Leaving Zebedee - Mark 1:19-20

19 When he had gone a little farther, he saw James son of Zebedee and his brother John in a boat, preparing their nets. 20 Without delay he called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men and followed him.

In the previous verses, we heard about Jesus calling the fisherman brothers Simon and Andrew to be his talmidim (disciples).  In the verses above, Jesus travels a little further along the sea of Galilee and calls a second pair of brothers who are fishermen, James and John.  

Looking at the previous verses, we discussed how the Jesus of Mark considers himself as a Rabbi and teacher who had authority (Hebrew s'mikhahto) to interpret Scripture and had his own interpretation, or "yoke", to instruct to students.  He presented himself as this although no credentials are given that would allow him to claim this authority or position as would be expected in the Jewish community. So far in the narrative, Jesus has only had the revelation of God's favor during his baptism with John, spent a period of time in the wilderness, and then done some preaching in Galilee, spreading a message similar to that of John the Baptist.  This provoked the question of why the brothers would take up his offer to become his talmidim.

We also looked at the commitment expected of someone who became the talmidim of a Rabbi.  They were understood to follow the Rabbi in his travels, to submit to the Rabbi's interpretation of the Scriptures and its application to their lives, and to totally devote their time to becoming like their Rabbi.  It was assumed that they would spend their entire time listening to and observing the teacher to know how to understand the Scripture and how to put it into practice.

The one difference between the calling of Simon and Andrew in the previous verses and the calling of James and John in this passage, is the part with them immediately leaving their father behind.  In both incidents the following of Jesus is portrayed as an immediate, on the spot, action, where nets were dropped and all else left with no looking back.  Here their father is left still sitting in the fishing boat while they start trailing after Jesus down the beach with an implication that they said no goodbyes, or even stopped to discuss this decision with their father.  

It was not uncommon, for young men to leave their family and occupation to follow a Rabbi for a period of time if called.  However, in First Century Jewish Palestine, where Patriarchy and the family were the center of authority and allegiance, it is difficult to imagine one making this move without first being granted permission and receiving a blessing from one's father. Since the family was the primary economic unit, it would have been similar as well to asking for an extended leave from your employer.  It is possible that since their father was right there in the story when they are called that they received some sort of nod from him which is not mentioned.  But consider the brothers Simon and Andrew in the preceding verses, there is no mention of their father being on the scene when they drop everything and follow Jesus, and again nothing about swinging by home to ask permission or make arrangements.

That also brings up the question of Simon's wife.  The others may have been married as well, but the only one the Gospels make mention of is Simon who's wife's mother is healed of a high fever by Jesus later in the chapter.  Lois Tverberg, an author on the subject of Jesus as a Rabbi, states that:

A disciple had to ask his wife’s permission to be away from home to study longer than 30 days.  http://ourrabbijesus.com/2013/09/16/a-question-about-disciples-rabbis/

However, there is no mention of Simon doing this before or after accepting Jesus' call.

This introduces another aspect of Jesus' teaching as given in Mark and the other Gospels; it wasn't exactly pro-family.  In spite of a Western Cultural Christian spin that is almost unquestioned, the Christianity of Jesus is not family centered, or based on, "family values". There is a reason why no one quotes Jesus on Family Day.

It is not that Jesus was specifically anti-family; he was just against tribalism in general where it restricts universal and unbiased love. Jesus proclaimed social equality, inclusion, and the indiscriminate nature of God's love which he called us to imitate. As such, Jesus warned us against any cultural, national, or religious division that encourages people to prefer, favor, or give allegiance to some individuals or groups while discriminating against, discounting, or marginalizing others.

Jesus' most famous statements on this in terms of family are:

If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26 NIV)

Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. (Matthew 10:37 NIV)

Hate in Hebrew doesn’t have the same connotation it does in the west. Hate in Hebrew is leesno whose root word is meeshno which means less important or second place.  For these passages, let me also point out that, for the Gospel writers, Jesus and, "The Way of Jesus", were synonymous and that Jesus' Way was a vision of a God of indiscriminate and unpreferential love. Seen from this perspective, Jesus was telling his followers not to love anyone any less than with the love normally reserved in their society for family members.

I would contend that Jesus' point was not that we should not love our family, but that our love should be universal and that his concern was that family devotion and obligation should not exclude those outside our family, that this same love and duty should extend beyond all social groupings whether it be family, religion, nationality, or social caste based on wealth and power.

Despite this, many conservative right-wing Christian denominations and groups peddle Christianity as being primarily about, "Family Values". This phrase and the term, "Pro-Family", have become code words to promote a doctrine that narrows the definition of family to exclude same sex couples and their children and that further defines family in patriarchal terms that enshrine unequal power relationships. It is interesting to note that the States in the U.S. where conservative Evangelicals who promote the ideology of "Christian Family Values" have the most sizable population also report the highest number of unplanned pregnancies and S.T.D.s as well as the highest rates of domestic abuse.

The book of Mark is the least, "Family Friendly", of the Gospels.  There is no backstory about his parents, no genealogy, no nativity narrative, and no stories about a young Jesus growing up and visiting the Temple with his family.  He just appears for his baptism with John as fully formed. 

I can imagine that there were many in the community of Mark who had left family behind to be part of this commune with some even disowned by their families.  There would also have been the destitute who had no family connections or support to speak of.  To these people, living in a society where family was the most important source of status, economic security, and support, a message that set family as secondary and of less importance than the Way they were following would be empowering and affirming.