Luke 4 v 16-29

[chrisg]

For many years I have read this passage and not really understood it; in fact, there are parts I hadn't even noticed! However, I have a question about something I noticed just a few days ago. 

Jesus here goes to the Nazareth synagogue on the Sabbath; He reads from Isaiah and then states that this Scripture is fulfilled in the hearing of those people. Thus far I think I understand - Jesus was saying He was the fulfilment of the passage and thus was proclaiming Himself as the Messiah. At this point, His hearers are listening intently. In fact, they seemed to appreciate the gracious words He was speaking. But then He goes on to preach about various actions from the past, such as widows in the time of Elijah and lepers in the time of Elisha. When He gets to the end of those examples, the assembled people are very angry with Him and led Him out of the city, intending to kill Him.

Now I know I am missing something here - WHY did they react like that? What had He just said that made them so angry that they wanted to kill Him? In my limited understanding, He didn't appear to have said anything that would give them murderous thoughts! I therefore presume that His hearers would have understood Him differently than I do. Can anyone enlighten me please?

[alon]

Mar 21, 2016 5:13:20 GMT -8 chrisg said:

... Jesus here goes to the Nazareth synagogue on the Sabbath; He reads from Isaiah and then states that this Scripture is fulfilled in the hearing of those people. Thus far I think I understand - Jesus was saying He was the fulfilment of the passage and thus was proclaiming Himself as the Messiah. At this point, His hearers are listening intently. In fact, they seemed to appreciate the gracious words He was speaking. But then He goes on to preach about various actions from the past, such as widows in the time of Elijah and lepers in the time of Elisha. When He gets to the end of those examples, the assembled people are very angry with Him and led Him out of the city, intending to kill Him.

Now I know I am missing something here - WHY did they react like that? What had He just said that made them so angry that they wanted to kill Him? In my limited understanding, He didn't appear to have said anything that would give them murderous thoughts! I therefore presume that His hearers would have understood Him differently than I do. Can anyone enlighten me please?

Thought provoking question … .

Yeshua was reading from the haftarah, which was a reading related to the reading for that week. We aren’t told what the reading was; and as they may have been on a different reading schedule at that time I don’t know that we can find what it was. It says in vs. 17:

Luke 4:17 (ESV) And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,

So He may even have selected this haftara reading Himself. What He read was:

Luke 4:18-21 (ESV) “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.”
And he rolled up the scroll and 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.”

You are correct, Yeshua had just announced that He was HaMoshiach, Messiah; the anointed one. Now they would have heard of the miracles and the following He was gaining. This was a time in Israel’s history when they were expecting their Messiah to come and free them from their Roman oppressors. It was also a time when they needed unification, as there were a multitude of sects, and sectarian violence was rampant. Even the sect Yeshua belonged to, the Pharisees, had a sub-sect called the Zealots- who also had a sub-sect called the Siccarii, who were basically assassins. And there were many false Messiahs in their recent history. But this man was the most likely to be the true Messiah. And He was one of their own. But …

Luke 4:23-27 (ESV) And he said to them, “Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, ‘Physician, heal yourself.’ What we have heard you did at Capernaum, do here in your hometown as well.” And he said, “Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his hometown. But in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heavens were shut up three years and six months, and a great famine came over all the land, and 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 the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian.”

Yeshua perceived that they wanted a demonstration. More than that, I think they wanted Him to be “their guy,” who would do wonders for them and lead the nation as they wanted. Remember too that Yeshua was royalty, in the line of King David. He was next in line to actually be “King of the Jews.” That was not just some spiritualized title given to Him. He may be our heavenly King, but He is our Earthly King as well. So things must have been looking pretty good to these folks right about the time Yeshua said He was indeed the Messiah. Then He went and pulled the rug right out from under them. He was nobodies boy, and told them as much. They then acted predictably:

Luke 4:28-29 (ESV) When they heard these things, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. And they rose up and drove him out of the town and brought him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they could throw him down the cliff.

This is how I read the passage.

Human nature is a strange thing. We want someone to save us, which of course entails giving special privileges as well. We want a king to lead us- but we want to tell him how. And let's just turn this all into a carnival side-show while we're at it. (Actually, it kind of sounds like our election process, now I think of it ...  )

Dan C

[chrisg]

So, basically, because He wouldn't be the king they thought they wanted or deserved, they assumed He was therefore a false messiah, so they were angry enough to want to kill Him?

[alon]

Mar 21, 2016 7:50:49 GMT -8 chrisg said:

So, basically, because He wouldn't be the king they thought they wanted or deserved, they assumed He was therefore a false messiah, so they were angry enough to want to kill Him?

