§8 Jesus Preaches at Nazareth (Luke 4:14–30)
4:14–15 / This brief summarizing section, probably derived from Mark 1:14–15, represents the beginning of Jesus’ Galilean ministry (so Fitzmyer, p. 521; Ellis [pp. 33, 98–99] and Schweizer [pp. 96–97], however, see the beginning at 4:31). Luke wishes to make it clear that Jesus’ ministry begins in the power of the Spirit as he taught in their synagogues (see 1:35; 3:22; 4:1), which parallels the inauguration of the apostolic preaching and teaching in Acts 2. These verses establish the context for an expanded account of one such teaching episode in a synagogue (4:16–30).
4:16–30 / The sermon at the synagogue in Nazareth provides the reader with an example of the content of Jesus’ proclamation. This passage illustrates vividly Jesus’ theology in contrast to the popular assumptions held by many of his Jewish contemporaries. In a very real sense this passage may be described as programmatic of the evangelist’s theological concerns. The themes that are here presupposed and debated will recur frequently throughout Luke’s account. Of all the passages in this Gospel this one is of critical importance and must be understood well if we are to appreciate the evangelist’s theological perspective and major purpose for writing.
On the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue recalls Jesus’ habitual concern with the things of God, from his childhood (see 2:49) to the beginning of his ministry (4:15). As was his custom, out of deference to the sacred Scriptures, Jesus stood up to read and the synagogue attendant handed him the scroll of the prophet Isaiah. Since it was the Sabbath a selection from the prophets was to be read, following the reading of a selection from Torah (the law of Moses, Genesis-Deuteronomy). Jesus unrolled the scroll and read from Isa. 61:1–2. He had chosen a popular passage in Isaiah, one which was understood as describing the task of the Lord’s Anointed One, the Messiah (see notes below). Jesus concludes his quotation with the phrase (lit.): “to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord” (v. 19) and omits the next phrase of Isa. 61:2 (lit.): “and the day of vengeance of our God.” Why Jesus has cited Isaiah in this way becomes evident in the balance of his sermon.
When Jesus finished reading and sat down, the eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, that is, they were watching him with great interest and anticipation. His hearers were surely wondering why Jesus had quoted this particular messianic text of Scripture. Jesus then declares that “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing” (v. 21). The congregation is amazed, sensing that there is something special in the words that he spoke. The question, “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” (v. 22), suggests pleasant surprise at hearing such a remarkable statement from one who was well known in Nazareth and surrounding parts.
In v. 23 Jesus demonstrates that he understands what the people expect of him. The proverb “Physician, heal yourself!” means that the healer or benefactor (in this case Jesus) should take care of his own and does not imply that Jesus himself has some deficiency or fault that needs correcting. The people of Nazareth expect Jesus to do the same things for them that he has done for the people of Capernaum. If Jesus’ pronouncement that the Isaiah passage was truly fulfilled, then all could expect Jesus to do wonderful things for them. In v. 24, however, Jesus disappoints this expectation by stating that no prophet is accepted in his home town. The irony is that the word “accepted” (or “acceptable”) in this verse is the same word found in v. 19 above. The prophet who is to announce the “acceptable” year of the Lord is himself not “acceptable” to his own people (cf. John 1:10–11). Underlying this expression is the long tradition of the rejected, persecuted, and martyred prophets of Israel. Those prophets who spoke the word of God often found themselves out of favor or “unacceptable” to the ruling political and religious establishments of their times (see note below). Instead of proclaiming what the authorities wanted to hear, the prophets of old spoke what God wanted said. So it is in the case of Jesus in the Nazareth synagogue. The people hear that the messianic era is at hand, and in this they rejoice; but they hear that it will not entail what they expect, and with this they become angry.
