The claim that the disciples abandoned their livelihoods to follow Jesus would offer a useful lesson for early hearers of the gospel tradition, like similar accounts in antiquity (many of them likely true).96 Biographers, historians, and often even rhetoricians used stories that were true to illustrate these lessons, so there is likely historical information here as well as hortatory value.
James and John left behind not only their fishing boat, representing their livelihood, but their father and the family business (Mk 1:20). Likewise, though the disciples apparently later took wives with them on their travels (1 Cor 9:5), this was probably not the case during Jesus’ public ministry; none of the women traveling with Jesus’ group (Mk 15:40-41; Lk 8:2-3) are said to be the male disciples’ wives.97 Although Galilee was small enough that the disciples could have conceivably returned home regularly, these narratives suggest a style of discipleship more demanding than usual.
Although disciples of rabbis normally remained with their wives during study,98 later rabbis did praise those who stayed away from home for years of Torah study.99 The stories are probably fictitious — many teachers forbade leaving one’s wife for more than thirty days to engage in Torah study100 — but the stories probably do presuppose that some Jewish men went away from home to study with famous teachers of the Law.101 Jesus apparently demanded more in this way than the vast majority of his contemporaries.
In a culture emphatic about familial respect, Jesus taught his disciples that following him took precedence over the approval or even civility of one’s family. 102 Some radical philosophers demanded such loyalty to philosophy and some rabbis to Torah, but few teachers demanded such loyalty to themselves. Jesus told disciples that whoever loved parents or children more than him were unworthy of him (Matt 10:37//Lk 14:26). Luke’s harsher wording (“hating” them) could mean “love less” (Matt 10:37),103 but is probably original; Jesus undoubtedly employed the more graphic expression as hyperbole, and Matthew has communicated the sense less offensively. Many viewed honoring one’s parents as the highest social obligation;104 even if some spoke of honoring one’s teacher more,105 no Jewish teacher would speak of “hating” one’s parents by comparison. God alone was worthy of that role.106
Nor did Jesus merely apply such social demands to his disciples; in tradition coherent with his teaching, he followed such demands himself. Jesus relativizes his loyalty to his own family, defining kinship by adherence to God’s will more than by genetic relationship (Mk 3:33-35). Because such language could have invited censure against Jesus from later Christians’ critics as well as from his own contemporaries,107 it seems unlikely that later Christians invented it. (That Jesus himself did not mind offending critics may be suggested by other stark sayings familiar in the Jesus tradition; his prophetic role; and the relative brevity of his ministry prior to his execution.)
Moreover, the context of the saying involves the unbelief of Jesus’ immediate family. Given the role of “James the Lord’s brother” in the later church (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; 1 Cor 15:7; Gal 1:19; 2:9; Jude 1), one would rather expect the early Christians to have emphasized his virtues and so to avoid the charge of nepotism.108 The stark portrayal here is not apt to reflect an invention of the early Jewish Christians who honored James. Thus it is likely that Jesus had some conflict with his immediate family regarding his mission, as Mark indicates.
