Eamon Younis: The Year of Public Favor, Part 1: Jesus’ Inaugural Sermon

By David J. MacLeod

Dave MacLeod is Chairman of the Division of Biblical Studies at Emmaus Bible College and Associate Editor of The Emmaus Journal.

(Luke 4:16–30) [1]

Introduction

Well-known pastor and television preacher, Robert Schuller, has said, “While Christ was on earth...He never called any person ‘a sinner.’” [2] While Dr. Schuller is correct insofar as there is no text wherein our Lord says to someone, “You are a sinner,” there are many texts in which it is clear that He assumed people were sinful and taught that people were sinful. In speaking to His disciples He could say, “If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!” (Matt. 7:11). He used the technical vocabulary for sin. For example, He offers to forgive sins (Luke 5:20, 21). The word sin (ἁμαρτία, hamartia) means to miss the mark in a moral sense, to fail to do the good. [3] He spoke of transgression (παραβαίνω, parabainō), i.e., willful disobedience of God’s commandments (cf. Matt. 15:3). He spoke of trespasses (Matt. 6:14–15, AV trans. of παράπτωμα, paraptōma), i.e., deviations “from the right path either in thought, knowledge, or act.” He spoke of disobedience (Matt. 18:17) using a Greek word (παρακούω, parakouō) that means “unwillingness to hear.” Altogether, Jesus and His apostles used thirty-three different words for sin. [4]

Not only did He use the theological vocabulary, He also spoke of specific acts of sin. He said that man’s heart was corrupt and that it was this sinful nature that produces such things as: “evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness” (Mark 7:21–22). [5] In addition to the actual words for sin and the specific deeds of sin, Jesus could speak metaphorically of sin. He described it as poverty, imprisonment, blindness, and oppression (Luke 4:18–19). As the New Testament makes abundantly clear it was the purpose of Christ’s ministry to take care of humanity’s sin problem. In the words of the angel, “You shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21).

In Luke 4:16–30 Jesus addressed the question of sin, and He suggested, “there is one thing worse than sin, that is, the denial of sin, which makes forgiveness impossible.” [6] The account is one of Luke’s most detailed stories of Jesus, and it contains many of the major themes of his Gospel. Scholars refer to the passage as “programmatic.” [7] It is programmatic for Luke in that it appears right at the beginning of the public ministry in Galilee and illustrates the entire ministry of Jesus and the reaction to it. And it is programmatic for Jesus, Himself, in that in His sermon at Nazareth He presents Himself and His mission to the people. [8]

The passage records an event that occurred at the very beginning of the second year of Jesus’ ministry, the so-called “year of public favor.” [9] In Luke’s account Jesus visited His hometown of Nazareth and delivered a sermon on the Sabbath in the synagogue. In His sermon He read a Messianic passage from the prophet Isaiah and openly claimed to be the Spirit-anointed prophet of whom the prophet spoke. His mission was to announce the new era and to bring to pass the promised salvation as the anointed Messiah. The account ended with the townspeople angrily rejecting His claims. Every reader of Luke’s account is faced with a choice—shall I accept Jesus and His message of hope, or shall I side with those who reject Him? [10]

Jesus Laid Claim to the Messianic Office, verses 16–21

The Introduction to the Story: His Early Ministry in the Region of Galilee, verses 14–15

And Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit; and news about Him spread through all the surrounding district. And He began teaching in their synagogues and was praised by all.

The land of Israel was at this time under Roman domination and divided into various provinces or districts with different rulers. [11] As the story opens Jesus has ended His baptizing work in Judea (cf. John 3:22; 4:2). John the Baptist has been arrested and sent to prison (Luke 3:19–20; cf. Matt. 4:12; Mark 1:14), and Jesus’ ministry in Galilee, “the year of public favor,” began. Jesus entered the region of Galilee, which had been His boyhood home (cf. Luke 1:26; 2:51). The people of Galilee were known to be more open and less formal than the people in Judea. [12] Josephus, the Jewish historian, says there were two hundred and four cities and towns in Galilee, [13] and it is among these towns that He began to move, and in their synagogues on the Sabbath that He began to preach. [14]

Three things characterize the early days of Jesus in Galilee. [15] First, He worked “in the power of the Spirit” (ἐν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ πνεύματος, en tē dynamei tou pneumatos). This reminds Luke’s readers of Jesus’ baptism when He was anointed by the Holy Spirit and received new power (cf. Acts 10:38). It implies that He was preaching and, perhaps, performing a number of miracles (v. 23; cf. John 4:45). Second, His “fame” (AV) spread far and wide. The word here translated “news” (NASB, NIV, φήμη, phēmē) is the Greek word from which we get our English word, “fame.” It is unlikely that preaching alone would have caused the region’s grapevine to be so busy. [16] Third, the synagogues were the setting of His teaching ministry. The verb “teaching” (imperf. ἐδίδασκεν, edidasken) points to His habitual practice during this time. [17]

The word “synagogue” (συναγωγή, synagōgē) derives from a verb (συνάγω, synagō) meaning “to bring together” or “to gather.” It was used of Jewish congregations and the buildings in which they met. [18] The origins of the synagogue are obscure, but most scholars believe they originated during the Babylonian exile. [19] They then sprung up throughout the empire as Jews of the dispersion gathered for the Sabbath and festivals. Josephus, the Jewish historian, said that the synagogues were for the instruction of the Law. [20] This is borne out in the Theodotus inscription, discovered in Jerusalem in 1913/14, which describes the synagogue founded by Theodotus as a place built for “the reading of the Law and the teaching of the commandments.” [21] In the New Testament, as well, teaching is considered the main activity of the synagogue (Matt. 4:23; Mark 1:21; 6:2; Luke 4:15, 31; 6:6; 13:10; John 6:59; 18:20). [22] It should be noted that the synagogue was used for other purposes, as well. [23] It was the village school, [24] the community center, [25] a court of law, [26] and a hospice for travelers. [27]

The Setting of the Story: His Sabbath Visit to the Synagogue in Nazareth, verses 16–17

And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up; and as was His custom, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath, and stood up to read. And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the book, and found the place where it was written,

After some time in Galilee—Luke does not say how long—Jesus arrived in Nazareth, the town “where He had been brought up.” Luke used this occasion to tell his readers the kind of message Jesus was teaching. Luke’s note that this was where He was brought up conveys, perhaps, a sense of anticipation. The young man with the growing reputation would now make His first appearance before those who had known Him from early childhood. Luke intimated to his readers that Jesus was a devout Jew; it was “His custom” (κατὰ τὸ εἰωθὸς αὐτῷ, kata to eiōthos autō), i.e., His habit, he said, to go to the synagogue. This was the custom, says Josephus, of giving “every seventh day over to the study of our customs and law.” [28]

It is no doubt significant that Luke singled out Jesus’ custom of attending Sabbath services. Jesus’ confrontation with the Jewish religious leaders several months earlier in Jerusalem (John 2:18–22) may have left Him with a reputation of being a religious rebel. [29] It was expected that devout parents would habituate their children in keeping the Sabbath. Children had access to Sabbath services from an early age, but adolescent boys were compelled to attend beginning at their thirteenth birthdays. [30] Luke wanted his readers to know that Jesus was not an irreligious Sabbath breaker. He was a devout man, and as such He went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day.

There is a lesson here for everyone who claims to love the Lord. It was the custom for Jesus as a young man to attend the services in the place where the Word of God was read and expounded, and where the people gathered to pray. As He grew in the things of God there were probably a number of things in that little synagogue that offended Him. Many of those who participated must have fallen far short of Him in their understanding of the Word of God. But that synagogue was the place where God’s authoritative Word was read, so it was His custom to go there Sabbath after Sabbath.

We as Christians need to have our consciences stirred in regard to gathering with God’s people where the Word of God is appreciated and where they come together to sing His praises and pray. A man came to Harry Ironside and said, “If I could find a perfect church I would attend there.” Dr. Ironside replied, “My dear friend, don’t. If you find a perfect church don’t join it, because if you did it would be imperfect the moment you got into it!” As Ironside wisely remarked, “There is no such thing as a perfect church, but we can thank God for the places where people meet to hear the Word of God, and to join in praise and prayer. We need to remember the words, ‘not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another’” (Heb. 10:25). [31]

Excursus: The Synagogue in New Testament Times

The synagogue has been called “the cradle of the Church,” [32] and is therefore of great interest to Christian believers. The synagogue was built, where possible, on the highest ground in town. [33] As one went inside he would see the bema or platform in the center of the room or at one end. On the bema would be a reading desk or table on which was placed the scroll of the Torah (law) or Haftarah (prophets) for reading. There would also be the chief seats for those participating—either on the bema or directly in front of it. In most excavated synagogues the seats for the congregation are located around the walls; in others the chairs were placed around the bema, or, if the bema was at one end of the room, pews were arranged across the building facing it. Off to the side, behind a curtain, was an alcove which housed the ark, a chest or cabinet in which were housed the scrolls of the Scriptures.

The head of the synagogue (ἀρχισυνάγωγος, archisynagōgos) [34] presided over the services, and he was assisted by the חַזָּן (hazzān) or “attendant” (ὑπηρέτης [hypēretēs], Luke 4:20). Late on Friday afternoon, the attendant would stand on the roof of the synagogue and signal the approach of Sabbath by a six-fold blast of the ram’s horn. [35] As the people gathered on Sabbath morning, [36] the more distinguished members of the congregation sat toward the front of the synagogue and the younger ones behind. [37] The men and women probably sat on opposite sides of the room, and there may have been a lattice or screen to separate the two groups. [38] The adult males would not begin the service before putting on their prayer shawls. [39]