Basically, yes; although in their anger I'm not so much sure they thought it through too well. Angry people do not always think clearly. But this is how I read that passage.

Dan C

[chrisg]

Thank you, that makes a lot of sense

[jimmie]

and recovering of sight to the blind,

Is not found in Isaiah 61:1.

Might that have let to the question "Is not this Joseph's son?"?

[chrisg]

Interesting. I see I have to read every word and not just gloss over things. It is all too easy to read a passage (especially a familiar passage) and assume it and the place quoted are identical. But closer study sometimes shows otherwise. There must also be good reason for the difference.

Gill's commentary on this verse is quite enlightening:

biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/luke/4.htm

From what I have understood about the first century Judaism, it seems the LXX (Septuagint) was the version of choice - which also explains other seeming anomalies in passages quoted in the Epistles. I could be wrong, but that is what I have read and understood thus far.

[alon]

Mar 22, 2016 7:55:30 GMT -8 chrisg said:

Interesting. I see I have to read every word and not just gloss over things. It is all too easy to read a passage (especially a familiar passage) and assume it and the place quoted are identical. But closer study sometimes shows otherwise. There must also be good reason for the difference.

Gill's commentary on this verse is quite enlightening:

biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/luke/4.htm

From what I have understood about the first century Judaism, it seems the LXX (Septuagint) was the version of choice - which also explains other seeming anomalies in passages quoted in the Epistles. I could be wrong, but that is what I have read and understood thus far.

I often use Christian sources when researching; however I am careful in doing so (just as I am with Jewish sources). I use a LOT of discernment. And I tend to stay away from Gill. He is so steeped in Christian doctrine reading him is to me almost as bad as going on the internet. He pretty much said what I did, though much more loquaciously, so I can’t fault him too much here. And he did give a lot of detail. However his conclusion on why they were angry is full of antisemitism and replacement theology:

“yea, that the Gentiles were preferred unto them: and indeed the calling of the Gentiles was here plainly intimated, which was always ungrateful and provoking to the Jews; and it was suggested, that the favours of God, and grace of the Messiah, are dispensed in a sovereign and discriminating way, than which nothing is more offensive to carnal minds.”

“Always ungrateful and provoking to the Jews.” Always? This paints all Jews in a negative light, while implying that the favor of God was on the extremely sinful pagan nations around them. It is true much of Israel was in a bad state as well, but multitudes of Jews followed Yeshua! And that entire quote is saying in effect the Jews were being replaced by Gentiles as the chosen people. Well, of course this must be why Rav Sha’ul kept saying “To the Jew first, then to the Gentile.”

Note too his use of the word “dispensed” in speaking of how God deals with the Jews. Gill is a died in the wool Dispensationalist. So Gill also relies on his readers being well trained in churches to think that the Old Testament deals with the Jews, and the New Testament deals with the Gentiles. This is not so. Anyone following the and haftarah discussions the past two weeks will know that Gentiles were added to Israel all through the TNK (Old Testament). And the 1st Cen “church” was actually Jews, meeting in synagogues. Gentiles were grafted into Israel, according again to Rav Sha’ul.

The Septuagent was used by scholars as a comparative reference, just like we use it today. But a Greek text would never have been read in synagogue! And the Rabbis and Jewish scholars would have preferred their own language for general study as well. That the LXX was the “version of choice in 1st Cen Israel” is taught by Christian seminaries as another way to de-Judaize Yeshua. If they can say He spoke Greek, read from a Greek Bible, was taught in Greek style schools and thought more like a pagan Greek, then they have gotten rid of the Jewish Messiah and that pesky of His with its’ laws they so abhorred. They may admit He was a Jew (not much way they can deny that); but He wasn’t REALLY Jewish you see, since He thought like a Greek. And He was from Galilee of the Gentiles, so He was raised like a Gentile. This of course is a lie, since the name referred to the Gentile merchants and traders who frequently used this major route. But the Jews kept to their own community and their own customs. Nazareth was well off the trade routes on a hill where few if any travelers through the Galil would have went. So Yeshua was neither raised among nor schooled by Gentiles.

What the Jews did teach was it is better to feed your sons the flesh of swine than to teach them Greek. That was a common saying of the day. And wherever there were Jews, there was a yeshiva to teach their children, among other things, the Hebrew language. Not everyone spoke Greek, but they all spoke Hebrew.

It is difficult for us to break away from all the teachings and outright brainwashing we went through in churches. It takes time. And even Rav S says he fights it, and he is a Jew! His parents converted however before the modern Messianic movement took off, so he got a lot of Christian doctrine growing up as well. He was also raised at the feet of many of the founders of the movement, and he says they still learn more all the time! So if these men have problems divesting Christian (or Jewish) dogma in searching for the truth, how much moreso will we have to fight it?

