?

Forgive me; this is a little bit speculative.

There is a film in the UK that was shown on British television on 21 June 1969, and subsequently banned (although clips were shown from 2011). It is a documentary about the Royal Family, filming their everyday life, and it shows them living life in a way that is remarkably similar to every other family. It was banned, because it was felt that it stripped mystique away from the Royal Family, it made them too ordinary. If people see them living just like us, then people may start to question why we do, in fact, treat them differently.

That, I think, is the opposite of what is going on here.
Jesus comes to his home town, and the film of his life shows that he is far from ordinary. They are astounded by his teaching, and they have heard of the wonderful things that he has done. But even though he is far from ordinary, people are trapped in their little world, with its boundaries and boxes, and they are blinded by their pride, identity insecurity, envy and jealousy.
And they cannot begin to conceive that Jesus really is different. 

They think he must have gone somewhere - a first century Hogwarts where he could learn all these special powers - because they ask, 'Where did this man get all this?'
They want to know, because then it all makes sense, and they can send their children there, and they in turn will be able to do the sort of things that Jesus can.
They simply cannot accept that Jesus is different.

We know, as people who have read the gospel of Mark, that the reason that Jesus could teach like this and do the wonders he did is because he is different.
The demons and aliens recognise that he is the 'Son of David', that is language to describe the Messiah, and that he is the Son of God.
But his own people could not accept that he was any different to them.
And I think that is the reason Jesus 'could do no deed of power there'.

It was not from lack of power or compassion - that is clearly not the case, because he does cure some sick people.
Rather, he 'could not' do them because there was no point in doing them.

Given that they were refusing to believe that he came from God, if he did such works then all it would do is wow them - and then make them more hostile to him. Why won't he tell us where he got all this?
And Jesus was never driven simply by the compassion of the moment.
If he had just healed all the people who came to him who were suffering, then it would have taken up every minute of his day, been very localised and limited, and inevitably been temporary. Those people who had been healed, would have fallen ill again, would suffer again, and would die.
No, Jesus was driven by a much deeper purpose and a greater compassion: he had come to set free all who put their trust in him as Messiah and Son of God - to set us free ultimately from all suffering, from sin and death.
That is why, before he goes to the cross, Jesus' main focus is not on healing, but on teaching.
We see that in the second half of verse 6: 'Jesus went about the villages teaching'.
The answer to unbelief was not to wow them, but to teach them.

So Jesus 'could not' do such 'deeds of power' in his home town of Nazareth, because it would have been pointless. The deeds were meant to point to who he was, that he is the Messiah bringing in the Kingdom of God, and if people are point blank refusing to even consider that he is the Son of God, then why do the signs?

We do need to be careful that we are not blinded by the little boxes in our minds which tell us what is possible. And we need to be careful that we are not blinded by our pride, envy and jealousy - of a Royal family who live just like us, or of 'one of us' who is different.
It is that pride, identity insecurity, envy and jealousy which ultimately blinds us to seeing who Jesus is.

Comments

Most popular posts

Isaiah 49:1-7 What does it mean to be a servant of God?

Isaiah 49:1-7 This passage speaks of two servants. The first servant is Israel, the people of God. The second servant will bring Israel back to God. But then it seems that the second servant is also Israel.  It is complicated! But Christians have understood that this passage is speaking of Jesus. He is both the servant, who called Israel back to God, but he is also Israel itself: he is the embodiment, the fulfilment of Israel In the British constitution the Queen is the head of the State. But she is also, to a degree, the personal embodiment of the state. What the Queen does, at an official level, the UK does. If the Queen greets another head of State, then the UK is greeting that other nation. And if you are a UK citizen then you are, by definition, a subject of Her Majesty. She is the constitutional glue, if this helps, who holds us all together. So she is both the servant of the State, but she is also the embodiment of the State. And Jesus, to a far greater

The separation of good from evil: Matthew 13.24-30,36-43

Matthew 13.24-30,36-43 We look this morning at a parable Jesus told about the Kingdom on God (Matthew talks of Kingdom of heaven but others speak of it as the Kingdom of God) 1. In this world, good and evil grow together. ‘The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man; 38the field is the world, and the good seed are the children of the kingdom; the weeds are the children of the evil one, 39and the enemy who sowed them is the devil’ (v37) The Son of Man (Jesus) sows the good seed. In the first story that Jesus tells in Matthew, the seed is the Word of God, and different kinds of people are like the different soils which receive the seed. Here the illustration changes a bit, and we become the seed. There is good seed and there is weed, evil, seed. This story is not explaining why there is evil. It is simply telling us that there is evil and that it was sown by the enemy of God. And it tells us that there is good and there is bad. There are people who have their face turned towards

On infant baptism

Children are a gift from God. And as always with God’s gifts to us, they are completely and totally undeserved. You have been given the astonishing gift of Benjamin, and the immense privilege and joy of loving him for God, and of bringing him up for God. Our greatest desire for our children is to see them grow, be happy, secure, to flourish and be fulfilled, to bring blessing to others, to be part of the family of God and to love God. And in baptism you are placing Benjamin full square in the family of God. I know that those of us here differ in our views about infant baptism. The belief and the practice of the Church of England is in line with that of the historic church, but also – at the time of the Reformation – of Calvin and the other so-called ‘magisterial reformers’ (which is also the stance taken in the Westminster confession).  They affirmed, on the basis of their covenantal theology, which sees baptism as a new covenant version of circumcision, of Mark 10:13-16 , and part