The Narrow Path Ministries

A passage from Isaiah 61 is the longest passage that is recorded in the gospels, thatJesus ever read to the people :

So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written:

"The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD..."

Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. (Luke 4:16-20)

Jesus stopped reading before the end of the clause and closed the book. Why do you suppose He did that? The very next words after "To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord" are "and the day of vengeance of our God..." Surely Jesus could have finished the clause! But to have stopped where He did is consistent with his teaching about his Father as being kind to ungrateful people and evil people. His quotes from the Old Testament appear to be selective. He never quotes the parts that depict his Father as vengeful and punishing.

In verse 21 Jesus says, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."

The promise of the Lord's vengeance was not to be fulfilled on "that" day. The promise of the scripture regarding His message of "good news" was indeed being fulfilled that day. That message needed to be rejected before He could have announced that the promise of the Lord's vengeance was being fulfilled.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think this particular verse can do much to help resolve the "God does direct violence vs. God does not do direct violence" debate because the former camp can just say (as above) that Jesus was only delaying the vengeance while the latter camp (as above that) will insist that he was simply eliminating the vengeance component.

Good insight, Matt!

It's curious to note that Mark appears to be Luke's source, and the story is also told in Matthew.

But Luke is the only one who includes the reading from Isaiah. Perhaps that helps us understand why he cuts the ending short.

Luke seems to be more interested in Jesus' social revolution than the others. Luke tells more stories of Jesus' relationship with the marginalized than any of the other gospels.

So ending the quote where he did highlights that aspect of his ministry.

“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.

How can it be the most reasonable explanation that Jesus stopped reading because he only thought a small portion of the OT was inspired.

I don't understand your critique. John said that if everything Jesus said was written down, it would fill books. It doesn't sacrifice inspiration to say that gospel writers edited, I.e. chose what to include and exclude to make their point. For whatever reason luke chose to include this part of his teaching. Jesus isn't questioning the inspiration of the original text by ending where he did. Neither is luke.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In any case, I doubt that Jesus had any concept of "inspiration of the scriptures" as understood by those a few centuries later.

And please don't quote 2 Tim 3:16 at me as if that settled the matter.

morbo3000 wrote:I don't understand your critique.

Maybe it wasn't directed at you.

Jesus isn't questioning the inspiration of the original text by ending where he did. Neither is luke.

Agreed.

Morbo, I don't think that Dizerner is critiquing your statements. As I'm sure you are aware, Paidion has often stated his opinion about the inspiration of any scripture that suggests God might be the author of acts of judgement.

My understanding is that Paidion believes that the passages that describe a side of God not directly described by Jesus Himself and that seem to be inconsistent with Jesus' peaceful and loving nature, were written outside of inspiration and these passages are no more than the words of men who misunderstood their own thoughts as being the words of God.

Paidion thought that this passage showed that Jesus deliberately left out this statement about God's judgement because Jesus knew that this statement wasn't actually stated by God.

Matt correctly pointed out that it could not be used to prove or disprove this thought. I believe (though I may be mistaken) that Dizerner was addressing Paidion's understanding in his 'critique'.

From my perspective, this particular passage is Jesus' direct announcement of the arrival of a new King, with a new kingdom.

If this is indeed His intention, it would seem rather premature to announce, "Today is the day of good news! A new kingdom has arrived. I am your new king! It will be a blessed kingdom. The poor, captive, blind will be ministered to. I proclaim the year of the Lord's favour." And then, in the same breath, to say, "Oh and by the way, I'm also fulfilling the prophecy of judgement against you at the same time."

I am an earthly father with many faults. However, it is not my practice to discipline my children before giving them a chance to respond to my commands.

And that is how I see Jesus' proclamation. He announces that He is now the king. If people don't submit to His kingship, they are disobedient and eventually face discipline.

But, our Heavenly Father is much more patient than I. Certainly, He would have given ample time for the people to respond to His proclamation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk