Luke 4:21-30 (NRSV)
21 Then he began to say to them, "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing." Jesus sums up the sermon here. They are ear-witnesses that the promise that the time of the dawning of grace is being fulfilled today.[1] A theme of Luke will be the fulfillment of Scripture. Jesus is so bold as to suggest that the prophetic words of liberation spoken by Isaiah find fulfillment in his own person. In quoting from Isaiah, Jesus is saying that what the prophet pronounced among the exiles finds fulfillment in the ministry of Jesus. Thus, this text foretells the very activities that Jesus' Galilean ministry is about to undertake--release, and recovery. The reading from Isaiah relates God’s promise to rescue and care for the downtrodden Israelites who are returning from exile in Babylon. The message of this passage coincides with the content of the news brought by Jesus. This day, the acceptable year of the Lord, has dawned. This day the message of peace sounds in their ears. This day takes place the liberation that Isaiah proclaims. The reason is that Jesus is present as the One anointed and sent by God, who has the authority to declare liberty with his word and accomplish it with the act of the Word, to bring in the new age in the person of Jesus. He accomplishes it as he speaks. What Jesus proclaims becomes actuality the moment Jesus does so. The proclamation of Jesus is the blast of the trumpet that inaugurates the new year of the Lord. The time that Isaiah proclaimed is the time of Jesus.[2] For Jesus to assert that the jubilee year has inaugurated with his arrival is to focus on the forgiveness for all debts, all sins, that the Messiah brings. Jesus' pronouncement is clear -- those present have just heard Isaiah's prophecy spoken by the very one his words sought to describe. He, Jesus, is the Messiah and the one who will bring about all Isaiah had promised. This “today” heralds the coming of Jesus as a fulfillment of prophecy.[3] The prophet proclaims salvation through the breaking in of the lordship of God. Since the figure of the messenger of eschatological peace still had a role in Jewish life in the days of Jesus, we cannot rule out the possibility that Jesus understood his message in these terms. He proclaimed the reign of God to be imminent, breaking in already in his own work and with acceptance of his message, and accompanied by the deeds of salvation to which the prophet referred.[4] This today, with its fulfillment, with its intimate connection with the name and history of Jesus, is the content of the apostolic message and the meaning of the life of the apostolic community. The today of the church is the acceptable year, the great Sabbath, the fulfilled time of Jesus.[5]
In saying such extravagant things about Jesus, Christians can only mean that he fulfills this passage of scripture in a provisional, proleptic, and anticipatory way. He fulfills this passage during his ministry. As readers of the story of Jesus, we need to pay attention to the ways in which the words and deeds of Jesus demonstrate his embodiment of the prophesy. The church needs to see itself as a continuation of this ministry. The truth of the nature of this fulfillment rests in a redemptive future for humanity and the rest of creation, anticipated in the resurrection of Jesus.
22a All spoke well (to bear witness) of him and were amazed at the gracious words (or the outward beauty of his words) that came from his mouth. Thus, those listening provided testimony to support the veracity of what he said, and what Jesus said had an outward beauty that attracted one to it.
Luke 4:22b-30 (Mark 6:1-6a, Matt 13:53-58) recounts in the form of a biographical story the transition from a friendly visit to Nazareth to the rejection of Jesus at Nazareth.
