The Homecoming
Mark 6:1-6

Fr. Jijo Kandamkulathy CMF
Claretian Publications, Macau

Returning home after some time of work is an all-too-familiar experience for most of us. The overseas working community faces this regularly. Relatives and friends enjoy as long as the returning worker stays with them for a short time and has enough to give a “treat” for them. When the returnees start making the slightest demand on changing their spending habits or working culture, those who appreciated thus far will take offense at them. There is disenchantment, and people start asking, “When are you returning? What is the point of staying here?”

Jesus goes through a similar experience of enthusiastic acceptance and disenchanted rejection on his return home. He returned to Nazareth for a homestay for a few days after picking some ministry and followers in Capernaum. The townspeople were enthusiastic to see the miracles that he performed, and of course, listening to the disciples who narrated Capernaum miracle stories with great gusto. But after his appearance in the synagogue, there was discontentment and anger against him. What caused the discontent among the people? When did their amusement get replaced by hatred?

There is something in what he said in the synagogue that they could not accept. The word “prophet” gives us a clue to the difference of opinion. Jesus presented himself as a prophet who was teaching with some authority. When we read the parallel text from Luke, that assumption proves true. In the Lukan text, he reads from Isaiah and declares that the prophecy was getting fulfilled on him as the Messiah. There is a perceptual chasm between the townspeople and Jesus. Jesus considers himself as the Messiah of God, but the people do not!

The people were not prepared to accept that someone they knew from their close neighborhood with no prophetic lineage in the blood could start teaching them. Jesus might have challenged them to convert into the values of the Kingdom of God. The people, instead, question the credentials of the one who invites them.

Another theological element involved in the narrative is the messianic reference. Missing the father’s name from among the list of the familiar people they gave is crucial. This could be because Joseph was probably dead already, but not necessarily. A son is known by his father’s name according to the Jewish custom. The conspicuous absence of the mention of the father is a way the evangelist says that although they knew him to some extent, they did not know who his father actually was, which we know is God.

They were also trying to discredit a messianic claim by establishing his family roots. They fail in that attempt, as they do not trace the father. They know that the Messiah will be from the Davidic dynasty. In their very attempt to domesticate him as the man next door and not an heir of David, the author gives us a clue that they did not know Jesus fully. In what they tried to disprove; the readers find proof for his messianic mission.

Discrediting people based on where they come from, on the color of their skin, or their culture is a prejudice that we have poorly overcome. Truth remains as such irrespective of the speaker. Rejecting the truth by discrediting the announcer speaks more about how unprepared the listener is to pay the cost of accepting the truth.

Jesus was not able to do great miracles there except curing some sick and laying of the hands. One might mistake that Jesus, after all, is not as powerful as he claims to be! Well, this is a misplaced focus on the narrative. Greater miracles require greater personal transformation in faith, which they were not ready to concede.

Most often, our requirements do not go beyond little miracles of healing. We need Jesus only as a quick fix. Transformation of life based on the values of the Kingdom of God is a prerequisite for greater miracles. Accommodating the gospel as an insignificant part of our lives in the clutter of many other things we believe and practice neutralizes its potency to transform our lives. It is not due to the impotence of the word that we do not experience the Kingdom of God but for want of willingness to transform ourselves.

© Claretian Publications, Macau
Cum Approbatione Ecclesiastica 2024