Jesus the victim of mob violence in Galilee (Luke 4:14-30). What had he done to provoke it?

[BartholomewB]

The Nazareth synagogue episode is reported in all three Synoptics, only briefly in Mark and Matthew but at considerably greater length in Luke. Among other incidents, Luke is the only one who has recorded the threat to kill Jesus by throwing him over the edge of a cliff (link below).

First, in Mark:

1 He went away from there and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him. 2 And on the Sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things? What is the wisdom given to him? How are such mighty works done by his hands? 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. (Mark 6:1-3, ESV)

In Matthew:

54 and coming to his hometown he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? 55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at him. (Matt 13:54-57a)

My question is about the one short sentence, “And they took offense at him.” What, exactly, did Jesus do or say that caused them to take offense? Both Mark and Matthew seem to be suggesting that the cause was simply Jesus’ local family background. But in Luke’s much longer version it is clearly something else altogether, something he was hinting at by quoting two OT passages about Elijah and Elisha:

25 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, 26 and Elijah was sent to none of them but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. 27 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.” 28 When they heard these things, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. 29 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. 30 But passing through their midst, he went away. (Luke 4:25-30)

(“Were filled with wrath” is Luke’s expression replacing the milder “took offense” found in Mark and Matthew.)

These Elijah and Elisha episodes are found respectively in 1 Kings 17 and 2 Kings 5. What they have in common is that the widow of Zarephath and Naaman the Syrian are both Gentiles who end up giving praise to the God of Israel:

And the woman said to Elijah, “Now I know that you are a man of God, and that the word of the LORD in your mouth is truth.” (1 Kings 17:24)

Then he [Naaman] returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and he came and stood before him. And he said, “Behold, I know that there is no God in all the earth but in Israel.” (2 Kings 5:15)

Some commentaries draw the conclusion that Jesus’ purpose in quoting them here is to warn the congregation that the salvation he is offering is not for Israel alone but for the Gentiles as well. One example is G. B. Caird:

Jesus’ proclamation that he will bring in God’s year of jubilee is greeted first with enthusiasm, then with doubt, finally with mob violence when he hints at the inclusion of Gentiles within God’s purpose of grace.

Rereading the Nazareth episode in Luke, this interpretation clearly makes sense. Jesus first tells the congregation that the messianic age has now dawned but then enrages them by adding that it is not going to be for the benefit of Israel alone. On the contrary, as far as God is concerned, Israel is no more deserving of his grace and protection than the Gentiles are.

But what does this tell us about Mark and Matthew? Are we to draw the conclusion that they simply didn’t know about that part of Jesus’ address to the congregation in the synagogue at Nazareth? Thanks for any suggestions or comments!

Luke 4 ESV

 

[dkontner]

I do believe they were offended because he is just carpenter's son and a nobody. They wanted, and still do, an earthly kingdom. There praise is of men and not God.

John 12
43 For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.

In contrast, His disciples believed that is written....

John 2
17 And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.
18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.
23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.
24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,
25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.

The Greeks seek after wisdom, that's us. We loved titles and degress.

 

[Thaddeus]

The Nazareth synagogue episode is reported in all three Synoptics, only briefly in Mark and Matthew but at considerably greater length in Luke. Among other incidents, Luke is the only one who has recorded the threat to kill Jesus by throwing him over the edge of a cliff (link below).

First, in Mark:

1 He went away from there and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him. 2 And on the Sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things? What is the wisdom given to him? How are such mighty works done by his hands? 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. (Mark 6:1-3, ESV)

In Matthew:

54 and coming to his hometown he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? 55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at him. (Matt 13:54-57a)

My question is about the one short sentence, “And they took offense at him.” What, exactly, did Jesus do or say that caused them to take offense? Both Mark and Matthew seem to be suggesting that the cause was simply Jesus’ local family background. But in Luke’s much longer version it is clearly something else altogether, something he was hinting at by quoting two OT passages about Elijah and Elisha:

25 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, 26 and Elijah was sent to none of them but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. 27 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.” 28 When they heard these things, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. 29 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. 30 But passing through their midst, he went away. (Luke 4:25-30)

(“Were filled with wrath” is Luke’s expression replacing the milder “took offense” found in Mark and Matthew.)

