CRITICAL NOTES
Luke 8:19-21.—St. Luke gives this incident as occurring after the parable of the sower, though without any precise note of time: St. Matthew and St. Mark relate it as occurring before that parable was spoken. It is probable that the latter evangelists follow the more correct order of time.
Luke 8:19. His mother and His brethren.—From the fact that Joseph is not mentioned, it is reasonable to suppose that he was dead. The fact that the members of His family came thus in a body seems to indicate that they wished to control His actions. St. Mark says that “they went out to lay hold on Him: for they said. He is beside Himself.” The great excitement created by His teaching and miracles, His formal choice of apostles, the unfavourable reception accorded to Him in Jerusalem, convinced them that He was bent upon a career that was bound to be a failure; and mental alienation on His part seemed to be the only explanation of His conduct. St. John says, “His brethren did not believe in Him” (Luke 7:5). Who these “brethren” were is an almost insoluble problem. Three hypotheses on the subject have been maintained:
(1) that they were actual uterine brothers of our Lord, the sons of Joseph and Mary;
(2) that they were legal half-brothers, the sons of Joseph by a former marriage;
(3) that they were cousins of our Lord, the sons of Clopas (or Alphæus) and Mary his wife, sister of the Virgin, mentioned John 19:25. For a full discussion of these various hypotheses we refer the reader to Lightfoot on Galatians, Alford in his prolegomena to the Epistle of James and his note on Matthew 13:55, article James in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, and to article Jacobus in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopädie. On the whole the third of these hypotheses seems to be more in accordance with the passages of Scripture bearing on the matter than are either of the other two. The allusion in Mark 6:3 to Jesus as the son of Mary seems undoubtedly to distinguish Him as her only son from the “brethren” there named—a fact which if allowed would be fatal to the first hypothesis. While if Joseph had sons older than Jesus by a first wife, we could not understand how Jesus could be heir through him of the throne of David.
Luke 8:21. Are these.—St. Matthew and St. Mark add vividness to the narrative by their description of Christ’s gesture and look as He spoke the words: the one says, “He stretched forth His hand toward His disciples,” and the other, “He looked round about on them which sat about Him.” The words assert the paramount claims of spiritual over natural relationships, and show that Jesus Himself exemplified the rule which He laid down for His disciples, and allowed no ties of human affection to draw Him aside from the path of duty (cf. Luke 14:26).
. Hence the two evangelists are in general agreement on this point. St. Matthew introduces it without any reference to time.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— Luke 8:19-21
Natural and Spiritual Relationships.—The purpose for which Christ’s mother and brethren came explains the words He uttered on this occasion. It was not merely to see Him, but to persuade Him to give up the work in which He was engaged, or even to use force to compel Him to yield to their desire. From the zeal and ardour which seemed to render Him indifferent to food and repose, they concluded that He was beside Himself (Mark 3:20-21), and probably also they were alarmed at the enmity towards Him which the Pharisees had begun to manifest. From their action and from the words which it evoked from Christ we may learn several important lessons.
I. Faith is often found wanting in those who are most highly favoured in outward circumstances.—Who could have been more highly favoured than the mother and brethren of Jesus, in being permitted for so many years to witness His pure and holy life? And yet they were at this time devoid of the faith in Him which is necessary for genuine discipleship. Others who had seen and known but little of Him had accepted Him as their Saviour and Lord, while they were quite out of sympathy with the work God had sent Him to do. Familiarity even with holy things is only too apt to breed indifference, and, as Christ Himself said, a prophet often finds comparative strangers more willing to listen to his message than those of his own country and kindred.
II. There may be collision between the claims of natural affection and those of the kingdom of God.—Christ Himself had now to choose between the two, and to subordinate the lower to the higher. And a like experience is familiar to all who have ever attempted to serve Him. This painful conflict is perhaps seen in its sharpest forms in cases where Christianity is beginning to make its way in heathen society. New converts have often to sacrifice ties of kindred and friendship for the sake of Christ, and to seem to be cruel to those whom they love most dearly. But in no state of society is the conflict between lower and higher duties altogether unknown. Circumstances often arise in which a sensitive conscience guides the believer to take a line of action which may be disapproved of by those whose good opinion and affection he is naturally most anxious to retain. The rule he should follow is here laid down for him by the example of his Master.
III. Obedience to God’s will means intimate union with Christ.—It was His meat and drink to do the will of His Father, and all who are imbued with the same spirit come into the closest fellowship with Him. It is quite evident that the language which Christ here uses involves claims of a unique kind—that no mere man, however holy, could thus present Himself as the bond of union between heaven and earth. The high privileges which He thus proclaims as belonging to those who become His disciples place rich and poor, high-born and lowly, on the same level. And the union which exists between Him and them death itself cannot break.
IV. These family relationships suggest the spontaneous affection which believers should cherish towards Christ and towards each other.—The mere fact of relationships, such as are implied in the words “mother, sister, brother,” naturally calls up feelings of love, and suggests strong and indissoluble ties. We experience a kind of horror at meeting with those who seem to be wanting in this natural affection, which appears to us as rather an instinctive impulse than an emotion which we can cultivate. Christ here uses these relationships with all that they imply to represent the spiritual ties formed between Him and His true disciples. And the common tie that binds them to Him should bind them to each other. So do we find it in actual fact. Christians recognise their brethren everywhere among those who believe in Christ, though they may differ from them in race, and blood, and colour. The relation of spirit to spirit is the profoundest of all. Civil wars, love of gain, and a hundred other things have been known to break the family bond, and to extinguish natural affection. But the mutual relations of believers with each other have been least disturbed of any, when those ties have been real and not nominal.