The order of service was considerably developed in Jesus’ day, and we know the various elements from the Mishnah, the oral law of the Jews that was put in written form c. ad 200. [40] We may outline the service as follows: [41] (1) first, some scholars have suggested, there would be the singing of a psalm. [42] (2) The psalm was followed by someone reciting the Shema’ (שְׁמַע, “hear”), the Jewish “confession of faith.” [43] The Shema’ consists of Deuteronomy 6:4–9 and two other texts [Deut. 11:13–21; Num. 15:37–41] which proclaim that Yahweh alone is the God of Israel, and ordain that certain things be done to constantly remember Him. (3) Before and after the Shema’ someone would lead in prayer by uttering parts of “the Eighteen Benedictions” [Shemoneh ‘Esreh]. [44] The congregation stood during these prayers and said Amen at the end. [45] (4) At this point the hazzan, or attendant, went to the Holy Ark, took out the Torah scroll, removed its cloth covering, opened it to the designated place, [46] and put it on the table. Seven members of the congregation were invited by the head of the synagogue to read, [47] and each would read at least three verses. [48] They stood as they read. After each verse an interpreter translated the Hebrew into Aramaic, the local language. (5) After the reading of the Torah, the scroll was returned to the ark, and another scroll, containing a portion of the prophets, was placed on the table to be unrolled and read. [49] There were at least three differences from the reading of the Torah in the reading from the prophets: (a) This time one person alone could read. [50] (b) This time three verses at a time—not one—were read from the Scriptures, and then they were translated. (c) The reader was permitted to leave out verses, while in the reading of the Law there were to be no omissions. [51] (6) Following the reading of the Bible there was an address or sermon [52] in which the portions read were expounded and given practical application. The preacher would sit on the bema during his address [cf. Luke 4:20]. Any competent member of the congregation could do the preaching, but usually someone who had devoted some study to the text or a visiting rabbi would give the sermon. [53] In order for instruction to take place at least ten males had to be present. [54] (7) The service ended with the pronouncement of a blessing by a priest and the responsive Amen of the congregation. If no priest were present there would be no blessing. Instead, the ḥazzān would recite the words of a benediction. [55]

Luke gave very little of this detail, for His focus was on Jesus, the book and His text. [56] The Evangelist passed right over the psalm, the Shema’, the benedictions, and the reading of the Law, although we may assume that all these would have taken place. Like the congregation in Nazareth, Luke’s eyes were fixed on Jesus. After the readers of the Torah had taken their seats and the scroll had been put away, Jesus stood up to read. He may have been asked to do this by the head of the synagogue because He was the celebrated young preacher, or He may have just risen of His own accord indicating that He was prepared to read. Apparently he told the attendant that He wanted the scroll of Isaiah, and the attendant got it from the ark and laid it on the reading desk. Jesus then stood behind the desk and unrolled the scroll to the passage He wanted to read. [57]

The High Point of the Story: His Scriptural Claim to the Office of Messiah, verses 18–21

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed, to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord.” And He closed the book, gave it back to the attendant and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”

The scroll was written in Hebrew, but Luke gave a free translation of what Jesus read that is very close to wording of the Septuagint. There are minor differences from the Septuagint, but they do not alter Isaiah’s sense. [58] Our Lord read from Isaiah 61:1–2, and in verse 21 He claimed to be the subject of Isaiah’s prophecy.

A number of scholars believe this “quotation is, as it were, a manifesto setting out His program.” [59] This is perhaps an overstatement—too little is said about His mission and work for this to be a full-fledged manifesto of His program or agenda. [60] It is more accurate to say that the text is a manifesto of His person. It identifies Jesus of Nazareth as one anointed by God’s Spirit to be the long-awaited Messiah or Christ. It explains that He will have a prophetic ministry of preaching the good news and that His work will be directed toward the needy and downtrodden. In short, the text tells Jesus’ listeners that He is the Messiah, and it tells them the kind of Messiah He will be.

There are three elements to Jesus’ message in verses 18–21. [61] First, He laid claim to the Messianic office. This is the most significant part of His message. The details of His work are only briefly sketched. It is who He is, not what He will do, that was central to His message in Nazareth. Second, He claimed to be the Messianic prophet who would herald the good news of the age of salvation. Finally, He promises to do the work of Messiah and deliver the needy. What this means is only lightly touched on in this “inaugural sermon.” Only as Jesus preaches and teaches in the months ahead does it become fully clear what His work will entail.

He is the Anointed One of Prophecy

In the Old Testament context Isaiah speaks of Messiah, the Servant of the Lord. [62] In chapter 60 (vv. 10–22) the prophet described the blessings that those returning from exile would enjoy in Christ’s earthly millennial kingdom. [63] Then, in chapter 61, he turned to speak of the One who would bring those blessings. [64] In the opening verses Messiah Himself spoke a gracious message to those in captivity and promised them release and a return to the restored Jerusalem on the millennial earth (vv. 3–9).

This is the only occasion in the New Testament on which we are told that Jesus read. He began, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He anointed Me” (Πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπ᾿ ἐμέ οὗ εἵνεκεν ἔχρισέν με, pneuma kyriou ep eme hou heineken echrisen me). This looked back to Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan by John the Baptist, described by Luke in 3:21–22. At that time the Holy Spirit anointed Him. This means that He was set apart or consecrated by God to the office of Messiah and empowered for that mission (cf. Acts 10:38). Luke then passed over the “year of obscurity” without mention. In doing so he was able to place this sermon in Nazareth immediately after the baptism as an explanation of it.

The Old Testament prophets (1 Kings 19:16), priests (Exod. 30:30), and kings (1 Sam. 16:13) were inaugurated into office by an anointing with oil. Jesus—viewed in this passage as prophet and king—was also anointed for office, but the Holy Spirit, not oil, anointed Him. The titles “Messiah” and “Christ” are the Hebrew and Greek translations of words meaning “anointed one.” Jesus is Messiah or Christ, i.e., the Holy Spirit has anointed Him.

We must not miss the significance of Jesus’ reading of the Old Testament here. It is an essential part of the gospel underlined here by our Lord and later by His apostles (e.g., Rom. 1:2), that Jesus did not come in order to start a new religion or movement never heard of before. Rather He here claimed to be the fulfillment of Scripture’s prophetic program. [65]

He is the Prophetic Herald of Good News

In Moses’ day the Lord promised that He would raise up a prophet from among the Jewish people who would bring a message from God (Deut. 18:18). In Jesus’ day that prophet was believed to be an important figure of the end-time (John 1:21). It became clear as Jesus’ ministry expanded that He was that prophet (cf. Acts 3:22). His Messianic office contains a prophetic function, which is described here as a mission of proclamation. [66] As God’s prophet He has been anointed “to preach the gospel to the poor” (εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς, euangelisasthai ptōchois). The word translated “gospel” by the NASB literally means “good news” (NIV). [67] Jesus was the one who brought the good news about the long-awaited Messianic kingdom. That which Isaiah predicted, Jesus was now proclaiming. [68]

He is the Regal Deliverer of Needy People

Not only was Jesus the great eschatological prophet, He was also God’s anointed Servant and Son. He was the royal Messiah and Israel’s king. [69] He was an unusual king, however, for His audience was not the rich, powerful, and self-satisfied of this world; rather, He had come with good news for the needy. In the Old Testament context Isaiah gave words of consolation to the exiles as they returned to Jerusalem. Jesus was the Messiah who would bring this consolation and help. In a series of four phrases Jesus outlines His program and the people whom He has come to help. [70]

First, He preaches “good news to the poor.”

It is striking that this was the first thing on our Lord’s agenda, and Luke accentuated this aspect of Jesus’ ministry. [71] The word “poor” (πτωχός, ptōchos) is derived from a verb (πτώσσω, ptōssō) meaning, “to bow down timidly,” “to shrink, cower, or cringe” [72] and another (πτωχεύω, ptōcheuō) meaning “to be destitute,” or “to go begging.” [73] It can refer quite literally to those who live in abject poverty, and would include all those of low status who live in disadvantaged economic conditions. [74] In hearing Jesus’ words we must not miss His concern for those who are, in a literal economic sense, poor. God’s people are even today called to minister to such people with sensitivity to their plight and poverty. [75]

D. E. Hoste (1861–1946) was Hudson Taylor’s successor as General Director of the famous China Inland Mission. He served in that capacity for thirty-five years (1900–1935). Mr. Hoste, a devout and committed Christian, would take walks each day in Shanghai, the site of the mission’s headquarters. He liked to take younger men with him, and on one occasion, in 1922, he took Allan Crane, a new arrival to the field. Mr. Hoste would bring along a pocket full of change, because along the way he would meet homeless beggars. As they approached him he would give them some of the coins. At one point he turned to his companion and said, “Mr. Crane, never forget the poor.” He then quoted our Lord’s words, “The poor you have with you always” (Matt. 26:11). Then he quoted this text, “He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor.” [76]

As I was writing this article, I received an e-mail message from my friend, Karl Peterson, missionary to Mozambique. [77] There had been massive flooding in the country. In the city of Chokwe the flood had not only destroyed a chapel in one of the poorest of neighborhoods, but had washed away countless homes (mud huts) and destroyed most businesses. Four missionaries loaded up a 4x4 vehicle with food and clothing and headed off to help their Christian friends. They stood in the chapel ruins and sang a hymn and then provided food and clothing to the needy. Later truckloads brought basins, buckets, tea, kitchen knives, soap, toothbrushes, clothing, and Bibles to other areas.

One of the preachers I knew and esteemed as a young believer was Ernest Woodhouse, the Director of the Macauley St. Mission in New York City. For years he worked in that wonderful place ministering to the needs of the homeless and destitute.

Drs. Ray and Jan Downing have ministered for years in Africa—as doctors trying to bring medical help to the poor. Medical missions, mission hospitals and schools, food drives, and countless other works have been some of the fruit of Jesus’ self-understanding as one who had been anointed to preach to the poor.

Having said all this, it would be a mistake to understand Jesus’ words in a strictly economic way. The term, says Bock, is a “soteriological generalization,” i.e. at the deepest level it speaks of those who are spiritually destitute and disadvantaged—the entire sinful human race (cf. 2 Cor. 8:9). When Jesus later spoke of the reward of the poor as being in heaven (Luke 6:20, 23), it is obvious that He was using the language of individual transformation and not economic or political revolution. [78]

That Jesus was not speaking only of financial poverty is proven by the two illustrations He used in His sermon, the widow of Sidon and Naaman the Syrian (vv. 25–27). One was a poor widow, but the other was a very rich military officer, “whose poverty lay not in lack of money but in his utter resourcelessness against leprosy.” This is further demonstrated in Luke 5:27–30 where some of the first to receive the good news are financially rich tax-gatherers, whose poverty was moral and spiritual. In summary then, it can be said that the poverty of which Jesus speaks is, first of all, economic poverty. Yet this economic poverty is a picture of spiritual poverty from which all people suffer. [79]

Why did Jesus use the metaphor of poverty? It is because it is the poor who sense their need in the greatest way—“their material deprivation often translates into spiritual sensitivity.” [80] The person who can truly be helped is the one of whom the Lord spoke when He said, “But to this one I will look, to him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word” (Isa. 66:2). [81]

James (2:5) speaks of God choosing “the poor of this world [to be] rich in faith.” Those who are economically poor are often rich in spiritual things.

In the heart of London city
‘Midst the dwelling of the poor,
These bright golden words were uttered,
“I have Christ, what want I more?”
He who heard them ran to fetch her
Something from the world’s great store.
“It was needless,” died she saying,
“I have Christ, what want I more?”

