Fourth Sunday after Epiphany

The Rev. Thomas Scott. Holy Bible .

Last Sunday our Morning Lessons, as found in the 1943 Lectionary, were Isa. 61.1-3 cf. Luke 4:16-32. Normally, I try to restrain articles about Holy Days of certain Precedent rather than Ordinary Sabbaths. However, this specific lesson stood out because Christ reads to the Jewish Synagogue that portion of Isaiah which declares our Glad Tidings. Of course, ears should perk up whenever scripture sets forth the promises of the Gospel. But, unusual was the Lord’s omission from the scroll of the Prophet his “day of vengeance” (v.2). For me, the Messiah’s manner of reading and preaching left a few questions, especially why dire warning or judgement was absent? As usual, I gleamed what I could from one of my principle 18th-century commentators, mainly the Reverend Scott, late Rector of Aston. 

The lesson for Sunday Morning prayer began with Isaiah 61:1-3. Here, certain particulars of our Glad Tidings are made known. After declaring the objects of Jehovah’s Mercy, Isaiah then gives something of the immanency and hope of it. The Authorized Version reads,

Please notice Isaiah’s verse 2 which declares the “acceptable year of the Lord” simultaneously mentioning “the day of vengeance of our God”. We know Law and Gospel work together, and those who reject the Gospel will be sadly condemned. In times of mercy (especially as illustrated with the above visit to Nazareth) the Law prepares the way, wonderfully joined to the joy and reception of the Gospel. So, it would be pretty normal for the two Articles to accompany and magnify each other. However, when addressing the congregation of Nazarene Jews, our Lord strangely stops with the reading of the Jubilee year. See the discrepancy in verse 19 of Luke (below) in comparison to our aforementioned verse 2 of Isaiah.

Interestingly, the silence of God’s “day of vengeance” raises opinions among our British commentators. The Rev. Scott compiles other 18th-century contemporaries (early), like Daniel Whitby and Simon Patrick. Evidently, there’s gentleness which Jesus addresses the congregation at his home of Nazareth. Scott believes such charity owes itself to a kind of affection for kinsmen, a characteristic we often ignore with the Incarnate Son, i.e., verily Man. See Scott’s Bible observation for this notion at the bottom:

Remember, Nazareth was our Savior’s town of birth. Here, the Jews knew him perhaps as a  lowly or mean son of Joseph. Nonetheless, they were Galileans as himself, maybe explaining Jesus’s forbearing while illustrating a measured concern and duty to close relations (“He came unto his own” J 1.11– being tried without sin and giving obedience where commanded by Gracious Father). Yet, God finally shows no favor. Scott is keen to indicate this is only Christ’s ‘first address’ to such, and indeed the account is unfinished without adding the condemnation of those who reject him (or chase him off a cliff). The Rt. Rev. Simon Patrick (who Scott quotes) reminds readers,

“it was not, indeed, the business of Christ’s first coming, to take vengeance of his enemies, and for that reason he might not mention it at his first entrance into his office; though we find in several of his discourses, he threatened the Jews with destruction for their rejecting him; and he calls the destruction of Jerusalem the days of vengeance, the very expression of the text; which does most properly relate to his second coming, when he will not only reward his servants, but justify their innocence, by the terrible judgments he will inflict upon his and their enemies”.

Also, there’s a certain implicit rebuke against these enraged brethren when Christ says,  “No prophet is accepted in his own country”. He later miraculously passes through their mob, leaving Nazareth to its own while returning to Gentile-Capernaum– doing healings, etc., there. Going on to Luke 4:19 (per our 1943 Lectionary), Scott says,

We cannot accuse Christ of being a man-pleasing or diminishing the truth of any matter, yet doesn’t Jesus exemplify for us how to preach to family and abode? In my own teaching at home I’ve tended to be fast to correct and slow to forgive– strong on Law yet weak on Glad Tidings. Perhaps this order deserves reversing!– instead emphasizing the graciousness of God before reminding the hearer how stingy are we. It also sometimes explains why others are blessed (the Gentiles in Capernaum) before ourselves (the Jews in Nazareth). Scott elsewhere says of this episode:

This description provokes another question of right, or due, order in public worship. Jesus was neither a lineal-Levite nor Scribe, but Scott indicates sufficiently regarded laymen might be granted a privilege to read in the synagogue. Indeed, Christ did more, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” Nonetheless, I wonder what extent the Puritan practice of prophecy was based on this impression– inviting known laics to read and/or exposit Holy Writ– e.g., a usage thats gradually formalized itself into the office of lay-eldership among Presyberians.

The accompanying Psalm to the Morning Lessons on the Fourth Sunday After Epiphany is Ps.66 which near the conclusion declares, “Come and hear, all ye that fear God, and I will desclare what he hath done for my soul” (KJV).  Isn’t this to very point of preaching? While the sobriety of man (knowing our wormy state) indeed magnifies the Kindness of Jehovah, the hearer needs to also know what we’ve fallen or alienated ourselves from. It would be good in my private ministry at home and the family circle to emphasize the great Promises we’ve been given in Christ, reminding the dearest and least our Glad Tidings in the Lord. Bishop George Horne (another frequent reference and contemporary for Scott) says this about Ps. 66.16,

Finally, this selection of scripture shows Christ in his/our Epiphany, revealing who he is to both kinsman and stranger– in this case a visit to Nazareth and then departing for Capernaum.

 

 

Advertisement