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON Luke 8:19-21
Luke 8:19. “His mother and His brethren.”—This is one of the cases in which the parallel narratives in the other Gospels serve to supplement the history given by St. Luke, and to make its significance clearer. Had we no other information than that given here, we should not have known the reason why His mother and brethren desired to see Him; we should not have had reason for supposing that they were bent upon checking or interfering with His work; and His depreciation of natural relationships as compared with spiritual would have seemed uncalled for. We learn, however, from Mark 3 that His mother and brethren were
(1) alarmed at the rupture between Him and the Pharisees, and
(2) solicitous also concerning His health—for He and His disciples were so thronged by the multitude as not to have leisure “so much as to eat bread.” They came to the conclusion that He was beside Himself, and wished to put Him under restraint; or they alleged this as an excuse for His procedure, in order to pacify the anger of His enemies. Their conduct was, therefore, blameworthy, as prompted by excess of natural affection, an assumption of authority over Him or worldly policy. The comment of St. Chrysostom on these words is interesting, even if it show us only that belief in the sinlessness of Mary was not in his time an article of the Catholic faith: “What she attempted came of overmuch love of honour; for she wished to show to the people that she had power and authority over her son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also she came unseasonably. Observe then her and their recklessness. For when they ought to have gone in and listened with the multitude, or, if they were not so minded, to have waited for His bringing His discourse to an end, and then to have come near, they call Him out, and do this before all, exhibiting overmuch love of honour, and wishing to show that with much authority they enjoin Him; and this, too, the Evangelist shows that he is blaming; for with this very allusion he says, ‘while He yet talked to the people’; as if he should say,’ What! was there no other opportunity? What! could they not have spoken with Him in private?’ … Whence it is evident that they did this solely out of vain-glory.”
Luke 8:21. The Spiritual Relationship takes Precedence of the Natural.—The reply of Jesus is virtually a statement of the fact that when natural and spiritual relationships come into conflict the former must be made to give way. “He does not despise His mother, but He gives higher honour to His Father” (Bengel). The principle Christ announced was one which had already been approved in the word of God, in the blessing pronounced by Moses upon the tribe of Levi: “Who said unto his father and his mother, I have not seen him; neither did he acknowledge his brethren, nor knew his own children: for they have observed Thy word, and kept Thy covenant” (Deuteronomy 33:9). We have therefore the plain lesson taught us that we must not allow ourselves to be guided solely by natural feelings, but when earthly ties bring us into conflict with our duties towards God obey the higher call even at the risk of seeming to be cruel and hard-hearted. No friends or relatives have claims upon us superior to those which spring from our obligations to God and Christ.
“My mother and My brethren are these.”—Perhaps in the first relationship Christ referred specially to those devout women mentioned in the earlier part of the chapter, as ministering to His wants and caring for Him with all the affectionateness of their sex; in the second He had in view the circle of apostles and disciples immediately surrounding Him. It is to be noticed that our Lord, though in St. Matthew’s narrative He introduces the additional term “sister” into His answer, does not, and indeed could not, introduce “father,” inasmuch as He never speaks of an earthly father. His Father was in heaven.—Alford.
Son of Man.—He is Son of man as well as Son of Mary, and in one sense is more identified with the race than with her.
“Brother, sister, and mother”—These words define the compass and limits of the relationship of the Son of God and man with the human race. This relationship has already been thrown open to the whole race by His birth in the flesh, already involved in the grace offered to all; but it is completed only in those who do the will of God, His Father in heaven.—Stier.
A New Relationship.—Nor is the separation between earthly and spiritual ties necessarily final: His mother and brethren, by becoming His disciples also, will become bound to Him by a closer than natural relationship.
But One True Nobility.—There is but one true nobility—that of obedience to God. This is greater than that of the Virgin’s relationship to Christ. Therefore when a woman in the crowd exclaimed, “Blessed is the womb that bare Thee, and the paps which Thou hast sucked,” He did not say “She is not My mother,” but “If she desires to be blessed, let her do the will of God”; He said, “Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.”—Chrysostom.
A Widely Extended Privilege.—With the apparent severity of the answer there is wonderful gentleness blended: the claim to relationship is denied to be the exclusive right of a few, but the privilege of making it is extended to the many who obeyed His word and accepted His teaching. All who then heard the word of God and did it, or who should hereafter hear and do, are taken into this intimate fellowship with Himself. “This was surely sent for the comfort of as many as should come after; and it is well worthy of remark how our blessed Lord in countless ways contrived that ‘as many as are afar off’—even we at this distant day—should be made to feel that privileges of the highest order are ours—privileges equal to any which were enjoyed by kinsmen and disciples in the days of the Son of man” (Burgon).
One Family.—How glorious is the thought that there is a family even upon earth of which the Son of God holds Himself a part; a family the loving bond and reigning principle of which is subjection to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and so embracing high and low, rude and refined, bond and free, of every kindred and every age that have tasted that the Lord is gracious; a family whose members can at once understand each other and take sweetest counsel together, though meeting for the first time from the ends of the earth—while with their nearest relatives, who are but the children of this world, they have no sympathy in such things; a family which death cannot break up, but only transfer to their Father’s house! Did Christians but habitually realise and act upon this, as did their blessed Master, what would be the effect upon the Church and upon the world?—Brown.
Spiritual Affinity the Closest of All.—The deepest affinity is that of the spirit. Hence the supremacy, even in the present provisional state of things, of the wedlock relationship. Hence, too, the still higher supremacy of the relationship that will rule in the world of glory (Matthew 22:30).—Morison.