These Elijah and Elisha episodes are found respectively in 1 Kings 17 and 2 Kings 5. What they have in common is that the widow of Zarephath and Naaman the Syrian are both Gentiles who end up giving praise to the God of Israel:

And the woman said to Elijah, “Now I know that you are a man of God, and that the word of the LORD in your mouth is truth.” (1 Kings 17:24)

Then he [Naaman] returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and he came and stood before him. And he said, “Behold, I know that there is no God in all the earth but in Israel.” (2 Kings 5:15)

Some commentaries draw the conclusion that Jesus’ purpose in quoting them here is to warn the congregation that the salvation he is offering is not for Israel alone but for the Gentiles as well. One example is G. B. Caird:

Jesus’ proclamation that he will bring in God’s year of jubilee is greeted first with enthusiasm, then with doubt, finally with mob violence when he hints at the inclusion of Gentiles within God’s purpose of grace.

Rereading the Nazareth episode in Luke, this interpretation clearly makes sense. Jesus first tells the congregation that the messianic age has now dawned but then enrages them by adding that it is not going to be for the benefit of Israel alone. On the contrary, as far as God is concerned, Israel is no more deserving of his grace and protection than the Gentiles are.

But what does this tell us about Mark and Matthew? Are we to draw the conclusion that they simply didn’t know about that part of Jesus’ address to the congregation in the synagogue at Nazareth? Thanks for any suggestions or comments!

Luke 4 ESV

Pride

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

The word translated "took offense" is the verb form of σκάνδαλον (skandalon) from which we get the word scandal. Scandalize means "to offend the moral sensibilities of." It is the same word used in the verses that describe Jesus as being a "stumbling stone and rock of offence (σκάνδαλον)", as well as the scandal of the cross

The offense was to unbelievers' moral sensibilities that were contradicted by the witness of the holy spirit. They had an image of themselves and Jesus, and he contradicted those images by speaking the truth that convicted their conscience; so they stumbled over and hated him for exposing their sin.

 

[BartholomewB]

I do believe they were offended because he is just carpenter's son and a nobody. They wanted, and still do, an earthly kingdom.

Thank you, @dkontner. Yes, that would certainly apply to the congregation’s reaction in Mark and Matthew. No doubt about it. But what about Luke’s version, where Jesus attaches special significance to two OT episodes, one involving Elijah and the widow and the other Elisha’s healing of Naaman? He tells the congregation that both those episodes are to be seen as precedents pointing to the way events are about to unfold in the messianic age.

 

[BartholomewB]

Pride

Agreed ― up to a point. Pride in what, exactly? If Luke has correctly quoted Jesus’ words about Elijah and the widow and about Elisha and Naaman, that would suggest he has offended their pride in the privileged status of Israel as God’s chosen people. But in the version presented by Mark and Matthew, it would be something else, having to do with social standing. In @dkontner’s words, Jesus is “just a carpenter’s son and a nobody.” They see him as no more than a local boy of humble origins who is now baselessly claiming to have superior knowledge of God’s will, and that is what has aroused their resentment.

 

[BartholomewB]

The word translated "took offense" is the verb form of σκάνδαλον (skandalon) from which we get the word scandal. Scandalize means "to offend the moral sensibilities of."

In place of the “scandal” word used by Mark and Matthew, Luke says the people ἐπλήσθησαν θυμοῦ (eplésthésan thumou), usually translated as “were filled with rage” or, as here in the ESV, “with wrath.” Would that make a difference?

 

[Thaddeus]

They see him as no more than a local boy of humble origins who is now baselessly claiming to have superior knowledge of God’s will, and that is what has aroused their resentment.

Yes, they were jealous of Jesus wisdom and mighty works/pride

 

[BartholomewB]

Yes, they were jealous of Jesus wisdom and mighty works/pride

Thank you, @Thaddeus. So where does that leave the passage in Jesus’ address to the synagogue where he quotes those two OT episodes involving Gentiles?

And the woman said to Elijah, “Now I know that you are a man of God, and that the word of the Lord in your mouth is truth.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 kings 17:24&version=ESV

Then he [Naaman] returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and he came and stood before him. And he said, “Behold, I know that there is no God in all the earth but in Israel.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2 kings 5:15&version=ESV

 

[Thaddeus]

Thank you, @Thaddeus. So where does that leave the passage in Jesus’ address to the synagogue where he quotes those two OT episodes involving Gentiles?

And the woman said to Elijah, “Now I know that you are a man of God, and that the word of the Lord in your mouth is truth.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 kings 17:24&version=ESV

Then he [Naaman] returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and he came and stood before him. And he said, “Behold, I know that there is no God in all the earth but in Israel.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2 kings 5:15&version=ESV

I would say jealousy and pride again

 

[BartholomewB]

I would say jealousy and pride again

But jealousy of what? And pride in what?

As I said earlier in my first reply to you, in Luke’s account I see evidence of their pride in the privileged status of Israel as God’s chosen people, and that there is a difference between that kind of pride and their taking offense at what they see as a presumptuous claim by Jesus, “a carpenter’s son and and a nobody,” to understand God’s will better than they do themselves.