As Ironside said, “Christ is a substitute for everything, but nothing is a substitute for Christ.” [82]

Second, He proclaims “release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind.”

In the next line of his prophecy, [83] Isaiah spoke of Messiah’s commission: “He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind.” The verb used here (ἀποστέλλω, apostellō) is commonly used in Luke with “the idea of a delegated authority making the person sent to be the envoy or representative of the sender” (Luke 1:19, 26; 4:43; 7:27; 9:2). [84] In the previous line Jesus read, “He anointed Me” (ἔχρισέν, echrisen, aor., i.e., once for all). Then He read, “He has sent Me” (ἀπέσταλκέν, apestalken, perf., i.e., “and I am here”). He was anointed in the past at His baptism, and He was now standing in the synagogue before them with the continuing commission and authority of God’s Messiah. [85]

Messiah was commissioned to proclaim “release to the captives.” The word translated “captives” (αἰχμαλώτοις, aichmalōtois) literally means “prisoners of war.” The picture is drawn from the Old Testament and the exiled Jews who were to return to the land. The term had spiritual overtones because the exile was the result of sin (cf. Deut. 28–32; Ps. 79:11; 126:1; Isa. 42:7). [86] In a future day our Lord will, no doubt, literally release the captives and restore them to the land in His earthly kingdom (cf. Isa. 14:1–2). But in the synagogue at Nazareth He claimed that Isaiah’s prophecy was being fulfilled that very day in the ears of the congregation. Furthermore, the captives are not mentioned again in Luke and there is no mention of any ministry to them during Jesus’ lifetime. [87]

In this passage, therefore, I take it that Jesus is applying Isaiah’s words in a metaphorical or spiritual sense. He has come to give “freedom to people who are captives to guilt (Luke 7:41–50) [and] to the crushing and bruising power of Satan (cf. Luke 8:26–39).” [88] That Jesus was applying the text in a spiritual sense is further confirmed by the word “release” (ἄφεσις, aphesis). Elsewhere in Luke the word is regularly translated “forgiveness,” i.e., release from sins or forgiveness of sins (Luke 1:77; 3:3; 24:47). [89] Every Christian who has been released by Jesus, his/her Savior, was once a captive to sin.

Long my imprisoned spirit lay
Fast bound in sin and nature’s night.
Thine eye diffused a quick’ning ray;
I woke—the dungeon flamed with light!
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee. [90]

Messiah also proclaimed “recovery of sight to the blind.” [91] Blindness, like poverty and captivity, can be taken in both a literal and a metaphorical way. In the literal sense Jesus actually did heal physically blind people (Luke 18:35–43). Sometime after this incident in Nazareth John the Baptist sent a message to Jesus. He was in prison (Matt. 11:2) and was apparently growing discouraged. His discouragement led to depression and doubt. He had not seen any of Jesus’ miracles, and he wondered why, if Jesus was the Messiah, He had not released John from prison and cleared “His threshing floor” of chaff like Herod Antipas and Herodias (Luke 3:17–20). [92] John sent two of his disciples to ask, “Are you the Expected One, or do we look for someone else?” (Luke 7:19). At that very moment Jesus was healing people, and he told John’s emissaries to tell John what they had seen. “The blind receive sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have the gospel preached to them” (Luke 7:22). Jesus’ answer was significant because those were the very things the prophets foretold of the Messianic age (Isa. 35:5; 61:1). It was a Messianic sign to heal the blind.

Jesus also intended, however, that His words be understood in a spiritual sense. Elsewhere in Luke those who do not comprehend the message of Christ are described as being in darkness or as being unable to see (Luke 1:77–80; 6:39; 8:10; 10:23–24; 18:41–43). Luke would later report the explanation of the Apostle Paul of his mission to King Agrippa: “to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light (i.e., recovery of sight to the blind) and from the dominion of Satan to God, in order that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith” (Acts 26:18). [93]

Third, He sets free “those who are oppressed.”

The next line that Jesus quoted (“to set free those who are oppressed”) did not come from Isaiah 61:1–2. Rather it was taken from Isaiah 58:6. [94] Either Jesus rolled the scroll back three chapters or, what is more likely, He inserted the line from memory. [95] This line underscored the fact that Jesus was more than a prophet. A prophet can proclaim a message of deliverance, but it takes the Messianic deliverer Himself to actually bring that deliverance. Christ would “set free those who are downtrodden.” [96] The term “oppressed” (τεθραυσμένους, tethrausmenous) is a strong one. It is the verb meaning “to shatter” or “to break in pieces,” and here speaks of “those who are shattered in fortune and broken in spirit.” [97] Christ had come with the authority [98] to meet the needs of those who needed God.

The line literally reads, “to send away the downtrodden in release,” and the word “release” (ἄφεσις), as has been noted above, is also used in Luke with the meaning “forgiveness.” Jesus proclaims deliverance, and He provides those who are shattered with release from their sins.

Who, then had Messiah come to help? “Those who are so broken by life that they have no more heart to try; those who are so bound up in their various addictions that liberty and release are a cruel mirage; those who think that they will never again experience the favor of the Lord, or see His just vengeance meted out against those who have misused them; those who think that their lives hold nothing more than ashes, sackcloth, and the fainting heaviness of despair. These are they to whom the Servant/Messiah shouts ‘Good news!” [99]

Fourth, He proclaims “the favorable year of the Lord.”

The fourth plank in Jesus’ program is to proclaim “the favorable year of the Lord.” New Testament commentators generally agree that the imagery of Isaiah’s prophecy parallels the description of the Jubilee year. [100] One of the provisions of the Old Testament law was the year of Jubilee (Lev. 25:8–17). The expression (שְׁנַת הַיּוֹל], šĕnat̠ hayyôb̠el) literally means “year of the ram(‘s horn).” [101] On the tenth day of the seventh month (Tishri) [102] a loud blast of the ram’s horn would proclaim the year of Jubilee after a lapse of seven sabbaths of years or forty-nine years. On this fiftieth year the land would lie fallow (v. 11), [103] all slaves were freed, all debts were cancelled (v. 10), and all property was restored to its original owner (vv. 13–17, 23). [104]

For some time the Year of Jubilee was a living feature of Israelite society (Num. 36:4), but in the years before the Exile it apparently was disregarded. After the Exile it is not mentioned again as a national practice, [105] but it did live on as a hope of the people of God. The year of Jubilee came to be viewed in Judaism [106] as a picture of God’s new age—the age of Messiah when God’s people would be forgiven and granted spiritual liberation. [107]

At this point Jesus stopped His reading from Isaiah in the middle of the sentence. Isaiah says, “To proclaim the favorable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God.” When Jesus reads the text, however, He stops short of reading, “and the day of vengeance of our God.” The careful student of Scripture sitting that day in Nazareth’s synagogue would be puzzled. He would wonder why Jesus had omitted this phrase. The reason, we now know, is that while as Messiah He had come to institute the Lord’s favorable year, He had no intention at that time of bringing God’s wrath upon evil men. [108]

Contemporary biblical scholars speak of the “already-not yet” tension of New Testament eschatology. [109] By this they mean that some Old Testament prophecy has already been fulfilled, i.e., at the first coming of Christ. Other Old Testament prophecy has not yet been fulfilled, but it will be fulfilled at Christ’s second coming.

John the Baptist did not understand this, and he was disappointed. Christ did not come the first time to overthrow Herod’s political power, open John’s prison doors, and execute judgment upon the human race. He came, rather, to proclaim the good news and provide a way of escape from the wrath to come by means of His death on the cross. Only when that part of the program is accomplished will the “short, sharp day of vengeance come.” [110]

Luke’s description in verses 20 and 21 is quite vivid which suggests that an eyewitness gave him the details. The scroll Jesus was reading would be on two rollers, one at each end of the parchment. After the reading of Isaiah, Jesus rolled it closed and handed it to the “attendant and sat down.” The reading of Scripture was done standing, but any exposition or preaching was usually done while seated. Luke said, “The eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed upon Him.” He had their attention because they had known Him all His life, and He had now gained some fame as a teacher and a worker of miracles. The synagogue was silent as they awaited His words. Luke’s description of their attentiveness (“eyes...fixed upon Him”) [111] suggests a gaze of esteem and trust—their initial reaction was admiration and pleasant surprise. [112]

Jesus’ words broke the expectant silence, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” This passage in Isaiah, Jesus said, is fulfilled in Me. “I [i.e., Jesus] am the Lord’s anointed; the Messiah has come.” [113] The word “today” (adv. σήμερον, sēmeron) is an important one in Luke’s theology (2:11; 5:26; 12:28; 13:32–33; 19:5, 9; 22:34, 61; 23:43). [114] It suggests that the time of fulfillment was now upon them. [115] The new era, the day of salvation, had dawned. [116]

Jesus said that it has been fulfilled “in your hearing,” i.e., He was telling them that now that they had heard they were responsible to make a decision. Would they believe His words, or would they harden their hearts against Him and reject His message? [117]

The People Made Demands for Some Messianic Evidence, verses 22–23

And all were speaking well of Him, and wondering at the gracious words which were falling from His lips; and they were saying, “Is this not Joseph’s son?” And He said to them, “No doubt you will quote this proverb to Me, ‘Physician, heal yourself! Whatever we heard was done at Capernaum, do here in your hometown as well.’”