22bThey said, “Is not this Joseph’s son?” Mark 6:2b-3 is the source, but Luke offers a summary while Matthew 13:54b-57 and Mark follow each other closely. The question stresses the ordinary quality of the lineage of Jesus. They think Jesus is trying to elevate himself above his ordinary station in life, becoming a basis for rejecting his message. The point is that Jesus has no distinguished heritage. The reader of this gospel knows differently, however (3:23), for Jesus is the Son of the Father (3:21-22). So impressive is Jesus, apparently, that some present are led to wonder aloud whether such eloquence could possibly belong to the carpenter’s son whom they watched grow up. 23 He said to them, in a way that suggests their question rubs Jesus the wrong way and responding sharply responding to the buzz about him. “Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, unique to Luke, ‘Doctor, cure yourself!’[6] In Gen. R. 23 (15c): Doctor, rise and heal your own lameness. Further, you will say, ‘Do here also in your hometown the things that we have heard you did at Capernaum.’ ” Capernaum was a fishing village 20 miles northeast of Nazareth. In 4:14-15, Luke has said Jesus preached in the synagogues around Galilee. Luke will not record a visit to Capernaum until the next section, 4:31-41. Here is evidence that even though Luke has re-ordered the traditional material, the saying of Jesus remains untouchable for him. Oddly, the statement implies that Jesus favors Capernaum or that he is being unfair to Nazareth. The story explains why Jesus was powerless in Nazareth. [7] It was preserved in the Jewish-Christian church and focuses upon the saying of Jesus, which would have provided some encouragement to those engaged in the early missionary preaching of the Jewish-Christian community. Yet, Capernaum comes under judgment from Jesus (10:15). This led to Jesus forming a dominical saying, an observation based upon the conduct of those present, a piece of proverbial wisdom, a memorable aphorism (John 6:44). 24 He said, “Truly I tell you, no prophet is accepted in the prophet’s hometown.” Jesus includes himself among the prophets.[8] The source is Mark 6:4, which Matthew 13:57 follows more closely than does Luke, and an indirect one John 4:44. The point seems to be that the rebuff of Jesus by the residents of Nazareth is ironically proof of Jesus’ prophetic identity. The response of Jesus is to offer a bit of wisdom. Jesus’ philosophical interpretation of his rejection further demonstrates the depth and truth of his wisdom. As we would expect, Jesus responds to what the people are saying and thinking about him. These words ought to remind us to be open to receiving the mystery contained in people who are familiar to us. In fact, our familiarity with them may blind us to the mystery concealed in them. Out of that mystery, however, may well come a word from the Lord we may miss precisely because we are so familiar. We need to exercise care. Further, it is not completely accurate that Jesus was received as a prophet in other places. For instance, after Jesus healed the Gerasene demoniac, the villagers begged him to leave (8:37=5:17). In addition, several individuals laughed at Jesus when he asserted that Jairus’ daughter was not dead, but merely sleeping (8:52-53=Mark 5:39-40). Yet, the saying reflects another response to Jesus as the crowds gather to listen to him, and by others who believe in and follow him (cf. 8:4=Mark 4:1; 8:40-42, 48=Mark 5:21-24, 34).
The response of the people of Nazareth, even their endorsement, underscores his intent to distance himself from counterfeit prophets and align himself with renown prophetic heroes like Micaiah and Jeremiah (I Kings 22:13-28; Jeremiah 5:30-31; 23:16-17). Jesus foreshadows his teaching in 6:22-23, 26, warning his disciples to beware when others speak well of them, for the Jewish people in their history could speak well of false prophets. He also sets the stage for his subsequent pronouncements. The response underscores a central theme of Luke, in that his own people will reject Jesus and pagans will accept him. Jesus, then, is assuming that the desire to see miracles on the part of the citizens of the town (note again that this desire is put on their lips by Jesus!) implies a lack of confidence in the authenticity of his prophetic status and identity. However, Luke turns this perceived rejection by means of two examples drawn from the Old Testament in which the Lord sends two of the most prominent prophets of Israel away from their own people to foreigners.
