The Nazareth Sermon (Luke 4:16-30)

The Nazareth sermon is the second pericope with an intriguingly high concentration of servant song references. Again, Luke’s reworked ‘song’ will be our focus. As with Simeon’s song, the pericope of the Nazareth sermon is structured in four sections and follows a very similar pattern:

• Introduction (4.16-17)
• Reading (4.18-19)
• Additional comments (4.21-27)
• Audience reaction (4.28-30)

Whilst Simeon’s song dealt with the Isaianic themes of the presence of God’s salvation and a message for all people, Jesus’ ‘reading’ in the Nazareth pericope deals with the theme of reversal of statuses (4.18-19). Luke then evokes the presence of God’s salvation (4.21) and the message to both Jews and Gentiles (4.25-27) in Jesus’ additional comments. As with Simeon’s pericope, Luke also uses the additional comments to add a further, more haunting Isaianic theme: the rejection of the Servant. As with Simeon’s song, here Luke reworks Isaianic imagery and lexical webs to construct his own programmatic servant narrative.

Like Simeon’s song, Jesus’ Isaiah reading can be structured into six lines and as three couplets. Whilst each line does not have a regular number of syllables, each couplet does. Luke 4.18a and 18b have 24 syllables accumulatively, 4.18c and 18d have 22 syllables, and 18e and 19 have 24 syllables. Like Simeon’s song, Jesus’ Isaiah reading is a carefully crafted passage, whose metre gives it an elegant, rhythmic quality.

18a                          Πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπʼ ἐμέ,
18b                                          οὗ εἵνεκεν ἔχρισέν με εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς,
18c                          ἀπέσταλκέν με κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν
18d                                          καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν,
18e                          ἀποστεῖλαι τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀφέσει,
19                                            κηρύξαι ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου δεκτόν. (Luke 4.18-19)

In consideration of the phonetics of Jesus’ Isaiah reading, the reading is less musical than Simeon’s song, but the existing assonance and consonance does help in holding the passage together as a tight unit. 18a and 18b use assonance in the repeated ‘e’ vowels to hold the two clauses together, and alliteration of the rough breathing sound in οὗ εἵνεκεν (18b) to elegantly link the two clauses.

In 18c and 18d the repeated consonance of the ‘εν’/ ‘ιν’ sounds function to seal the clauses of the couplet together. In 18c, 18d, 18e the repetition of ‘α’ vowels combined with the assonance of ‘αι’ sounds in the repeated infinitives contributes to the growing momentum of the passage, helping the reading to crescendo towards the emphatic final clause. Whilst the passage is not as musical as Simeon’s song, its phonetics do function to hold the unit together, as well as to influence the dynamics of the reading.

The musical quality of this text makes categorizing it as a ‘reading’ a little misleading, and even more so because Luke combines multiple quotations and allusions from the servant discourse of Isaiah 61 within it.[1] Charles Kimball’s work has demonstrated that Luke seemingly uses a lexicon from the two traditions preserved by the LXX and the MT.[2] Luke 4.18a is from Isa 61.1a (LXX), 18b (including ἀπέσταλκέν με from 18c) is from Isa 61.1b (LXX), and 18c and 18d are from Isa 61.1d (LXX). However, 18e is from Isa 58.6d (LXX) replacing Is 61.1c. Luke 4.19 is from Isa 61.2a (MT).

Kimball uses the gezerah shawah technique to demonstrate that Jesus’ exegetical methods contain an implicit midrash based on the catchword connection of ἄφεσιν. This explains how Jesus could read two passages together as one unified passage. Unlike F. Godet, who argues that Luke probably left out Isa 61.1c (‘to bind up the broken hearted’) by an act of negligence,[3] it seems far more likely that Luke purposefully left it out for stylistic reasons, such as enhancing the parallelism between ἄφεσιν and ἀφέσει.[4]  Another possible stylistic decision is evidenced by a change made from ἀποστελλε (LXX) to ἀποστεῖλαι to fit with the other infinitives of the text.[5] This combining and editing of multiple passages (i.e. Isaiah 58/61) demonstrates Luke’s interest in poetic style and in crafting his own servant song text.

Unlike in Simeon’s song, Luke selects quotations more weighted with messianic expectation for his Nazareth reading. While the servant and the messianic agent are not mutually exclusive figures, they do show a shift in emphasis. The figure in Jesus’ reading is anointed with the Spirit of the Lord (vv. 18a, 18b). This is a royal as well as prophetic appointment, as in the Jewish scriptures the kings were famously anointed for their reign.[6] In ἔχρισέν με εὐαγγελίσασθαι and ἀπέσταλκέν με κηρύξαι Luke’s lexical choices also allow for Jesus’ Isaianic figure to be perceived as a herald or messenger. However, unlike the herald alluded to in Luke’s depiction of Simeon, this herald emphasises his divine appointment.