But does that involve jealousy, too? Personal jealousy of Jesus? I wouldn’t have thought so. The two cases seem to me to be quite different. Finding an answer to that question was my aim in starting this thread.

 

[Thaddeus]

But jealousy of what? And pride in what?

As I said earlier in my first reply to you, in Luke’s account I see evidence of their pride in the privileged status of Israel as God’s chosen people, and that there is a difference between that kind of pride and their taking offense at what they see as a presumptuous claim by Jesus, “a carpenter’s son and and a nobody,” to understand God’s will better than they do themselves.

But does that involve jealousy, too? Personal jealousy of Jesus? I wouldn’t have thought so. The two cases seem to me to be quite different. Finding an answer to that question was my aim in starting this thread.

You mentioned Jesus speaking of the two non Israleites helped by God. Naaman the Syrian was healed of leprosy but not one Israelite was.
Jealousy and pride stung them I would say

 

[TruthDefender]

The Nazareth synagogue episode is reported in all three Synoptics, only briefly in Mark and Matthew but at considerably greater length in Luke. Among other incidents, Luke is the only one who has recorded the threat to kill Jesus by throwing him over the edge of a cliff (link below).

First, in Mark:

1 He went away from there and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him. 2 And on the Sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things? What is the wisdom given to him? How are such mighty works done by his hands? 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. (Mark 6:1-3, ESV)

In Matthew:

54 and coming to his hometown he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? 55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at him. (Matt 13:54-57a)

My question is about the one short sentence, “And they took offense at him.” What, exactly, did Jesus do or say that caused them to take offense? Both Mark and Matthew seem to be suggesting that the cause was simply Jesus’ local family background. But in Luke’s much longer version it is clearly something else altogether, something he was hinting at by quoting two OT passages about Elijah and Elisha:

25 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, 26 and Elijah was sent to none of them but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. 27 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.” 28 When they heard these things, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. 29 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. 30 But passing through their midst, he went away. (Luke 4:25-30)

(“Were filled with wrath” is Luke’s expression replacing the milder “took offense” found in Mark and Matthew.)

These Elijah and Elisha episodes are found respectively in 1 Kings 17 and 2 Kings 5. What they have in common is that the widow of Zarephath and Naaman the Syrian are both Gentiles who end up giving praise to the God of Israel:

And the woman said to Elijah, “Now I know that you are a man of God, and that the word of the LORD in your mouth is truth.” (1 Kings 17:24)

Then he [Naaman] returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and he came and stood before him. And he said, “Behold, I know that there is no God in all the earth but in Israel.” (2 Kings 5:15)

Some commentaries draw the conclusion that Jesus’ purpose in quoting them here is to warn the congregation that the salvation he is offering is not for Israel alone but for the Gentiles as well. One example is G. B. Caird:

Jesus’ proclamation that he will bring in God’s year of jubilee is greeted first with enthusiasm, then with doubt, finally with mob violence when he hints at the inclusion of Gentiles within God’s purpose of grace.

Rereading the Nazareth episode in Luke, this interpretation clearly makes sense. Jesus first tells the congregation that the messianic age has now dawned but then enrages them by adding that it is not going to be for the benefit of Israel alone. On the contrary, as far as God is concerned, Israel is no more deserving of his grace and protection than the Gentiles are.

But what does this tell us about Mark and Matthew? Are we to draw the conclusion that they simply didn’t know about that part of Jesus’ address to the congregation in the synagogue at Nazareth? Thanks for any suggestions or comments!

Luke 4 ESV

To me it would seem that they were jealous of him, having so much wisdom and knowledge and the healing ability; and angry, because they knew Him and His large family. How is it that this Man, whom they have known, be anything more than they; so they took offense.

He taught them having authority!

 

[BartholomewB]

To me it would seem that they were jealous of him, having so much wisdom and knowledge and the healing ability; and angry, because they knew Him and His large family. How is it that this Man, whom they have known, be anything more than they; so they took offense.

He taught them having authority!

If I've understood you correctly, you're saying it has nothing to do with the Elijah and Elisha incidents that Jesus has just quoted. Is that correct?

 

[TruthDefender]

If I've understood you correctly, you're saying it has nothing to do with the Elijah and Elisha incidents that Jesus has just quoted. Is that correct?

No, I’m just picking up on the meaning of their quotes. You’re not leaving what I said in context.

 

[BartholomewB]

No, I’m just picking up on the meaning of their quotes. You’re not leaving what I said in context.

I misunderstood your post. My apologies for that.