They Rejected His Sermon’s Implications

The reaction of the congregation suggests that Jesus gave a longer message than Luke’s brief one sentence summary. [118] In any case they were immediately hostile to Jesus’ sermon, although this is not clear in our English translations. The NASB has, “And all were speaking well of Him” (cf. also NIV). The Greek text is more ambiguous. It says, “They all bore witness to Him.” [119] The context suggests a negative nuance to the phrase, i.e., “They were bearing witness against Him.” [120] Their problem with His sermon is found in Luke’s report that they were “wondering at the gracious words which were falling from His lips.” The verb “were wondering” should probably be translated “amazed” and be understood in a hostile sense, i.e., they recognize His eloquence, but they are critical of Him. [121]

We have all had this kind of experience. For example, we have watched a skillful politician being interviewed, and we are impressed at how effective a speaker and debater he is, but we do not agree with his views—we may even be angrily put off by them. I can remember watching on TV the murder trial of football star and celebrity O. J. Simpson. He had a famous defense attorney named Johnny Cochrane. Subsequent analyses show that Cochrane was widely praised for his skill in getting his client acquitted, but he was also generally viewed as a slick attorney who enabled a guilty man to escape. [122]

The negative reaction of Jesus’ hearers was due to His “gracious words” (λόγοις τῆς χάριτος, logois tēs charitos). This phrase has been interpreted in three ways: Some take the Greek word χάρι̑ς (charis) in its fundamental meaning of “beauty” or “comeliness.” In other words, the words of Jesus were “winning words” or “gracious words.” There was a charm about the way He spoke. [123] Others translate the phrase “words filled with grace,” i.e., “words endued with the power of God’s grace.” [124] Still others argue that the phrase is ambivalent, that is, it contains both senses. [125] Jesus spoke to them in a gracious manner, and His subject matter was God’s merciful and favorable actions toward a needy and sinful people. The people of Nazareth did not like the implications. What right did He have to speak to them of God’s mercy? This sermon suggested that they belonged to the poor and needy to whom the good news was addressed. [126]

They Questioned His Ordinary Parentage

The marvelous claims did not fit the man. “Is this not Joseph’s son” (Οὐχὶ υἱός ἐστιν ᾿Ιωσὴφ οὗτος, ouchi huios estin Iōsēph houtos)? There was a contemptuous note in the demonstrative pronoun “this” (οὗτος, houtos). “This one? Why he’s a carpenter, Joseph’s son. We’ve known him all his life. What does he mean by using such language of himself—the Messiah, of all things? Ridiculous! And such language of us (poor, captives, blind, and downtrodden)? Outrageous!” [127] “He has not studied in Jerusalem. He is not an ordained priest or recognized rabbi. How dare he presume to announce the coming of the Messianic age? By what right does he take upon himself to apply Holy Writ to his own person?” [128]

They Demanded a Messianic Sign

Miraculous signs were to be part of the Messianic age, and the people in the synagogue decided to challenge Jesus to prove that He was the Messiah—by performing a miracle. They had heard the reports of His signs and wonders in Capernaum, and they were thinking that those reports would provide the precedent for their request. Jesus, who was an anointed prophet, could read their thoughts, [129] and He expressed those thoughts before they could get them out of their mouths.

He said, “No doubt you will quote this proverb (παραβολή, parabolē) [130] to Me, ‘Physician, heal yourself!’” This demand has been understood in two ways: The term “yourself” (σεαυτόν, seauton) has been taken by some scholars to refer to Nazareth. “Charity begins at home, young man. Do not refuse to your own hometown what you are giving to others. Heal the ills of Nazareth.” [131] That the people were thinking this is clear from the rest of the verse, but it is not the point of the proverb. [132] The more likely interpretation is that the term “yourself” refers to Jesus. He had just claimed to be the Messiah, the One who would heal the miseries of mankind. The townspeople weren’t buying it. The proverb here is an insult—much like the sneering accusation of the Jews as He hung upon the cross, “He saved others; let Him save Himself” (Luke 23:35). “He offers us the glories of the age of Messiah. He seems to have participated surprisingly little in its benefits,” they seem to say. “Who do you think you are to offer to us what you do not have for yourself?” is the attitude of their hearts that He could see so well. “You had better give us evidence of your high mission before asserting it.” [133]

Jesus had just professed to be the Messiah, the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies of God’s Anointed One who would perform many wonderful signs (cf. Isa. 35:5–6). The people did not believe Him, but they said the fault was His and not theirs. The cure was in His own hands. It would do Him no good to find fault with them for not believing. He must better His own position by giving them evidence of His high mission. He must work miracles before them. [134] They were truly skeptical. They did not say, “Whatever you did (ὅσα ἐποίησας, hosa epoiēsas) at Capernaum, do here.” Rather, they say, “Whatever we heard (ὅσα ἠκούσαμεν, hosa ēkousamen) was done at Capernaum, do here.” They made it very clear that they thought the report could be untrue. [135]

Jesus Offered Evidence of His Messianic Mission, verses 24–27

He Reminded Them of His Objective Miracles in the Past, verse 23

Jesus’ comments in verse 23 contain the assumption that He had in fact performed miracles in Capernaum. [136] They had heard these reports, so they did have some objective evidence that His claim was not nonsense. Yet He did not offer to perform any signs. The Gospels imply, in fact, that He greatly restricted His miraculous powers in Nazareth (Matt. 13:58; Mark 6:5). To perform miracles in the face of such unbelief would be to perform mere acts of ostentation, and He had already determined at His third temptation that He would not do such things (Luke 4:9–12). [137]

He Reminded Them of Historical Rejections of the Prophets, verse 24

And He said, “Truly I say to you, no prophet is welcome in his hometown.”

The ultimate test of a prophet, of course, is his message, not his signs (Deut. 13:1–3; 18:22). [138] Jesus was not interested in producing mere wonderment at miracles. He rebuked them for their desire for miraculous display. In effect He said to them, “Rather than seeking your confidence by the display of miracles, I shall accept, as a prophet, the fate of all the prophets.” [139] He cited another proverb, “No prophet is welcome in his hometown.” Those who are close to greatness often do not appreciate it. Familiarity breeds contempt. He was the local carpenter and did not conform to their ideas of what the Messiah should be.

Their demand for proof foreshadowed the unbelief of the nation. At the cross the Jewish hierarchy would challenge Him, “He is the King of Israel; let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe in Him” (Matt. 27:42). [140] In short, their difficulty had nothing to do with the adequacy of the evidence. It had nothing to do with logic. It had everything to do with the irrational bias of unbelief. [141] By citing this proverb, incidentally, Jesus clearly identified Himself as a prophet. In Old Testament times the people often rejected God’s prophets. Jesus was no different.

He Reminded Them of Case Histories in the Scriptures, verses 25–27

But I say to you in truth, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the sky was shut up for three years and six months, when a great famine came over all the land; and yet Elijah was sent to none of them, but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian.

As noted above, there is one thing worse than sin, and that is the denial of sin, which makes forgiveness of sin impossible. [142] That was the problem with the people in Nazareth. They were in a state of spiritual denial. They were respectable people, kind parents, loyal citizens, honest businessmen, and regular attendees of the synagogue. They had no sense of personal, spiritual need. Conversely, there is one thing a person needs to be forgiven and that is to recognize one’s extreme poverty and fatal lack of resources. [143] Jesus drives this idea home with two illustrations that His synagogue audience would know very well from the Bible. [144]

The Illustration of Elijah and the Widow, cf. 1 Kings 17:8–24

The first illustration concerned the prophet Elijah, who was active in the northern kingdom during the reigns of Ahab and his son, Ahaziah, in the 9th century before Christ (c. 874–853 bc). Ahab and his wife Jezebel, daughter of the king of Sidon, introduced Baal worship into the land (1 Kings 16:3–33). Elijah prophesied judgment upon the land in the form of a drought, and the Lord decreed that there would be no dew or rain unless the prophet said so (1 Kings 17:1). The drought of three and a half years brought a terrible famine. [145]

The Lord sent Elijah to Zarephath, a town between Tyre and Sidon on the Mediterranean coast. There he encountered a widow gathering sticks for a fire to make bread. Elijah asked her for bread, but she protested that she only had enough flour and oil to make one last meal for herself and her son. Elijah promised her that if she made him bread, her bowl of flour and her jar of oil would miraculously be replenished. She believed the prophet, and, as he promised, her flour and oil were replenished each time she used them. And that was not all; when the boy got sick and died, the prophet miraculously raised him from the dead.

What is the lesson? It is twofold: (1) She proved by experience that the promises of God’s prophet were true. The evidence, however, followed her faith. Only when she believed did she see a miracle. (2) Only because she saw the hopelessness of her situation did she believe. One must see his/her extreme poverty and lack of resources before he/she believes. If Elijah had been a fraud, she would have lost nothing—only a few hours of life.

What was the application to the congregation of Nazareth? It was twofold: (1) Jesus had come as God’s anointed servant to give salvation, forgiveness, and release to people who were spiritually captives, poor, and resourceless. (2) When such people call on Him, they will find out in their experience that His claim is true. This, of course, was the problem of the people in the synagogue. In their own estimation they were not poor and needy. [146]

The Illustration of Elisha and the Leper, cf. 2 Kings 5:1–14

Jesus’ second illustration involved Elisha, the successor of Elijah whose ministry spanned the reigns of several kings over the second half of the 9th century bc. There was at that time a great military leader in the country of Aram to the northeast of Israel who had leprosy. His name was Naaman, and a young Jewish girl, who had been taken captive, was his wife’s servant. She told her mistress, who in turn told her husband, that the prophet Elisha could heal his leprosy. Naaman told the king of Aram, [147] who contacted the king of Israel to ask for his help. Elisha heard of the request, and told the king to have Naaman come to him.

Naaman came with horses and chariots and stood at Elisha’s doorway. He no doubt thought that Elisha would be a member of the royal entourage and would conduct a glorious public ritual. What he found was a man of God, not a powerless man of the state. Naaman expected great respect, but Elisha did not even go to the door. He told a servant to go and tell Naaman to immerse himself in the Jordan River seven times. Naaman was furious; he could have stayed home and dipped himself in lovelier rivers than the Jordan. One of his servants spoke to him and pointed out that Naaman had come quite prepared to do some great religious act; why not do the simple thing the prophet commanded. Naaman acquiesced and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, and the leprosy was cured.

The lesson for Naaman was that of humility and faith. [148] What made him change his mind and go to the Jordan? The simple but hard fact is that he knew he was a leper. It was far better to do the simple thing required and be healed than to hold out for what he thought were the appropriate religious rituals and let his leprosy go unchecked. The lesson for the self-satisfied congregation of Nazareth was the same. They, too, were angry at the message from a man of God. They were his aunts, uncles, sisters, brothers, friends, and neighbors. Yet Jesus was implying that they were morally and spiritually poor. To call on Him in faith for cleansing was humiliating and offensive in the extreme. Unlike Naaman they refused God’s message. [149]

The People Grew Hostile at His Messianic Indictment, verses 28–30

They Angrily Sought to Kill Him, verses 28–29

And all the people in the synagogue were filled with rage as they heard these things; and they got up and drove Him out of the city, and led Him to the brow of the hill on which their city had been built, in order to throw Him down the cliff.

Jesus’ references to Elijah and Elisha drove home His lesson, and the congregation got the point. To be told that they were spiritually blind, resourceless, and poverty-stricken was bad enough. But now to be told that they had less faith in God than a Phoenician widow, and less wisdom than a Syrian leper was intolerable. He was saying that they were as bad or worse than the heathen. He was rejecting them, they reasoned, and they would reject Him. [150] He was a false prophet and deserved the penalty of being a false prophet, viz., death (Deut. 13:5). [151] Jesus’ audience rose up from their places and drove Him out of the city. They seemed intent not on a formal legal execution but a kind of lynch law.