In Luke 4:25-27, Jesus will offer two examples in the form of prophetic sayings, the verses unique to Luke. They show that Jesus lived within the Old Testament and drew the inspiration for his mission and ministry from it.[9] He points to the opposition between Israel and the Gentiles. The verses come to Luke from the tradition, and an Aramaic one. These sayings do not relate directly to the context, which is the issue of Capernaum-Nazareth.[10] In this first example, 4:25-26, Jesus alludes to the story of Elijah and the widow of Zarephath found in I Kings 17:1-24. 25 But the truth is, there were many widows in Israel in the time of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, and there was a severe famine over all the land; 26 yet Elijah was sent to none of them except to a widow at Zarephath in Sidon. The example anticipates and summarizes the theme of the Gospel of Luke. A major theme of Luke is the Christian mission to carry the gospel to pagans. After God has brought a severe drought upon the whole land of Israel because of its unfaithfulness, the Lord sends Elijah outside Israel to the small town of Zarephath, which is on the coast of the Mediterranean just south of Sidon, an area that is also suffering under the drought. There Elijah comes to the aid of a poor widow who shares her last bit of food with him. First, he promises that her flour jar and oil jug will miraculously stay filled until the drought ends (I Kings 17:14), and later he resurrects her only son after he dies of an illness (I Kings 17:17-24). The second example, verse 27, comes from the successor to Elijah, Elisha. 27 there were also many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed except Naima the Syrian.” When Naaman, the commander of the Syrian army, develops leprosy, he decides to seek out the prophet Elisha, about whom he has learned from a young Israelite slave girl (2 Kings 5:1-5). Naaman eventually finds Elisha, and after overcoming his stubbornness, follows Elisha’s advice and receives healing for his affliction (II Kings 5:8-19). In both cases, then, a prophet of Israel provides miraculous assistance to non-Israelites. How do these accounts function in Luke’s narrative? In short, they serve to foreshadow the important Lukan themes of the rejection of the gospel by the Jewish people and the subsequent turn to mission to the Gentiles. Throughout the gospel of Luke, we find signs that point to the rejection of Jesus by the people of Israel. Examples include Jesus’ laments over Jerusalem (13:31-35; 19:41-44) and parables like that of the great dinner (14:15-24). Of course, the most significant example of rejection is the condemnation to crucifixion on the part of the leaders of the Jewish people (22:66-71). At the same time, there are clear indications that Luke envisions a mission to the Gentiles, as one can see in the song of Simeon (2:29-32) and the parable of the wicked tenants (20:9-18, esp. 20:16). In the book of Acts, we further learn that these two themes have a close relationship. The mission to the Gentiles becomes possible precisely because of the rejection of the gospel by many of the Jews (see Acts 13:44-52 for a good example of the relationship between these themes).
Jesus points to other heroic figures in the Jewish past, prophets whom the people did not receive well, but whom history has placed within the canonical prophets of the Jewish people. Human beings do not always recognize the hero, but in Jewish tradition, God had a way of offering a verdict on the truly heroic figures of Jewish history. Jesus is placing himself in that line of heroic figures. He will have his defining moment throughout his ministry, as he points the way to what God is like and what human beings can be within the rule of God. Of course, the chief defining moment will be the final hours of his life. The verdict of his heavenly Father will come in the resurrection.
In verses 28-30, we see graphically the response of the hometown to Jesus. 28 When they heard this, rage filled all in the synagogue. 29 They got up, drove him out of the town, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they might hurl him off the cliff. Jesus was repeatedly threatened with violence, the text suggesting stoning.[11] 30 However, he passed through the midst of them and went on his way. Jesus’ chilly reception at Nazareth and his allusion to prophets whom God had sent to those outside Israel thus encapsulate Luke’s grand narrative plan whereby the failure of the Jews to accept the gospel en masse ultimately becomes part of God’s plan to bring the message of salvation to the Gentiles. In Luke’s hands, then, the pattern by which he will understand the ministry of Jesus derives from the great prophets of old, whom the people continually harassed but whom also remain faithful to the call and message the Lord gave them. The end of this passage in Luke simply reinforces this portrait. Just as so many prophets had narrowly escaped violence at the hands of the people to whom they prophesied, so, too, Jesus walks right through the angry mob that seeks to throw him down a cliff because of the offense of his words. This shocking attempt of the Nazarenes to kill Jesus, one of their own, poignantly foreshadows the successful plot to kill him hatched by those in Jerusalem whom his prophetic message also stung.