In vv. 25–27 Jesus explains and justifies his startling pronouncement by citing two OT examples involving Elijah and his disciple and successor Elisha. That he singled out these two figures is particularly appropriate since Elijah was regarded as the prophet of the last days who would prepare the way for the Messiah (see Mal. 3:1; 4:5–6). If the last days are truly at hand, then the Elijah/Elisha tradition would surely bear some relevance. Jesus recounts in vv. 25–26 the incident in which Elijah provides an unending supply of food for a Gentile widow and her son (1 Kings 17:8–16) and yet makes no such provision for any Israelite. In v. 27 Jesus tells of the incident in which Elisha healed Naaman the Syrian army officer of the dread disease leprosy (2 Kings 5:1–14; see Luke 5:12–14). In the minds of his Jewish listeners it was offense enough to be reminded that Elijah ministered to a poor Gentile widow, but it was intolerable to be oppressed by Roman occupation and then be reminded that Elisha healed a soldier of Syria, a country which had oppressed Israel in an earlier time.
What makes all of this preaching so “unacceptable” is that the people of Jesus’ time expected Messiah to come and destroy Israel’s enemies, not minister to them. With respect to messianic expectation the Jewish people of the first century held, by and large, to two basic beliefs: (1) Every generation believed that the coming of Messiah was very near and that he would probably come in their own time; and (2) all believed that when Messiah would come he would vanquish the Gentiles (and perhaps the corrupt of Israel) and restore and bless Israel. Isaiah 61:1–2 was a passage that was felt to witness to this second belief. It was believed that the blessings described in this OT passage were reserved for Israel alone, while the “day of vengeance” (that part of the quotation omitted by Jesus) was reserved for Israel’s enemies. When Jesus announced that Isa. 61:1–2 was fulfilled today, he fulfilled the expectations of the first commonly held belief. However, when he announced that no prophet is accepted and then cited the examples of Elijah and Elisha, he flatly contradicted the second belief. This contradiction led to their outrage and the attempt to kill Jesus by throwing him down the cliff. Nevertheless, Jesus walked right through the crowd and went on his way. Whether or not Luke intends this escape to be miraculous is uncertain, for the passion of the crowd, once outside, may have abated somewhat. But what is certain is that Jesus’ ministry was far from over.
4:14–15 / Luke makes no mention of Jesus proclaiming the kingdom of God at this point in his ministry (contrast Mark 1:14–15). Luke wishes to avoid this popular (and misunderstood) theme until he has clarified Jesus’ own views of messiahship, as seen in the Nazareth sermon.
4:16–21 / Luke’s account of this synagogue service is our oldest and most detailed description of what took place in the early synagogue. Since the return from the Babylonian exile (ca. 586–516 B.C.) the Jewish people spoke Aramaic. (See the account in Neh. 8:1–8 in which Ezra and his scribes read the law of Moses and explain it to the people.) In the synagogue service a portion of the Hebrew Bible was read and then an “explanation” (or Targum) was given in Aramaic. This need probably gave rise to the custom of preaching a sermon after a brief reading of Scripture (see Acts 2:16–36; 13:16–41). By the end of the first century A.D., synagogue services consisted of the recitation of the Shema (Deut. 6:4–9; 11:13–21; Num. 15:37–41), the Eighteen Benedictions, the daily psalm, the priestly blessing (Num. 6:24–26), prayers, readings from Torah and the Prophets, and a homily (Lachs, p. 56). See also HBD, pp. 1007–8.
J. T. Sanders (pp. 165–68) thinks that the final rejection of the Jews is foreshadowed by Luke 4:16–30. I think that this interpretation is completely incorrect. The point of the passage is not that messianic blessings are to be withheld from the Jews, but that the common assumption that these blessings are restricted to a certain righteous few is wrong. It is Jesus who is rejected, not the Jews. Jesus is rejected for declaring that the Good News of the kingdom is for everyone, even Gentiles. For Luke, Jesus’ true family is made up, not of those who are physically related to him, such as Jewish kinsmen, but of those “who hear the word of God and do it,” whether Jewish or not (see 8:19–21). For further discussion see James A. Sanders, “From Isaiah 61 to Luke 4,” in J. Neusner, ed., Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults (Morton Smith Festschrift; Leiden: Brill, 1975), pp. 75–106, esp. pp. 96–104.