Luke uses repetition in the Nazareth reading to emphasise that the medium of God’s salvation is in fact the messenger Jesus himself. The repetition of the first person pronoun με in ἐπʼ ἐμε (18a), ἔχρισέν με (18b) and με κηρύξαι (18c) draws attention to the Isaianic figure during the first half of Jesus’ reading. This provides a neat counterpart to Simeon’s song in which the speaker emphasises his addressee with σου. However, it is also consistent with the Lukan theme of God’s salvation, as in each passage the repetition draws attention to the source of salvation (God is emphasised in 2.29-32 and Jesus in 4.18-19). In this passage the herald figure is shown to be not only the messenger but also the medium of God’s salvation.

Repetition in the second half of the passage changes the dynamic of the reading. Repetition of infinitive forms in εὐαγγελίσασθαι (18b), κηρύξαι (18c), ἀποστεῖλαι (18e) and κηρύξαι (19) shifts the emphasis from the authority of the Isaianic figure to the ministry of the Isaianic figure. The change in positioning of the infinitives from secondary verb in the clauses of 18a and 18b to the primary verbs in 18e and 19 contributes to this shift in emphasis.

As with Simeon’s song, Luke’s possible structuring of the passage into couplets allows for parallel concepts in each phrase. Thus ἔχρισέν με – ἀπέσταλκέν με mirror each other, as do εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς – κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν. The change from starting the phrases with aorist active verbs (ἔχρισέν, ἀπέσταλκέν) to starting with infinitives creates a lucid movement from authority to ministry.

This ministry that Luke appropriates from Isaiah and that he emphasises through his word ordering, conceptually and linguistically parallels the Jubilee instructions in Leviticus 25. ἄφεσιν is the link word to Leviticus 25 (alluded to in Isa 58.6 and 61.1) and ‘proclamation’ the linking concept as the Levites are instructed to proclaim the Jubilee across the land.[7] This allusion to the Jubilee within the allusions to Isa 58.6 and 61.1, 2 employs the Isaianic imagery of reversal of statuses, describing a restoration for the wronged.[8]

In Leviticus 25, the Jubilee is a year of a national reversal of statuses as slaves are set free and leased property is returned to its original clan’s ownership. Luke’s allusion to the Jubilee year is also strongly programmatic of Jesus’ own healing ministry, as is later reiterated to John the Baptist (Luke 7.22). The fulfilment of this programme is immediately demonstrated in the following pericope as Jesus exorcises an unclean spirit in Capernaum and heals their sick, thus releasing the captives and giving sight to the blind.

Whilst Jesus’ Isaiah reading primarily emphasises the theme of reversal of statuses, the following ‘additional comments’ contain two other Lukan themes revealed in 3.5-6: the presence of God’s salvation and its availability to both Jews and Gentiles. In Jesus’ concluding comment to the Isaiah reading Luke emphasises the immediate presence of God’s salvation. ὅτι Σήμερον πεπλήρωται ἡ γραφὴ αὕτη ἐν τοῖς ὠσὶν ὑμῶν (4.21). ὅτι Σήμερον functions in the same way as Simeon’s opening Νῦν drawing attention to the immediate present. It also echoes the immediacy of Simeon’s follow-up warning to Mary that begins Ἰδοὺ (2.34).  Luke’s lexical choice communicates the emphatic immediacy of prophetic fulfilment of God’s salvation.

As in Simeon’s pericope, the servant’s rejection and suffering motif is not dealt with in the actual Isaiah reading. Like Simeon, Luke’s Jesus introduces the concept as an additional comment, instigating a foreboding mood that runs counter to the uplifting one created by the initial reading. Luke introduces the theme of rejection by describing Jesus as declaring οὐδεὶς προφήτης δεκτός ἐστιν ἐν τῇ πατρίδι αὐτου (4.24). Jesus’ statement is both programmatic of the way his immediate audience will react to him and ultimately how the people will reject him in Jerusalem.  Just as Luke ‘packaged’ the rejection motif with the motif of reversal of statuses in 2.34, here Luke associates the rejection motif with, or even as a result of the salvation for Jew and Gentile motif (4.24), as Jesus continues to preach the historical precedents of God’s salvation being ministered to Gentiles (4.25-27).

The Nazareth sermon is shown to be immediately programmatic as the episode ends with a fulfilment of two of the Isaianic themes. Luke’s rejection motif is immediately fulfilled by Jesus’ audience’s angry reaction as they cast him out of the city (4.28-19a). Luke also develops, less overtly, an immediate fulfilment of the status-reversal motif as the audience’s immediate reaction and judgement of Jesus employs the same lexical web as previous reversal passages (3.5, 1.52-53, 2.43).

The audience are filled with wrath (ἐνέπλησεν – Luke 1.52-53), they rise up (Luke 2.43) and they take him to the brow of the mountain (ὄρος – Luke 3.5). As well as lexical links, the passage also matches the conceptual movement of the undulation themes from earlier passages. The people ‘rise up’ in order to ‘cast down’ Jesus, strongly echoing Simeon’s earlier words to Mary that her son ‘is destined for the falling and the rising of many in Israel’ (2.34). Jesus passes through the midst of his aggressors leaving them empty of a victim, as God sends the rich away empty in Mary’s song (1.53).