In my OP I quoted a sentence from Caird's commentary on Luke. He is implying, I think, that the resentment against the carpenter's son from their own village in an interpretation that applies to the Mark/ Matthew version of the incident but not so much to Luke's version.

Some commentaries draw the conclusion that Jesus’ purpose in quoting them here is to warn the congregation that the salvation he is offering is not for Israel alone but for the Gentiles as well. One example is G. B. Caird:

Jesus’ proclamation that he will bring in God’s year of jubilee is greeted first with enthusiasm, then with doubt, finally with mob violence when he hints at the inclusion of Gentiles within God’s purpose of grace.

Or is he saying something else?

 

[PaulThomson]

I misunderstood your post. My apologies for that.

In my OP I quoted a sentence from Caird's commentary on Luke. He is implying, I think, that the resentment against the carpenter's son from their own village in an interpretation that applies to the Mark/ Matthew version of the incident but not so much to Luke's version.



Or is he saying something else?

I don’t know who Caird is, but I agree with his perspective on this. The old testament said of Ishmael,
Gen 21:10
So she turned to Abraham and demanded, “Get rid of that slave woman and her son. He is not going to share the inheritance with my son, Isaac. I won’t have it!”

The Jews tended to resent the idea of handing over portions of what they considered their own inheritances to interlopers, e.g. Esau, Onan, Jephthah, Naboth, Ruth's nearest kinsman, the brother of the man who came to Jesus asking him to arbitrate the division of their inheritance. Whenever in Acts any disciple shared the gospel with the Jews, they listened until God's inclusion of Gentiles was mentioned. Then they went into a rage. Maybe they resented that they had been given such a restrictive set of laws to follow to be accepted by God, and now these Gentiles, who had never had to labour for one second under the unbearable yoke of the Mosaic Law, were just called in off the street to be equal to Jews in God’s sight. But they always reacted badly to any mention of their inheritance of the world being now shared out to those libertine Gentiles.
The approved most heartily with this proclamation -
Jer 12:14
Thus saith the LORD against all mine evil neighbours, that touch the inheritance which I have caused my people Israel to inherit; Behold, I will pluck them out of their land, and pluck out the house of Judah from among them.

 

[TruthDefender]

I don’t know who Caird is, but I agree with his perspective on this. The old testament said of Ishmael,
Gen 21:10
So she turned to Abraham and demanded, “Get rid of that slave woman and her son. He is not going to share the inheritance with my son, Isaac. I won’t have it!”

The Jews tended to resent the idea of handing over portions of what they considered their own inheritances to interlopers, e.g. Esau, Onan, Jephthah, Naboth, Ruth's nearest kinsman, the brother of the man who came to Jesus asking him to arbitrate the division of their inheritance. Whenever in Acts any disciple shared the gospel with the Jews, they listened until God's inclusion of Gentiles was mentioned. Then they went into a rage. Maybe they resented that they had been given such a restrictive set of laws to follow to be accepted by God, and now these Gentiles, who had never had to labour for one second under the unbearable yoke of the Mosaic Law, were just called in off the street to be equal to Jews in God’s sight. But they always reacted badly to any mention of their inheritance of the world being now shared out to those libertine Gentiles.
The approved most heartily with this proclamation -
Jer 12:14
Thus saith the LORD against all mine evil neighbours, that touch the inheritance which I have caused my people Israel to inherit; Behold, I will pluck them out of their land, and pluck out the house of Judah from among them.

It was because of Ishmael’s behavior; he was scoffing. God told Abraham to listen to Sarah. The blue lineage line (royal) is only through Isaac.

“And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, scoffing. Therefore she said to Abraham, “Cast out this bondwoman and her son; for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, namely with Isaac.” And the matter was very displeasing in Abraham’s sight because of his son. But God said to Abraham, “Do not let it be displeasing in your sight because of the lad or because of your bondwoman. Whatever Sarah has said to you, listen to her voice; for in Isaac your seed shall be called.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭21‬:‭9‬-‭12‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

 

[Anchorite]

I do not recall this scene of Jesus being brought to a cliff ever being included in any Jesus film.

My question is: how did Jesus pass through the midst of an angry mob?

He must have used supernatural powers.

Did Jesus temporarily blind or paralyze them?

Did He turn invisible?

Luke 4

29 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.

30 But passing through their midst, he went away.

 

[TruthDefender]

I do not recall this scene of Jesus being brought to a cliff ever being included in any Jesus film.

My question is: how did Jesus pass through the midst of an angry mob?

He must have used supernatural powers.

Did Jesus temporarily blind or paralyze them?

Did He turn invisible?

Luke 4

29 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.

30 But passing through their midst, he went away.

Your guess is as good as anyone’s, since it is not given.