4:18 / The Spirit of the Lord is on me … he has anointed me: Tannehill (pp. 58–59, 62–63) has argued that Jesus’ anointing (which refers back to the baptism, 3:22) is royal, not simply prophetic (contra Fitzmyer, pp. 529–30). I agree. It is his anointing that makes Jesus “Messiah,” and in being presented as Messiah, Jesus is presented as David’s successor, Israel’s long-awaited king.
4:18–19 / Luke’s quotation is from the Greek translation (LXX) of the Hebrew OT and is actually a combination of various parts of Isa. 61:1–2 and 58:6 (61:1a, b, d; 58:6d; 61:2a; with 61:1c and 61:2b, c omitted). Isaiah 61 and 58 are linked by common words and ideas (dektos [“acceptable”] in Isa. 61:2 and 58:5, aphesis [“release”/“forgiveness”] in 61:1 and 58:6). With regard to aphesis, Luke may acknowledge both senses (see Talbert, p. 55; Tannehill, pp. 65–66). Another noteworthy detail is the replacement of the verb meaning “to call for” in 61:2a with a verb meaning “to proclaim,” thus suggesting that the Anointed One does more than merely “call for” the acceptable day of the Lord, he actually “proclaims” its arrival. Of course, such a modification lends itself very well to the nature of Jesus’ preaching. The reference in Acts 10:35 to the person (in this case a Gentile) who is “acceptable” to God may allude to Luke 4:19.
In at least one of the writings of Qumran (11QMelchizedek 9–16) Isa. 61:1–2 is linked with Isa. 52:7. Judging by the paragraph indentations of the Great Isaiah Scroll of Qumran (=1QIsaiah), Isaiah 52:7 was thought to be the opening verse of the Suffering Servant Song (52:7–53:12). In the Aramaic version of the OT, known as the Targum, this Servant Song is unmistakably depicted as messianic (see 52:13; 53:10). In 11QMelch 16 the reference to “peace” (šālôm) in Isa. 52:7 is re-vocalized to mean “retribution” (šillûm), thus underscoring the aspect of vengeance and retribution found in the Isa. 61:1–2 passage (for further discussion see M. P. Miller, “The Function of Isa. 61, 1–2 in Melchizedek,” JBL 88 [1969], pp. 467–69). According to the people of Qumran, the Messiah’s appearance meant comfort for them and judgment for their enemies (see also 1QH 15.15; 18.14–15). This may very well have been a widely held view. Underlying these ideas of vengeance and retribution was the popular understanding of the militaristic Messiah. That Luke is familiar with such a concept is apparent from Acts 5:33–39, where Gamaliel reminds the Sanhedrin of the (apparently military) failure of two messianic claimants, Theudas (v. 36) and Judas the Galilean (v. 37). Josephus knows of this Theudas and two others. Theudas (ca. A.D. 45), he tells us, claimed that he was a prophet and could command the river to part (Antiquities 20.97–98). Here is likely an allusion either to Moses parting the Red Sea (Exod. 14:21–22) or to Joshua’s crossing of the Jordan River (Josh. 3:14–17). Later we are told of a man from Egypt (ca. A.D. 54) who claimed to be a prophet at whose command the walls of Jerusalem would fall down (Antiquities 20.169–170). This sign was probably inspired by the story of Israel’s conquest of Jericho (Josh. 6:20; cf. Acts 21:38). Finally, Josephus tells us of another “imposter” who promised salvation and rest, if the people would follow him into the wilderness (Antiquities 20.188). Years later, Israel would suffer terribly as a result of following the popular messianic/military figures of Menachem and Simon bar Giora (first war with Rome, A.D. 66–70) and Simon bar-Kochba (second war with Rome, A.D. 132–135).