In the NT era there was a practice called the “rebel’s beating.” The people administered this on the spot, and without trial, if one were caught in open defiance of some law of Moses or tradition of the elders. [152] In this case the townspeople appear to follow the procedure for stoning. [153] They drove Him out of town to a cliff from which they planned to throw Him and then stone Him as He lay on the ground. [154]

He Mysteriously Escapes their Murderous Intentions, verse 30

But passing through their midst, He went His way.

Whatever the intentions of the townspeople, in the divine scheme of things Jesus’ hour had not yet come (cf. John 7:30; 8:59; 10:31, 39; 11:8–9; 13:30). Jesus’ life and destiny were in the hands of God, and the time of His death and resurrection lay two years in the future. That time was determined by God and would be carried out by the hands of wicked men according to God’s timetable and not theirs (cf. Acts 2:23). [155] Luke told his readers that Jesus simply passed through the midst of the people and “went His way.” He did not specify the nature of Jesus’ deliverance.

How He escaped has been variously explained. Many of the older commentators have suggested that it was a miracle. “They had asked for a miracle, and this was the miracle granted to them.” [156] Others have concluded, “He passed through the group of these infuriated people with a majesty which overawed them.” [157] Finally, there is the view that He simply walked through the mob. “He spoke no angry word, nor did he work any spectacular miracle.” [158] To have performed a miraculous disappearance would have given the Nazarenes “precisely the sign that they were seeking,” and that He refused to do. [159]

“He walked right through the crowd,” says commentator Bruce Larson, “simply because He was so ordinary.” Jesus did not have a halo, nor did He have a miraculous aura about Him. In the screaming mob “He was there someplace but indistinguishable. They couldn’t pick Him out.” This is the miracle—that God the Son has come into ordinary human existence. He was such an ordinary man that they could not believe He was the Messiah; He was so ordinary that in the boiling cauldron of that mob they couldn’t distinguish Him from any other man of the town. [160]

Conclusion

The Doctrinal Significance of the Episode

This incident in the synagogue of Nazareth is doctrinally important, first of all, because in it Jesus set forth His claim to the Messianic office. He was the Spirit-anointed prophet who announced the new age of salvation. He had come to preach good news to the poor—to the “economically and socially poor,” [161] to be sure, but also to those who are spiritually poor as well. He was the long-awaited Messiah of the OT prophets who would bring release to the captives and the needy and would inaugurate the time of Jubilee. This one, Jesus from Nazareth, was the Christ.

Second, it is also important doctrinally because it illustrates the reception Jesus was to receive in the nation in the months ahead. Even at the beginning of the so-called “Year of Public Favor,” there was violent opposition to His message. Marshall writes, “The shadow of rejection hangs over the ministry of Jesus from the outset.” [162]

The Practical Implications of the Episode

Those Most in Need of Mercy and Grace often Know It the Least. [163]

This is the primary lesson of the text. The congregation in Nazareth thought of themselves as closely related to Him. They were His relatives and childhood friends and neighbors. [164] They were like people today who go to church, recite the creed, say their prayers, and sing the hymns—but they are not persuaded that Jesus Christ is the Son of God or that they need to be saved. They were the people who knew most about Him. In a sense, they felt they had a claim upon Him. He was from Nazareth, and they felt He owed it to them to do them good. They did not realize that as sinners they had no claim upon Him at all.

The problem is that they did not see themselves as sinners. Unlike the tax collector, they did not cry out, “God, be merciful to me, the sinner!” (Luke 18:13). A large prestigious British church had three mission churches under its care. On the first Sunday of each new year all the members of the mission churches would come to the parent church for a combined Communion service. In those mission churches, located in the slums of a major city, were some outstanding cases of conversions—thieves, burglars, and others. But all knelt as brothers and sisters side by side at the Communion rail.

On one such occasion the pastor saw a former burglar kneeling beside a judge of the Supreme Court of England—the very judge who had sent him to jail where he had served seven years. After his release this burglar had been converted and became a Christian worker.

After the service, the judge was walking out with the pastor and said to him, “Did you notice who was kneeling beside me at the Communion rail this morning?” The two walked along in silence for a few more moments, and then the judge said, “What a miracle of grace.” The pastor nodded in agreement. “A marvelous miracle of grace indeed.” The judge then inquired, “But to whom do you refer?” “The former convict,” the pastor answered. The judge said, “I was not referring to him. I was thinking of myself.” The minister, surprised, replied, “You were thinking of yourself? I don’t understand.”

“You see,” the judge went on, “it is not surprising that the burglar received God’s grace when he left jail. He had nothing but a history of crime behind him, and when he understood Jesus could be his Savior, he knew there were salvation and hope and joy for him. And he knew how much he needed that help. But look at me—I was taught from earliest infancy to live as a gentleman, that my word was to be my bond, that I was to say my prayers, go to church, take Communion and so on. I went through Oxford, obtained my degrees, was called to the bar, and eventually became a judge. I was sure I was all I needed to be, though in fact I too was a sinner. Pastor, it was God’s grace that drew me. It was God’s grace that opened my heart to receive Christ. I’m the greater miracle.”

All who bow to Him, acknowledging their need and hopelessness, receive eternal life. Miracles of grace! [165]

Those who Hear the Message of Jesus Christ Are Faced with a Choice.

Is Jesus truly the Christ, the fulfillment of the promises of the Old Testament, or is He an imposter full of empty words? [166] Will the reader (you and I) identify with Jesus or will he/she side with those who reject Him? Will the reader acknowledge that he/she is one of those who are spiritually poor and needy, or will he/she reject Christ’s diagnosis? Will we accept His gracious offer of help, or will we be like the Nazarenes and reject Him?

Those who Reject the Message of Christ Will in the End Be Rejected by Him.

It is a remarkable thing, but, so far as we know, Jesus never returned to Nazareth. [167] It became a classic illustration of the words of John, “those who were His own did not receive Him” (John 1:11). There comes a time when our rejection of God is irreparable. “Having pursued us through a lifetime, God finally lets us have it our way.... We can have what we want.” [168]

Those who Proclaim the Good News Must not Preach only Half the Truth.

Our Lord obviously believed that those who stand behind a pulpit must preach a message that is “both gentle and terrible.” He must tell his listeners that God is both Judge and Savior. Jesus will later teach in this Gospel that God never turns away the prodigal (Luke 15:11–32). He lovingly welcomes him home and forgives all his sins. On the other hand God will not forgive the self-righteous and self-satisfied person (Luke 18:9–14). [169] “There is one thing worse than sin. That is the denial of sin, which makes forgiveness impossible.” [170]