Dan (still fightin’ my upbringing) C

[chrisg]

Oh dear, I can see I have a lot to learn

[alon]

Mar 22, 2016 12:15:15 GMT -8 chrisg said:

Oh dear, I can see I have a lot to learn

We all do. But therein lies the glory!

Dan C

[jimmie]

The Septuagint is a watershed in Jewish history. More than any other event in Jewish history, this translation would make the Hebrew religion into a world religion. It would otherwise have faded from memory like the infinity of Semitic religions that have been lost to us. This Greek version made the Hebrew scriptures available to the Mediterranean world and to early Christians who were otherwise fain to regard Christianity as a religion unrelated to Judaism. Even with a Greek translation, the Hebrew scriptures came within a hair's breadth of being tossed out of the Christian canon. From this Greek translation, the Hebrew view of God, of history, of law, and of the human condition, in all its magnificence would spread around the world. The dispersion, or Diaspora, of the Jews would involve ideas as well as people.

The above is a quote taken from the Jewis Virtual Library.

[alon]

Here’s the quote in context:

The most important event of the Hellenistic period, though, is the translation of the into Greek in Ptolemaic Egypt. The Greeks, in fact, were somewhat interested (not much) in the Jewish religion, but it seems that they wanted a copy of the Jewish scriptures for the library at Alexandria. During the Exile, the Exiles began to purify their religion and practices and turned to the Mosaic books as their model. After the Exile, the became the authoritative code of the Jews, recognized first by Persia and later by the Greeks as the Hebrew "law." In 458 BCE, Artaxerxes I of Persia made the the "law of the Judaean king."

So the Greeks wanted a copy and set about translating it. Called the Septuagint after the number of translators it required ("septuaginta" is Greek for "seventy"), the text is far from perfect. The Hebrew had not settled down into a definitive version, and a number of mistranslations creep in for reasons ranging from political expediency to confusion. For instance, the Hebrew is ruthlessly anti-Egyptian; after all, the founding event of the Hebrew people was the oppression of the Hebrews by the Egyptians and the delivery from Egypt. The Septuagint translators—who are, after all, working for the Greek rulers of Egypt—go about effacing much of the anti-Egyptian aspects. On the other hand, there are words they can't translate into Greek, such as "berit," which they translate "diatheke," or "promise" (in Latin and English, the word is incorrectly translated "covenant").

Despite these imperfections, the Septuagint is a watershed in Jewish history. More than any other event in Jewish history, this translation would make the Hebrew religion into a world religion. It would otherwise have faded from memory like the infinity of Semitic religions that have been lost to us. This Greek version made the Hebrew scriptures available to the Mediterranean world and to early Christians who were otherwise fain to regard Christianity as a religion unrelated to Judaism. Even with a Greek translation, the Hebrew scriptures came within a hair's breadth of being tossed out of the Christian canon. From this Greek translation, the Hebrew view of God, of history, of law, and of the human condition, in all its magnificence would spread around the world. The dispersion, or Diaspora, of the Jews would involve ideas as well as people.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Greeks.html

Clearly this article is focused on the effect the Septuagint had on the rest of the world, not on Judaism itself. Even if the author did mean Judaism would have been extinct, he couldn’t know that. And it does not even come close to saying that the Jews preferred the Septuagint to the Hebrew scrolls, or that they even used them. His point is the use made of the Septuagint by Gentiles, not Jews. He is also careful to point out that there are many errors in the Septuagint, some intentional. This pattern of intentional mistranslation would be the norm in translating the B’rith Chadasha later into Greek. And why not?

theloveofgod.proboards.com/thread/3385/greek-hermaneutics

Compare this to:

theloveofgod.proboards.com/thread/3386/hebrew-hermaneutics

Dan C

[alon]

One thing here got my attention, so I did some research.

On the other hand, there are words they can't translate into Greek, such as "berit," which they translate "diatheke," or "promise" (in Latin and English, the word is incorrectly translated "covenant").

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Greeks.html

Now this could have a profound impact on how we understand things, especially as we look for the Hebrew perspective in our understanding of the Bible. The word occurs over 280 times in the TNK, is used of how we relate to other believers and Meshiachim, and is even part of the most common Messianic term for the New Testament- the B’rit Chadasha.