Although the words spoken at Jesus’ baptism (3:22) and transfiguration (9:35) are usually understood as alluding to Ps. 2:7 (Cf. Marshall [p. 155], who calls the word “reminiscent of Ps. 2:7,” but rejects any dependence on either Isa. 42:1 or Ps. 2:7; idem, “Son of God or Servant of Yahweh?—A Reconsideration of Mark I. 11,” NTS 15 [1968–69], pp. 326–36.), Fitzmyer (pp. 485–86) has concluded that they more likely allude to Isa. 42:1. That passage, one of the Servant Songs of Isaiah, was often interpreted by early Christians (and some Jews) as messianic (best known is the Suffering Servant Song of 52:13–53:12). Marshall’s view receives support from the quotation of Isa. 61:1–2 in Luke 4:18–19. Elsewhere in Luke’s writings Jesus is actually called the Lord’s “Servant” (Acts 4:27). Moreover, Acts 10:38 declares that “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit” (RSV), which surely should be understood as a reference to his baptism, at which time the Spirit descended upon him, and to which Jesus himself alludes in his sermon (4:18–19). In light of these various references it is probably correct to say that Luke understands Jesus to have been officially “anointed” as Messiah (“anointed one”) at his baptism. This is further confirmed by the heavenly voice, which alludes to Isa. 42:1, another Servant Song, and which qualifies him to apply Isa. 61:1–2 to himself as God’s herald of “Good News” for the “poor,” “downtrodden,” etc.
Some commentators (Fitzmyer, p. 532; Marshall, p. 184; Tiede, p. 107) suggest that Luke may have had in mind the year of the Jubilee (every 50th year), which is described in Lev. 25:10–13, and which was intended to be a year of “release” (or “forgiveness”) for debtors. According to the Qumran text mentioned above (11QMelchizedek), Leviticus 25 is referred to in connection with Isa. 61:1 and would seem to indicate that one of the tasks of the Messiah was to announce a year of Jubilee. Since the year A.D. 26/27 was a Jubilee year, Luke could have understood this as the year that Jesus began his messianic ministry (it is rejected by Schweizer, p. 89; Marshall, p. 184).
4:23 / The proverb, Physician, heal yourself! resembles proverbs found in both Greek (“A physician for others, but himself teeming with sores,” Euripides, Fragments 1086) and Jewish (“Physician, heal your own lameness,” Genesis Rabbah 23.5) traditions (both examples are taken from Fitzmyer, p. 535). The saying in the Gospel of Thomas 31 probably represents a variant version of the Synoptic saying: “A physician does not heal those who know him.”
4:24 / I tell you the truth: Lit. “Amen [truly] I say to you.” This is the only Hebrew word that Luke retains from his sources. The word “amen” comes from a Hebrew verb that means “to be established,” “sure,” or “certain,” and its use is characteristic of Jesus’ style of teaching.
no prophet is accepted: Jesus’ words here and in 13:34 reflect a Jewish tradition that Israel routinely rejected and persecuted the prophets (2 Chron. 36:15–16; Pss. 78, 105, 106; Lam. 4:13; Acts 7:51–53). According to the pseudepigraphal work, The Lives of the Prophets (1:1; 2:1; 3:1–2; 6:2; 7:2), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Micah, and Amos suffered martyrdom. One later rabbinic tradition portrays Jeremiah’s reluctance to enter the prophetic vocation: “O Lord, I cannot go as a prophet to Israel, for when lived there a prophet whom Israel did not desire to kill? Moses and Aaron they sought to stone with stones; Elijah the Tishbite they mocked …” (from L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1913], vol. 4, p. 295).
4:29 / out of the town: According to Lev. 24:14 executions were supposed to take place outside the city (see Acts 7:58; 14:19). That Luke (or the mob) had this thought in mind is not certain. Ellis (p. 98) thinks that the episode foreshadows “the day of his execution” (Luke 23:26–33). Lachs (p. 56) suggests that Jesus’ being put out of the city might be an example of excommunication. In light of the meaning of the pericope this could very well be the case.
Modern Nazareth is situated on a hill, but exactly what cliff is referred to in this episode cannot be ascertained. On Nazareth see HBD, p. 689. Tiede (p. 110) makes the plausible suggestion that the idea was to throw Jesus down a cliff and then bury him with stones, the fate of the false prophet.