Notes

This is the seventh in a series of occasional articles on the Life of Christ.
Robert H. Schuller, Self Esteem:The New Reformation (Waco: Word, 1982), 100. Schuller’s well-intentioned thesis breaks down because of a totally inadequate (and unbiblical) doctrine of sin and the atonement.
Marshall warns of the etymological or root fallacy in treating the ἁμαρτία word group. In the earliest Greek literature, ἁμαρτάνω was used of hurling a spear and failing to hit the intended target or of having a purpose and not succeeding in fulfilling it. He questions whether this literal, ancient use of the verb actually affected NT usage. He defines sin as “committing an act that is wrong, usually by God’s standards, and especially as His will is laid down in His Law or the writings of the prophets and others.” Cf. I. Howard Marshall, “‘Sins’ and ‘Sin,’“ BS 159 (Jan., 2002): 3-5.
On the vocabulary for sin in the New Testament, cf. John F. Walvoord, “Thirty-three Words for Sin in the New Testament,” BS 100 (1943): 164-76, 244–55, 374–89.
Cf. James Moffatt, “Jesus on Sins,” in Studies in Early Christianity, ed. Shirley Jackson Case (New York: Century Co., 1928): 193-205.
Thomas F. Roeser, “There is One Thing Worse Than Sin,” Christianity Today (Nov. 11, 1983), 84. Roeser’s article was reprinted from the Chicago Sun-Times (Aug. 22, 1983).
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, AncB (New York: Doubleday, 1979), 529; Eduard Schweizer, The Good News According to Luke, trans. David E. Green (Atlanta: John Knox, 1984), 84; John Nolland, Luke 1–9:20, WBC (Dallas: Word, 1989), 195. Fitzmyer says that this important episode foreshadows “the account of the entire ministry that is to follow” (p. 526).
David Gooding, According to Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 81.
Augustine long ago noted that this pericope is very similar to Mark 6:1–6 and Matthew 13:53–58. He argued that these three paragraphs all record the same event and that Luke has located the event at the beginning of the Galilean ministry to highlight its importance and allow it to introduce the Galilean ministry. Cf. Augustine, The Harmony of the Gospels 2.42.90, in NPNF, 1st Series, 6:144–45. This view is generally accepted by New Testament scholars in modern times. For a summary of the various arguments, cf. Darrell L. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, BECNT (Grand Rapids: 5Baker, 1994), 396–97. There have, however, been a few dissenting voices over the years. They have argued—some vigorously and some cautiously—that the pericope in Luke is a separate event from that in Matthew and Mark. They argue that there were, in short, two rejections in Nazareth (e.g., Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 2 vols. (3d ed., London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1886), 1:635–40; H. A. W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Gospel of Matthew, trans. Peter Christie [New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1884], 263–64; F. Godet, A Commentary on The Gospel of St. Luke, 2 vols., trans. of 2d French ed. by E. W. Shalders [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1879], 1:240–41; William L. Lane, Commentary on the Gospel of Mark, NICNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974], 201, n. 2; D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 12 vols., ed. Frank E. Gaebelein [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], 8:335). Kurt Aland treated the three Synoptic passages as if they all recorded the same event (Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum [rev. ed., Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1969], 48–51, § 33), but Robert L. Thomas and Stanley N. Gundry treated them as if they recorded two distinct events (A Harmony of the Gospels [Chicago: Moody, 1978], 48, 94 § 45 and 97). The present writer cautiously accepts the view that there was one rejection in Nazareth. After the attempt on His life it would not be likely for Him to return. If He did return, it would be unlikely that they would be surprised at His teaching or that He would wonder at their unbelief (Mark 6:2, 6). Cf. Alfred Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, ICC (5th ed., Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1922), 130.
Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 420.
Idumea, Judea, and Samaria were ruled by Roman prefects or procurators; the northern part of Herod the Great’s domain (Gaulanitis, Tranchonitis, Batanea, and Paneas) was ruled by Philip; Galilee and Perea, where Jesus and John had most of their ministry, was ruled by Herod Antipas. Cf. H. W. Hoehner, “Herod,” ZPEB, 3:126–45 (esp. pp. 138-43).
Cf. Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 116.
Josephus, Life of Josephus 235 in Josephus, LCL, 10 vols., trans. H. St. J. Thackeray, Ralph Marcus, Allen Wikgren, and Louis H. Feldman (London: Heinemann, 1926), 1:88–89. Josephus said that the smallest of Galilee’s villages contained over fifteen thousand inhabitants, but this is considered an exaggeration. Cf. Josephus, The Jewish War 3.3.2 § 43 in Josephus, 2:586–89. Jeremias estimated that in all of Palestine in Jesus’ day, there were between 500,000 and 600,000 Jews. Cf. Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, trans. F. H. and C. H. Cave (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), 205.
In light of the importance of these Sabbath meetings, most assume that at least one synagogue stood in every town of Palestine, even the smaller ones. Cf. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 2:445. The fact, however, that a Roman centurion built a new synagogue for the people of Capernaum (Luke 7:5) might suggest that not every village had one in good repair. Cf. Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 116.
Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 116.
Godet, A Commentary on The Gospel of St. Luke, 1:231.
Cf. Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 117.
On the synagogue, cf. Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 1:430–50; George Foot Moore, Judaism, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927), 1:281–322; Wolfgang Schrage, “συναγωγή,” TDNT, 7 (1971): 798-841; S. Safrai, “The Synagogue,” in The Jewish People in the First Century, 2 vols., eds. S. Safrai and M. Stern (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 2:908–44; W. White, Jr., “Synagogue,” ZPEB 5 (1976), 554–68; Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 3 vols., rev. Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar and Matthew Black (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979), 2: 423–63; W. S. LaSor and T. C. Eskenazi, “Synagogue,” ISBE, 4 (1988): 676-84.
According to Josephus, Philo, and later Jewish tradition, the synagogue system of instruction originated with Moses himself. Cf. Josephus, Against Apion 2.175 in Josephus, 1:362–63; Philo, The Life of Moses 2.216 in Philo, LCL, 12 vols., trans. F. H. Colson, G. H. Whitaker, and Ralph Marcus (Cambridge: Harvard, 1935), 6:556–57; idem., The Special Laws 2.62 in Philo, 7 (1937): 346-47. The Targum of Jonathan on Exodus 18:20 attributes to Moses the composition of the prayer that is to be recited in the synagogues (“the house of congregation”). Cf. The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch, 2 vols., trans. J. W. Etheridge (1862 and 1865; reprint ed., New York: KTAV, 1968), 1:506
Josephus, Against Apion 2.175 in Josephus, 1:362–63.
Cf. C. K. Barrett, ed., The New Testament Background: Writings from Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire That Illuminate Christian Origins (rev. ed., San Francisco: Harper, 1987), 54, § 53.
Cf. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 2:425.
For fuller documentation on the synagogue and its services than given in the notes below, cf. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 2:417–39; Schrage, “συναγωγή,” 821–28; LaSor and Eskenazi, “Synagogue,” 684.
Baba Bathra 21a, in The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Nezikin, 4 vols., ed. I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), 2:105–7. Boys would be taught the law by their fathers but would be sent to the school at age six or seven.
Josephus, The Life of Josephus 277 in Josephus, 1:102–103; Kethuboth 5a, in The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Nashim, 4 vols. (1936), 2:14; cf. Schrage, “συναγωγή,” 825.
Sanhedrin 17b discusses the ruling council of the city (The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Nezikin, 3:87–90). Yebamoth 65b discusses the divorce plea of a childless woman (The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Nashim, 1:435–36). Cf. also, Makkoth 3:12 in Mishnayoth, 7 vols, vol. 4: Order Nezikin, ed. Philip Blackman (Gateshead: Judaica Press, 1983), 326–27.
Pesahim 101a, in The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Moʾed, 4 vols. (1938), 2:536.
Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 16.2.4 § 43 in Josephus, 8 (1963): 224-25.
Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 402–3.
Aboth 5.21, in Mishnayoth 4:537; Niddah 5.6, in Mishnayoth 6:620; cf. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 2:420–21; Godet, The Gospel of St. Luke, 1:233.
H. A. Ironside, Addresses on the Gospel of Luke (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux, 1947), 126–27.
Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 1:431.
Shabbath 11a, in The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Moʾed, 1:39.
Cf. Mark 5:22, 35–36, 38; Luke 8:49; 13:14; Acts 13:15; 18:8, 17.
Shabbath 35b, in The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Mo‘ed, 1:165–68.
Cf. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 2:454; LaSor and Eskenazi, “Synagogue,” 681. The custom of meeting on the eve of the Sabbath did not exist in the first century (Pesahim 100a, in The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Mo ‘ed, 2:533–34.). Cf. Safrai, “The Synagogue,” 921.
Philo, Every Good Man is Free, 81, in Philo, 9 (1941), 56–57.
The evidence for this assertion is not to be found in Philo, the Mishnah, or the Talmud; rather it is an assumption based on the architecture of the ruins of some of the ancient synagogues in Galilee. Cf. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 2:448, n. 98.
Menahoth 43b, in The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Kodashim, 3 vols. (1948), 1:262–63; cf. LaSor and Eskenazi, “Synagogue,” 684.
Mishnah = “repetition,” hence “study or teaching of the law.” Cf. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 1:70–77. Most scholars feel confident in drawing upon the Mishnah for a description of synagogue services in Jesus’ day because synagogue tradition was likely to have been conservative in its development. Cf. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 403, n. 18.
Megillah 4:3 in Mishnayoth, vol. 2: Order Mo’ed, 456.
Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, 531. LaSor and Eskenazi (“Synagogue,” 682) say that the selection came from Psalms 145–50. That psalms were used is suggested by three things: (1) The use of the psalms in the Daily Prayer Book, (2) the large number of manuscripts of Psalms found at Qumran, and (3) the number of quotations of Psalms found in the NT.
Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 2:455.
For the text of the “Eighteen Benedictions,” cf. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 2:454–63.
On standing for prayer, cf. Berachoth 5:1 in Mishnayoth, vol. 1: Order Zeraim, 52.; Taanith 2:2 in Mishnayoth, vol. 2: Order Moed, 416; also: Matt. 6:5; Mark 11:25; Luke 18:11.
Because of Megillah 29b (The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Mo’ed, 4:178–82) it is widely assumed that the Torah reading was so ordered that the whole of the Pentateuch was read every three years (the “Triennial Cycle”). This has been questioned by L. Crockett, “Luke 4:16–30 and the Jewish Lectionary Cycle: A Word of Caution,” JJS 17 (1966): 13-46.
Megillah 4.2 in Mishnayoth, vol. 2: Order Moed, 455.; Megillah 23a in The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Mo’ed, 4:138–140.
The practice of the reading of the Torah by seven men was observed only in Palestinian synagogues. The Jerusalem Talmud (y. Megillah 75a) says that among non-Palestinian Jews one person alone was to read the Torah. Philo agrees with this, for he clearly suggests that the Torah was read by one man. See Philo’s remarks in Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 8.7, trans. Edwin Hamilton Gifford (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1903; reprint ed., Grand Rapids; Baker, 1981), 1:389–90; cf. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 2:451–52; Safrai, “The Synogogue,” 929.
Megillah 4:1–5 in Mishnayoth, vol. 2: Order Moed, 454–58. The reading from the prophets was called Haftarah (from הַפְטָרָה, i.e., “dismissal,” or “conclusion”) or (pl.) Haftaroth. The significance of this term is debated, and scholars hold one of two views: (1) The term here means “dismissal,” i.e., the congregation was dismissed with the reading of the prophet. The sermon preceded the reading of the prophets, and the reading of the prophets concluded the service, the congregation being therewith dismissed. (2) The term here means “end” or “conclusion.” The sermon followed the reading of the prophets, and that reading ended the reading of the Scriptures in the service. Cf. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 2:452–53, n. 127.
Megillah 4:5 in Mishnayoth, vol. 2: Order Moed, 457–58.
Megillah 4:4 in Mishnayoth, vol. 2: Order Moed, 457.
The exposition of Scripture is called Midrash. It consists of Halakah, the study of the requirements of the Law, and Haggadah, illustrations of the teachings in stories, parables, and ethical sayings. Cf. LaSor and Eskenazi, “Synagogue,” 683.
Philo, Hypothetica (Apology for the Jews) 7.12-14 in Philo, 9:430–33. Philo gives two other summaries of synagogue worship. Cf. Every Good Man is Free, 81–82, in Philo, 9:56–59; The Special Laws 2.62-63 in Philo, 7:346–47.
Megillah 4:3 in Mishnayoth, vol. 2: Order Moed, 456.
Berachoth 5:4 in Mishnayoth, vol. 1: Order Zeraim, 54–55.
Schweizer, The Good News According to Luke, 85.
The fact that Jesus, and not the attendant, unrolled the scroll suggests that a fixed reading schedule was not being followed. If the attendant had opened the scroll to the passage, the suggestion that such a fixed reading schedule was being followed might have more weight. Cf. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, 532; Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 404.
The differences from the LXX are these: (1) In v. 19 Luke uses κηρύξαι (“to preach”) instead of καλέσαι (“to call”) as in Isaiah 61:2. (2) Jesus omits the phrase “heal the brokenhearted” [Isaiah 61:1]. (3) He inserts a phrase from Isa. 58:6 [“to set free those who are downtrodden”] which was lawful to do [cf. John Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, 4 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University press, 1859; reprint ed., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989), 3:71–72]. (4) He omits a significant phrase dealing with judgment [“to proclaim...the day of vengeance of our God”].
R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages to Himself and His Mission (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1971), 134. Plummer (The Gospel According to St. Luke, 122) calls the combination of Isaiah 61:1–2 and 58:6, “a sort of ‘program of the ministry.’”
Luke 4:16–30 has become a central text in the modern debate about “holistic mission.” Proponents of “holistic mission” reject the historic model of mission as evangelism through proclamation of the good news. The historic model has viewed social action as a means to evangelism or as a manifestation of evangelism. The holistic model views social action as an equal partner of evangelism in the task of missions. It views, mistakenly I believe, the Johannine form of the Great Commission (John 20:21) with its call to costly service as more crucial and broad than the narrower Matthean form (28:19–20) with its emphasis on preaching, witnessing and making disciples (cf. John R. W. Stott, Christian Mission in the Modern World (Downers Grove: IVP, 1975), 22–27). A recent defense of the holistic model rests much of its case on Luke 4:18–19, which it views as a statement of the mission of the church (James F. Engel and William A. Dyrness, Changing the Mind of Missions [Downers Grove: IVP, 2000], 23, 28, 38, 56, 62, 65). Engel and Dyrness are guilty of misapplying the text, i.e., they mistakenly assume that a given passage of Scripture that has a specific application at a point in history can be applied generally today. In context Jesus reads from Isaiah 61:1 and applies it to Himself alone! That OT passage refers to Christ’s anointing by the Holy Spirit at the time of His baptism. In reading the text Jesus laid claim to be the Messiah. “Jesus alone is the Christ, the Anointed One, and no one else may lay claim to this anointing and this role” (Colin Brown, “The Other Half of the Gospel?” Christianity Today [April 21, 1989], 27). To understand the mission of the church we must turn to the Great Commission (contra Stott, cf. Matt. 28:16–20) and consider the mission strategy of the Apostles—something Engle and Dyrness do not adequately do. Furthermore their work is flawed by an unbiblical triumphalist eschatology that can naively speak of the “sweeping power of Christ’s reign in this world” today (27; cf. pp. 24, 26, 28, 29, 33, 38, 56, 62, 65). The reign of Christ in this world is yet future, and to speak of it as present is not only unbiblical, it is delusional. Their thesis, unfortunately, demeans gospel preaching and calls for a form of evangelical social gospel. Their views smack more of a leftist political agenda than a biblical missions strategy. Evangelicals need to take a lesson from the WCC and the NCC. When churches turn from the gospel to a political/social agenda, the gospel loses out. The great evangelists, e.g., John Wesley, often spoke out on the social sins of the day, but they recognized the priority of evangelistic preaching. What is significant, to take Wesley as an example, is that placing a priority on the faithful preaching of the gospel led to significant changes in the culture. Cf. J. Wesley Bready, England: Before and After Wesley: The Evangelical Revival and Social Reform (New York: Russell and Russell, 1938), passim.
Walter L. Liefeld, “Luke,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 8:867.
Modern scholarship does not generally group Isaiah 61:1–2 with the “Servant Songs” (42:1–9; 49:1–13; 50:4–11; 52:13–53:12). There has been, nevertheless, a vocal minority that does consider the passage to be a description of the Servant/Messiah. Cf. Franz Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah, 2 vols., trans. James Martin (3d ed., Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1877), 2:424–26; J. Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1993), 499–500; John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 562–63.
That Isaiah takes some of his imagery from the (in his day) future Babylonian captivity is clear (cf. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 503). Yet his prophecy goes beyond that day to the ultimate restoration of Jewish exiles in the millennial kingdom. Cf. Gleason L. Archer, Jr., “Isaiah,” in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, eds. Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison (Chicago: Moody, 1962), 651.
Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 563–64.
Gooding, According to Luke, 81.
That Jesus considered Himself to be a prophet and was considered by others to be such is evident from Luke 4:24; 13:33 (Himself); 7:16, 39; 9:8, 19; 24:19 (others); cf. Acts 7:37, 52. Cf. Liefeld, “Luke,” 867.
“Good news” is the preferred translation, because “gospel” carries with it the connotation of later Christian preaching about the cross. It should not be so understood here. Rather, Jesus is quoting Isaiah—what Isaiah “announced,” Jesus is doing also. Cf. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, 532.
Cf. G. Friedrich, “εὐαγγελίζομαι,” TDNT, 2 (1964): 718.
Fitzmyer (The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, 529, 532) argues that this passage “contains no reference to a Davidic dynasty or a royal function of Jesus.” Rather, His anointing is only “a prophetic anointing.” This ignores the clear connection of the Nazareth sermon to the baptism with its allusions to Isaiah 42:1 and Psalm 2—passages which single Jesus out as the Messianic Servant and royal Son. Cf. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 406–7.
Jesus’ task is expressed in four infinitival phrases: (1) εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς [“to preach good news to the poor”], (2) κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν [“to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind”], (3) ἀποστεῖλαι τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀφέσει [“to set free those who are downtrodden”], and (4) κηρύξαι ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου δεκτόν [“to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord”].
Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, 248. Cf. Luke 1:53; 3:11, 14; 6:20, 24; 7:24–25; 12:33; 14:13; 16:19–26; 19:8.
LSJGL, s.v. “πτώσσω,” 1550.
F. Hauck, “πτωχός,” TDNT, 6 (1968), 886; LSJGL, s.v. “πτωχεύω,” 1550.
E. Bammel, “πτωχός,” TDNT, 6 (1968), 906–7. Cf. Green, The Gospel of Luke, 211, who goes well beyond the evidence of Luke to include those whose low status was caused by gender, vocation, lack of education, family heritage, etc.
Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 408. This is not to say, however, that Jesus is speaking out against the socio-political economic structures of His day. “Jesus is no social reformer and does not address Himself in any fundamental way to the political structures of His world” (Nolland, Luke 1–9:20, 197). “Jesus’ social teaching in Luke 4 is certainly challenging, but the spiritual dimension and its individual character cannot be overlooked or understated.... The gospel does have societal implications, not so much directly for society, as it does for how the redeemed community approaches humans and social structures” (Bock, 401). For a defence of the view that Jesus was something of a social, economic, and political revolutionary, cf. John Howard Yoder, The Politics of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 34–40 and passim.
As told to the writer by one of Mr. Crane’s friends, the late Paul B. Sapp of Fruita, Colorado (phone conversation, Sapp to MacLeod, 4/25/00). Cf. Phyllis Thompson, D. E. Hoste: A Prince With God (London: China Inland Mission, 1947).
Peterson to MacLeod, 4/11/00.
Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 408.#
Gooding, According to Luke, 81–82.#
Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 408.
Cf. William Hendriksen, The Gospel of Luke, NTC (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), 253.
H. A. Ironside, Addresses on the Gospel of Luke (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux, 1947), 129.
Commentators differ over whether “He has sent Me” goes with the preceding line, “to preach the gospel to the poor” or with the following one, “to proclaim release to the captives.” Bock (Luke 1:1–9:50, 402) takes the latter view, and Fitzmyer (Luke I-IX, 532) takes the former. The NIV and the NASB support Bock. Cf. also: I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 183.
Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 121; cf. K. H. Rengstorf, “ἀποστέλλω,” TDNT, 1 (1964), 403–4, 406.
Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 121.
Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 409; cf. G. Kittel, “αἰχμάλωτος,” TDNT 1 (1964), 196.
Nolland, Luke 1–9:20, 197.
Gooding, According to Luke, 82. The very next paragraph in Luke contains an account of a man released from the captivity of Satan (Luke 4:33–35; cf. 13:16).
The verb ἀφίημι is found in Luke 5:20, 21, 23, 24; 7:47, 48, 49; 11:4; 12:10; 17:3, 4; 23:34. Cf. Green, The Gospel of Luke, 211; H. Leroy, “ἀφίημι,” EDNT 1 (1990), 182.
Charles Wesley, “And Can It Be?” in The Hymnal for Worship & Celebration (Waco: Word, 1986), 203.
Isaiah reads “freedom [lit. ‘opening’] to prisoners.” The Hebrew expression figuratively suggests the opening of the eyes of those exiles who had been blinded by their captors or by long confinement in a dungeon. Cf. Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 121; Godet, A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke, 1:235; BDB, s.v. “פְּקַח־קוֹחַ] ,” 824.
Cf. Liefeld, “Luke,” 900–901; cf. Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 202; Gooding, According to Luke, 83–84.
Gooding, According to Luke, 83.
The context of Isaiah 58 is different from that of Isaiah 61. In Isaiah 61 the Servant/Messiah is commissioned to set the people free from their bondage. In Isaiah 58 the setting changes. Isaiah addresses people who have received the Servant’s freedom. Instead of using their freedom to free others they are using it as a vehicle to exalt themselves at the expense of those around them. In hypocrisy they are keeping the religious fast days, but they are being abusive to their slaves. “This [is] the fast which I choose—...to let the oppressed go free.” Cf. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 503.
Plummer argues that it is Luke who inserted the line from Isaiah 58:6 (The Gospel According to St. Luke, 202). Hendriksen takes it as a midrash or comment added by Jesus Himself (The Gospel of Luke, 253–54).
Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 409.
The verb appears here only in the NT. The perf. pass. ptc. τεθραυσμένους means “broken.” BDAG, s.v. “θραύω,” 458; G. Schneider, “θραύω,” EDNT, 2 (1981), 154; cf. Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 122.
Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 410.
Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, 565.
Cf. Godet, A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke, 1:234–35; Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 121; Nolland, Luke 1–9:20, 197; Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 406, 410; Green, The Gospel of Luke, 212.
BDB, s.v. “יּוֹל,” 385; J. B. Payne, “Jubilee, Year of,” ISBE 2 (1982), 1142–43.
This was the Day of Atonement.
Actually, the land would lie fallow for two years, on the forty-ninth which was a sabbatical year, and on the fiftieth.
Yoder asserts that Luke 4:18–21 is a demand by Jesus to implement the Jubilee requirements. “Many bloody revolutions would have been avoided if the Christian church had shown herself more respectful than Israel was of the jubilee dispositions contained in the law of Moses” (The Politics of Jesus, 34–40, 64–77 [esp. pp. 74, 77]). Yoder’s view is unacceptable for three reasons: (1) It misses the primarily spiritual/salvific thrust of the passage. (2) It fails to see that the jubilee legislation applies literally to Israel’s theocracy and not to a Christian political agenda. (3) It discounts the significance of futuristic eschatology, i.e., the teaching of Scripture that our Lord’s economic and societal demands will one day be imposed upon the nations, and not without blood! (Rev. 19:13–21). Yoder’s views are more fueled by utopianism and left-wing economics (“the redistribution of capital,” 74–77) than he seems to realize.
Josephus asserts that the sabbatical year legislation was faithfully followed in his time. Cf. Jewish Antiquities 3.12.3, § 280–86.
In the Psalms of Solomon 11 (APOT, 2:643–44) Jubilee is used to picture the eschatological regathering of Israel to the land. This is also true in Shemoneh ‘Esreh 10 (cf. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 2:457) and in 11Q Melch (Melchizedek text from Qumran cave 11). Cf. Merrill P. Miller, “The Function of Isa. 61:1–9 in 11Q Melchizedek,” JBL 88 (1969): 467-69; “The Last Jubilee: A Sermon (‘Melchizedek Texts’),” in The Dead Sea Scriptures, trans. Theodor H. Gaster (3d ed., Garden City: Anchor, 1976), 433–36.
Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 406.
Gooding, According to Luke, 83.
