Lk 4,21-30 (4 Ord.
C)
Coherence. – Most exegetes find this narrative lacking in coherence. First, they see a disproportion between the initial reaction of the audience of Jesus – at most astonishment (v.22) – and the “violence” of Jesus’ words in vv.23-27. Secondly, they discern a lack of unity the speech itself of Jesus (vv.23-27): 1) in v.23 Jesus foresees that his townsmen will request miracles from him (something, which supposes a reaction of faith); yet, in v.24 he seems to complain that he is being badly received; 2) in v.23 the opposition is between Capernaum and Nazareth, whereas in vv.25-27 it is between Israel and the Gentiles; 3) in v.24 it is the Jews who reject the prophet Jesus, whereas in vv.25-27 it is the prophets themselves who refuse to perform miracles in Israel.
These incoherences are explained in various ways. Some critics claim that we have here an awkward combination of different sources, which Luke has not succeeded in fusing together harmoniously. Other exegetes, interpreting v.22 as an immediately negative reaction of the audience (the verbs emarturoun = witnessed, and ethaumazon = wondered, are given a prerogative meaning), conclude that this negative reaction comes from the fact, in his quotation of Isaiah, Jesus has deliberately omitted the verse announcing the messianic vengeance of Yahweh. And still others have differing opinions on the meaning of the passage.
This judgment of incoherence is based on twp premises inspired by the Markan account f the episode: 1) the break-off between Jesus and his townsmen occurs in vv.22-23; 2) in v.24 Jesus states that he is unfavorably received. These premises will be examined shortly.
But perhaps the charge of incoherence leveled against Luke could already be provisionally countered with the following general considerations: 1) until the contrary is clearly proven, an author should be judged coherent, especially a writer of the stature of Luke, who has shown himself again and again to be such a careful writer; 2) it is not methodologically sound to read Luke through the Markan account.
The following analysis reflects an interpretation, which is very little known. It was seminally proposed by B. Violet, “Zum rechten Verstandnis der Nazareth-Perikope,” ZNW 37 (1938) 251-271, and more recently greatly improved by J. Bajard, “La structure de la pericope de Nazareth en Lc 4,16-30,” ETL 45 (1969) 165-171. Apart from these two authors, the only other critic to support this interpretation in the entire field of exegesis, is myself in my Introduction a la Lecture du Nouveau Testament, Paris: cerf, 1980, pp. 167-171.
This interpretation claims that the break between Jesus and his townsmen occurs only after v.27, that in v.24 Jesus is not at all complaining of a bad welcome (on the contrary, one could say that, if Jesus is complaining of anything, it is of receiving too good a welcome!) and that the background of the whole episode is not a lack of faith on the part of the townsmen but rather a desire to use Jesus to their own ends.
v.22: And all spoke well of him (emarturoun): this verb marturein, used absolutely or only with the dative referring to the person who is the object of the witnessing, always as a positive meaning in Luke (Ac 6,3; 10,22; 13,22; 14,3; 15,8; 16,2; 22,5; 22,12).
- and wondered (ethaumazon): If it can occasionally express a scandalized wonder (Lk 11,38), this verb more often indicates in Lk an admiring wonder (1,63; 2,18.33; 7,9; 8,25; 9,43; 11,14; 20,26; Ac 3,12; 4,13).
From these observations we may already draw two conclusions: 1) The first reaction of the listeners of Jesus is an admiring wonder (here he RSV’s is excellent) and significantly, at this point Luke omits the key-expression of Mk 6,3 (“and they took offense at him”). 2) These listeners broke off from Jesus only “when they heard this” (i.e., the speech of vv.23-27); before that, they were quite favorable to him; the reason of their rejection must therefore be sought in vv.23-27.
v.23: This verse is built on the opposition Capernaum-Nazareth. Jesus forestalls the demand of his townsmen: as people of the same village of Nazareth, should they not also benefit from the advantages accruing from the messianic era, which Jesus says he is ushering in? This interpretation made by Jesus is perhaps based on the preceding verse: the words “is not this Joseph’s son?” could mean that the townsmen have just become aware that to be the compatriots of Jesus could turn out to be very advantageous to them indeed.
v.24: But Jesus warns them against such an assumption in this crucial verse.
- Despite the translation of many Bibles, the first words are not are not “and he said,” as if what he is now about to say follows smoothly on the preceding statement. The Greek text has eipen de. The particle de is strongly adversative here, so that the expression should be rendered “But he said.” This indicates that the next statement will create some kind of opposition in respect to what has preceded.
- no prophet is acceptable (dektos) in his own country: Under the influence of the Markan parallel (Mk 6,4), “A prophet is not without honor (atimos), except in his own country,” everybody understands dektos in the passive meaning of “acceptable.” However, if Luke changes here the wording of Mark, it is probably to say something very different, since we are not dealing here with a mere stylistic correction! Now what exactly is the meaning of dektos?
Dektos is a verbal adjective derived from dechomai, which means, “to receive, to accept, to favor.” In Greek, many such verbal adjectives ending in – tos can have either a passive meaning or active meaning. For instance, dunatos (from dunamai = I can) may have the passive meaning “possible” (something, which can be done – in Latin: possiblis) or the active meaning “powerful, able, capable” (something, which can do – in Latin: potens). An analogy of this curious property can be found in English with the adjectives ending in “- able”: some of these adjectives have a passive meaning (measurable, understandable, readable, observable, taxable, payable, acceptable), while others have an active meaning (capable, charitable, durable, comfortable). The difference is that the verbal adjective in – tos in Greek can have both meanings in the same word, whereas in English the adjective in “-able” usually has only one of these two meanings.