The most profound and deeply brilliant concept of the Hebrew world view is the concept of the berit between God and his chosen people. Translated into English as "covenant," the word means something closer to "promise," or "pledge." In the "promise" to Abraham, God chooses Abraham and his offspring as a special people, in fact, as the only people of God. He promises Abraham that his offspring will occupy and own the lands of Palestine, that they will be innumerable, and that they will enjoy the protection and care of God over all their oppressors. It is this promise and the relationship it implies between YHWH, the one and only god, and his people that defines the Hebrew cultural and historical identity.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/berit.html

There is a problem here. This is the only explanation they give for the word; and while it is a valid explanation it is far from a complete one. My Vines has over a full page (in fine print) on this word and its use in the TNK. Just a small sampling, but more than enough to show how badly the Jewish Virtual Library is flawed:

The term was used of agreements between different peoples and nations:

1 Kings 15:19 (ESV) “Let there be a covenant between me and you, as there was between my father and your father. Behold, I am sending to you a present of silver and gold. Go, break your covenant with Baasha king of Israel, that he may withdraw from me.”

Joshua 9:6 (ESV) And they went to Joshua in the camp at Gilgal and said to him and to the men of Israel, “We have come from a distant country, so now make a covenant with us.”

And the kingship of Israel was based on a covenant reached between the new king and his people: 

2 Samuel 5:3 (ESV) So all the elders of Israel came to the king at Hebron, and King David made a covenant with them at Hebron before the Lord, and they anointed David king over Israel.

H1285 בּרית berı̂yth ber-eeth' From H1262 (in the sense of cutting (like H1254)); a compact (because made by passing between pieces of flesh): - confederacy, [con-]feder[-ate], covenant, league.

There are many other glaring inconsistencies and falsehoods in the entire article, if anyone cares to read it and look for them.

Let’s look at the word itself in Hebrew- b’rit, berit בּרית
בּ bet house, tent or family; at the beginning of a word also means in, inside or into
ר reysh a head; the highest, supreme, first or the sum
י yud a hand; to work or a deed that is done
ת tav a mark or signature; ownership, to seal, to make a covenant, to join two things, or to make a sign

So since Hebrew words carry all the connotations associated with the letters which make them up, we can say b’rit means “The highest representatives (of a family, clan, people, or just one person) working out and entering into a covenant.” This could be modified for specific use, such as in the case of the JVL’s definition you’d want to stress the idea of ownership in the meaning of tav.

In fact, different translations do use different English words to translate b’rit. For instance, in 1 Kings 15:19 the footnotes in the ESV say it can be translated treaty, whereas the KJV says “There is a league between me and thee.”

So once again, even when using something that sounds so solid as the Jewish Virtual Library, the internet is definitely not infallible. Neither are other resources. But by studying several and researching what is actually said in the Bible, we can usually get a good understanding of what is being said. One caveat though- we must learn to leave behind the prejudices of our former religious affiliations; their dogmas and the mantras we learned, and question everything from then as well as what is before us.

OK, two caveats- in church we learned to cherry-pick scriptures and use them to say things they never meant. For cryin' out loud, we all need to learn to read things in context! Many a Christians eyes are opened to the truth by simply asking them to do this one simple thing. Sadly, most of them then just close their eyes tighter. We Meshiachim have a higher calling. So to paraphrase the old realtors adage about the three most important things in real estate: Location, location, location. Similarly, ours is "Context, context, context."

Dan C

[alon]

Mar 22, 2016 7:13:22 GMT -8 jimmie said:

and recovering of sight to the blind,

Is not found in Isaiah 61:1.

Might that have let to the question "Is not this Joseph's son?"?

Isaiah 61:1 (ESV) The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me,
because the Lord has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor; [Or afflicted]
he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim liberty to the captives,
and the opening of the prison to those who are bound; [Or the opening [of the eyes] to those who are blind; Septuagint and recovery of sight to the blind]

The verb asar, meaning to bind, can be used abstractly to mean one who is spiritually bound. Imprisonment or captivation may also be used as a metaphor for one caught in sin. This may be why the Septuagint translated this as “Opening of the eyes” or “recovery of sight.” One who is brought to the truth out of the bondage of sin is said to have his eyes opened (a.k.a. becoming Messianic ). To someone fluent in Hebrew all these connotations might be apparent. But a Greek or Englishman would only get what the translator said. The LXX misses the primary meaning here. That is why I like to read the more accurate ESV or NASB. They give you these what appear to us alternative translations. In reality, that word “asar” carries all the connotations of imprisonment, being tied up or harnessed, and yes even the obscure meaning ‘blinded.’

Dan C

[alon]

Speaking of sources, can anyone tell me what Proverb Jesus was quoting here?

Luke 4:23 (ESV) And he said to them, “Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, ‘“Physician, heal yourself.” What we have heard you did at Capernaum, do here in your hometown as well.’”