Cf. Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, trans. John Richard De Witt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 52–53 and passim; George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, ed. Donald A. Hagner (rev. ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 209, 622 and passim; James D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), 213 and passim; Thomas R. Schreiner, Paul: Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ (Downers Grove: IVP, 2001), 20, 92–93 and passim.
Gooding, According to Luke, 84.
The verb ἀτενίζω is used twelve times in Luke-Acts and depicts intense, focused emotion. It appears at key moments such as Jesus’ ascension (Acts 1:10), Stephen’s vision (Acts 7:55), Paul’s rebuke of Elymas (Acts 13:9), and his look as he addressed the Sanhedrin (Acts 23:1). Cf. Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 123; Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 411–12.
Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, 533.
France, Jesus and the Old Testament, 134.
Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, 533–34.
Conzelmann says that the “today” of Luke 4:21 is “a date in history...a thing of the past.” He limits the “today” to the time of Jesus’ earthly ministry (Hans Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke, trans. Geoffrey Buswell [San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1961], 36–37). As Bock notes, however, Luke’s today is not a “now and only now” affair; rather it includes the entire age of Messiah’s church. Cf. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 412. In a sense both of these views are true. At a specific moment in history the Scripture was fulfilled, yet that moment marked the beginning of a new epoch in salvation history.
The ongoing state of fulfillment is further stressed by the use of the perfect tense πεπλήρωται. Cf. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 412–13.
J. Horst, “οὖς,” TDNT, 5 (1967), 554.
Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 123–24. “The single sentence recorded is of profound significance.” Cf. Liefeld, “Luke,” 868.
Καὶ πάντες ἐμαρτύρουν αὐτῷ.
Most commentators understand the αὐτῷ in v. 22 as a dative of advantage, i.e., “they were bearing witness on behalf of Him.” They admired His rhetorical skill. This interpretation is open to the very serious objection that it produces an awkward transition between the people’s praise in v. 22a and the indignant surprise which follows in v. 22b. Some have therefore understood the form as a dative of disadvantage, i.e., “they were bearing witness against Him.” For this minority view, cf. Joachim Jeremias, Jesus’ Promise to the Nations, trans. S. H. Hooke, SBT 24 (London: SCM, 1958), 44–45; Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, 185–86.
The verb θαυμάζω can express either admiration or opposition. For the latter, negative sense, cf. G. Bertram, “θαῢμα,” TDNT, 3 (1965), 38.
The illustration of a defense attorney was suggested by Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 414.
William F. Arndt, The Gospel According to St. Luke (St. Louis: Concordia, 1956), 140; Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 414. In this case the genitive would be descriptive or adjectival. Cf. Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples, trans. Joseph Smith (Rome: Pontifical Institute, 1963), p. 15, § 40.
Nolland, Luke 1–9:20, 198–99. Grammatically this would be a genitive of content. Cf. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 92.
Cf. H. Conzelmann, “χάρις,” TDNT, 9:392, n. 153; A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 6 vols., vol. 2: Luke (Nashville: Broadman, 1930), 59.
Cf. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, 186.
Cf. Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 125; H. K. Luce, The Gospel According to St. Luke, CGT (Cambridge: University Press, 1933), 121.
Jeremias thinks the people were also angry that Jesus omitted any reference to the day of vengeance. Cf. Jesus’ Promise to the Nations, 45. Their reaction seems too extreme for such a small infraction.
Jesus manifests this kind of omniscience repeatedly in Luke (e.g., 5:21–22; 6:7–8; 7:36–50; 9:47). It was His as a Spirit-endowed prophet. Cf. Green, The Gospel of Luke, 216.
The word παραβολή is an utterance that involves a comparison. It can mean “parable” or, as here, a “figurative saying, proverb, or illustration.” Cf. Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 125–26.
Creed, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 68; Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke, 257; Green, The Gospel of Luke, 216–17.
The problem with this view is that it gives a corporate force to the proverb (“yourself” = Nazareth) that is unlikely. Cf. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 416.
Godet, A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke, 1:237; Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 126; Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 416.
Godet, A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke, 1:237; Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 126. Cf. Gooding, According to Luke, 84.
Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 126. Cf. Nolland, Luke 1–9:20, 200.
Some scholars (e.g. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, 535) argue that there is chronological disorder here because Luke has not recorded any miracles in Capernaum before the Nazareth sermon. This conclusion is not as certain as it seems to many. He had already performed miracles by this time during the “year of obscurity.” In fact an earlier visit by Jesus to Capernaum, recorded in John’s Gospel (John 2:12) was preceded and followed by miracles (John 2:11, 23). Furthermore, He had later entered Galilee “in the power of the Spirit” (Luke 4:14) which implies that He was performing miracles in those days. Cf. Godet, A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke, 1:238.
This is the second temptation in Matthew’s Gospel (Matt. 4:5–7). Cf. Godet, A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke, 1:238.
Schweizer, The Good News According to Luke, 90.
Godet, A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke, 1:238.
Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 127.
Gooding, According to Luke, 85.
Roeser, “There is One Thing Worse Than Sin,” 84.
Gooding, According to Luke, 87, 88.
The purpose of the two Old Testament stories in this context has been variously understood. There have been at least seven explanations: (1) The stories have no relevance to the present discussion. Luke has done a poor cut-and-paste job with his sources, and the two OT incidents have nothing to do with Jesus’ reception in Nazareth. See Creed, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 66. (2) The stories serve to illustrate the principle of verse 24, viz., that prophets are rejected by their own people. See Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), 168. (3) The stories show that the consequence of rejecting a prophet is that others, specifically outsiders, get the benefit of his ministry. See Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 127; Green, The Gospel of Luke, 218; Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 418, 419. (4) The widow of Zarephath and Naaman foreshadow the rejection of the Jewish People and a turning of Christ to the Gentiles. Outsiders are to get the benefit of Jesus’ ministry just as outsiders got the benefit of the ministries of Elijah and Elisha. See Godet, A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke, 1:238–39; Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, 537; Robert H Stein, Luke, NAC (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 159. (5) The widow and Naaman show the citizens of Nazareth that they will receive no special favors from God. Elijah and Elisha went to the Gentiles not because the Jews rejected them but because they were sent there by God. See Liefeld, “Luke,” 869. However, the fact that Elisha performed all his miracles among the Israelites, except for the cleansing of Naaman, hardly indicates that he is a representative of a prophet who withholds God’s blessings from his countrymen. Furthermore, Elisha was not sent to the Gentiles; rather Naaman came to him. (6) The stories make the point that miracles cannot be demanded of Jesus any more than they could be demanded of Elijah and Elisha [cf. v. 23b]. See Theodor von Zahn, Das Evangelium des Lukas ausgelegt (4th ed., Leipzig: Deichert, 1930), 242, cited by John Nolland, Luke 1–9:20, WBC (Word: Dallas, 1989), 201. (7) The point of the stories is that in Jesus’ days as well as in the era of Elijah and Elisha unbelief created a situation where God’s blessings are not bestowed. These men were truly messengers from God, yet the many needy widows and lepers of Israel remained without help. The refusal to acknowledge their spiritual condition and repent led to moral and spiritual poverty of many in both the time of Elijah and Elisha and the time of Jesus. Conversely, the stories illustrate that by acknowledging one’s poverty or lack of resources and believing the prophets’ message one will prove by experience that the message is true. See Nolland, Luke 1–9:20, 201; Gooding, According to Luke, 86–88.
According to 1 Kings 18:1 the drought ended sometime “in the third year.” This would suggest that there was no rain for about two and a half years. Luke, however, along with James (5:17), says that there was no rain for three and a half years. Fitzmyer (The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, 537–38) says that Luke’s three and a half years is symbolic of persecutions and distress—“the stereotyped length of the period of distress in apocalyptic literature.” Godet suggests that “three years and six months” is a traditional figure reflecting not so much an apocalyptic stereotype as the reasoning that the famine would last at least a year longer than the drought. A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke, 1:239; cf. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 421.
Gooding, According to Luke, 87.
The king of Aram could be Ben-Haddad II, who made a truce with Israel (2 Kings 8:7). The king of Israel would then be Jehoram. Cf. Richard D. Patterson and Hermann J. Austel, “1, 2 Kings,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 12 vols., ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 4:189.
Cf. Donald J. Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings: An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1993), 207.
Gooding, According to Luke, 88.
Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 129; Godet, A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke, 1:239.
Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 419.
There are a number of examples of the “rebel’s beating” in the NT, e.g., John 8:59; 10:31; Acts 21:31–32. Both Stephen’s and Jesus’ appearances before the Sanhedrin resulted in procedures that were contrary to Rabbinical criminal law. Both trials degenerated into the “rebel’s beating” (Matt. 26:59, 68; Acts 7:57–58). Cf. Alfred Edersheim, The Temple: Its Ministry and Services (1874; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958), 66–67.
Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, 190.
The location of the spot where the congregation of Nazareth intended to kill Jesus is not known. Traditionally, it is thought to be an eighty-foot cliff about three kilometers or forty minutes southeast of Nazareth (Jebel el-Kafze), but this site has been contested. Cf. Godet, A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke, 1:239–40; Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, 538.
The idea of divine direction is found in the expression, “He went on His way” (ἐπορεύετο). The verb πορεύω is used by Luke (4:42; 7:6, 11; 9:51, 52, 53, 56, 57; 13:33; 17:11; 22:22) to suggest a divinely led journey that will end in Jesus’ death and resurrection. Cf. Nolland, Luke 1:1–9:20, 202; Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 420, n. 46. “Jesus ‘went on His way’—that is, the path of obedience to God’s purpose in fulfillment of the mission for which He was anointed” (Green, The Gospel of Luke, 219).
E.g., Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 130; H. A. W. Meyer, Hand-Book to the Gospels of Mark and Luke, trans. R. E. Wallis and W. P. Dickson (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1884), 313; Creed, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 69; Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, 169.
E.g., Godet, A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke, 1:240; Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke, 259. This view does not explain why His majesty did not keep them from driving Him out of the synagogue and city. Cf. Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 130.
Cf. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to St. Luke, TNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 108.
Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, 539.
Bruce Larson, The Communicator’s Commentary, vol. 3: Luke (Waco: Word, 1983), 92.
Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, 248.
Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, 190.
R. Kent Hughes, Luke: That You May Know the Truth, 2 vols. (Wheaton: Crossway, 1998), 1:146.
Cf. the comments of Charles Haddon Spurgeon, “Nazareth; or, Jesus Rejected By his Friends,” in The Treasure of the Bible, 8 vols. (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 5:671–77.
Hughes, Luke: That You May Know the Truth, 1:146.
Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 420.
Plummer, The Gospel According to St. Luke, 130. Cf., however, Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 1:635–40.
Larson, The Communicator’s Commentary, vol. 3: Luke, 92–93.
Joseph Parker, The People’s Bible, vol. 21: Mark-Luke (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, n.d.), 224–25.
Roeser, “There is One Thing Worse Than Sin,” 84.

Eamon Younis

Friday, 19 April 2019

The Year of Public Favor, Part 1: Jesus’ Inaugural Sermon

No comments:

Post a Comment