Dektos in LXX is used 32 times, and both the active and the passive meanings are found among these 32 uses. In the cultic language, the adjective dektos is often applied to sacrifices and then acquires the passive meaning of “acceptable.” But in the prophetic-messianic language, especially that of the Second and Third Isaiah, dektos acquires the active meaning of “favorable” (v.g. Is 49,8; 61,2). As we have seen, such is the meaning of the expression of Is 61,2 “a year of God’s favor,” which the RSV spontaneously translates thus in the Isaian context, but then unaccountably changes into a passive meaning of “acceptable” when it quotes that very text in v.19 of our passage of Luke.
And yet, the reasons for preferring the active meaning “favorable” are compelling: 1) dektos has the active meaning five verses earlier, in the same pericope (v.19 – the quotation from Is 61,2); 2) the active meaning is the only meaning which fits the context in terms of coherence: in the preceding verse (v.23) Jesus is asked to “favor” Nazareth, in this verse he states the general that “no prophet is favorable (favors) to his own country”; and in the following verse he gives two examples of prophets who refuse to “favor” Israel; 3) dektos has the active meaning elsewhere in the NT (2 Cor 6,2: this is a quotation of Is 49, 8 which the RSV translates in loco “in a time of favor” with the active meaning, but again changes to a passive meaning when it quotes the same passage in 2 Cor 6,2) (the two other uses in the NT have a passage meaning, belonging to a cultic context: Ac 10,35; Ph 4,18); 4) the passage meaning (“acceptable”) would say no more than the term atimos found in Mk and which Luke has precisely rejected for dektos.
vv.25-27: Here Jesus uses two OT examples to justify his behavior. Elijah and Elisha are not examples of prophets who were not “acceptable” (passive meaning of dektos) to their country men and “honored” elsewhere – on the contrary, Elijah was not particularly honored outside of Israel in Sarepta, and certainly Elisha was never despised inside Israel; they are examples of prophets who, in spite of real objective needs among their countrymen, reserved their “favors” or “were favorable” to Pagans!
v.28: when they heard this: When the townsmen hear that Jesus will do them no special favors, just like the prophets of old, they become furious at him. Confirmation of the interpretation submitted here: 1) A few verses later, 4,42-43, to the crowds of Capernaum who want to force him to stay there, Jesus answers with almost the same words as those of the Isaian quotation, which he commented earlier in the synagogue of Nazareth: “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other cities also; for I was sent for this purpose.” 2) Everywhere else in the Gospel, the attitude of Jesus is consonant with his attitude in Nazareth: he is a prophet, and no one can monopolize him.
The people of Nazareth believed that Jesus, because he was from their village, somehow belonged to them and had to use his ability to perform miracles for the benefit of his townsmen. This amounted to saying that the Nazarenes, since they were the compatriots of Jesus, had the right to claim for their benefit a certain monopoly over the messianic activity of Jesus. We understand why Jesus would have violently opposed such a claim: over God and his messianic Envoy, no one can claim any rights.
We must be careful not to make the same mistake as the Nazarenes. Our baptism in the church, our Christian education, our long line of Christian ancestors give us no rights over God. We may have the impression that God somehow belongs to Catholics, so accustomed are we to associate God and the church, God and the Christians. But it is not God who belongs to the Christians, it is the Christians who belong to God. However, there are many other men who, in the depth of their heart, without perhaps their being aware of it, belong to God – and to reserve his grace to Christians, just as Jesus was in no way obliged to reserve his miracles to his townsmen. God is absolutely free, otherwise he would not be God. And so, in his sight we can claim nothing; we can only acknowledge our unworthiness, our poverty, and implore him to kindly look down on his humble servant.
*
What is most shocking to the Nazarenes is not that Jesus had already lavished his miracles on other cities of Israel; it is rather that, appealing to the example of Elijah and Elisha, those great prophets of the past, Jesus asserts his right to perform miracles also for the benefit of pagans: a prophet does not restrict his favors to his homeland. To the Jews, who were aware of being the chosen people, it was unthinkable and scandalous that the Messiah, the Messenger of God to Israel, could be interested in pagans. And so, his declaration seems blasphemous to them, deserving death by stoning. Jesus will often meet with this attitude in the course of his ministry. We have here enacted the parable of the laborers of the eleventh hour; the laborers hired in the early morning are scandalized by the generosity of the owner of the vineyard, who gives as much to the latecomers as to the first group of laborers. Such kindness seems an injustice to them. But the reckonings of God are not ours. If God had chosen Israel as his personal property (Dt 7,6), it was not that he was uninterested in the other peoples; it was because he wanted to make of it an instrument of salvation for all of mankind.
If God had chosen us to be his sons and daughter through baptism and Christian education, it is not because he is not interested in the pagans; it is because he wants to use us in attracting the pagans through our example. And if God, without our intermediary, gives to some pagans more graces than he gives to us (graces of generosity to live out a holy life, in full accord with their conscience and the degree of light they may have), then we should not be scandalized by his kindness; we should rather give glory to such a kind God “who wants all men to be saved” (1 Tm 2,4).