Allow me, for a moment, to direct your attention to the movie characterization of heroes and villains. The great villains are clearly so. Hannibal Lector, Norman Bates, Darth Vader, and the Wicked Witch of the West have a larger than life and mythic quality to them. We would like it very much if we could separate out evil people from the rest of us, isolate them, maybe kill them, and then the rest of us would be fine. In America, we reveal this desire in the way we handle political differences. The other is not so much an opponent you want to defeat as an evil you want to eliminate. Therefore, if you are progressive, the opponent is a racist, bigot, collaborator with Russia, evil and like Hitler. When evidence does not back it up, you dig in deeper, so deep is your hatred and commitment to the evil of the opponent. Such an approach to political difference blinds one to the condescension and arrogance contained in one’s own stance. More dangerously, it blinds one to the potential of violence to which such beliefs could lead. Antifa and other groups has become the military arm of the progressive movement, using violence and physical intimidation to advance their goals. In any case, I hope that in wording it this way, the reader recognizes the folly of such a position. The reality, of course, is that evil runs through the heart of every human being. We are all capable of it. Who wants to kill a part of our own hearts? [12] My point is that the crowd in Nazareth acts heroically in siding with Jesus and then quickly turn to evil and seek to kill one whom they had seen grown up before their eyes. Progressives could go from supporting Obama to supporting a “silent coup” against his successor. They could go from Obama to supporting infanticide. Yes, human beings have such evil running through their hearts. The crowd at Nazareth is interesting for another reason. They are pious people who turn violent. Many citizens after 9/11/2001 think religion is the cause of most of the violence in human history. Yet, students of these matters suggest such thinking does not have evidence to back it up. The two world wars of the 20th century had no direct religious factor. The four dictators most responsible for killing millions, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hitler, were committed atheists (the first three) or unconventional (Hitler) in their beliefs.[13] Further, according to one study, of the 1700 wars fought in human history, 123 or 7% had a religious cause.[14]
Yet, the sacred texts of the major religions all have isolated passages that, in the wrong hands, could seek divine justification for violence. One can only hope that believers will have a way of interpreting such passages that will lead to peace.
We also know a hero when we see one. They prevail in extreme circumstances. They dramatize a sense of morality, courage, and purpose that seems lacking in everyday life. They do what is good and right, even when they are flawed individuals generally. They show the potential of humanity for good. They show humanity at its most humane.
Perhaps the most interesting choice for top hero was by the American Film Institute. He is not your typical superhero type and, ironically — some would say — he is a lawyer! Atticus Finch is the southern attorney played by Academy Award winner Gregory Peck in 1962’s To Kill a Mockingbird, a movie based on Harper Lee’s novel about racial tensions in the South during the Great Depression. In the movie, Finch defends Tom Robinson, a black man falsely accused of raping a white woman, first from a lynch mob and then from a biased jury, risking his reputation and even the lives of his children in the process. Finch is a different kind of hero than we have come to expect in our world. For much of the film he is an outsider, a “bad guy” to many of the people in his community. However, he is willing to assume that role in spite of the danger. Atticus Finch is a hero. He has a defining moment that lifts him above the ordinary and points the way to the best of humanity.
Jesus, in a sense, points to other heroic figures in the Jewish past, prophets whom the people did not receive well, but whom history has placed within the canonical prophets of the Jewish people. Human beings do not always recognize the hero, but in Jewish tradition, God had a way of offering a verdict on the truly heroic figures of Jewish history. Jesus is placing himself in that line of heroic figures. He will have his defining moment throughout his ministry, as he points the way to what God is like and what human beings can be within the rule of God. Of course, the chief defining moment will be the final hours of his life. The verdict of his heavenly Father will come in the resurrection.
Among the many things that amaze me about Jesus is his willingness to risk offending other people. His hometown of Nazareth rejected him. Many of the towns and villages of Galilee rejected him. He offends his family to the point where they consider him insane. He entered vigorous debates with religious leaders, whom he also offended. His disciples at least did not understand him. Jerusalem rejected him. He told parables in which the host of a banquet invites people, and they refuse to come. Of course, the ultimate offense was the willingness to crucify him.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] It has numerous forms in non-biblical literature, as well as Thomas 31:2.
[7] This fact shows the genuineness of this story.
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in Fred E. Katz’s Ordinary People and Extraordinary Evil: A Report on the Beguilings of Evil, New York: State University Press, 1993, p. vii. If only there were evil people somewhere, insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?
[13] Gill, Robin. “Killing in the name of God: Addressing religiously inspired violence.” Theos, July 16, 2018, theosthinktank.co.uk, retrieved July 23, 2018.
[14] Philip and Axelrod’s three-volume Encyclopedia of Wars (published 2008).
nice, of course I agreed with the politics. I liked the idea of seeing prophets in those we know well. An excellent point.-Lynn Eastman
ReplyDelete