Luke 4:14-21: A whole 'nuther question....

Hmmm.

Precepts makes a very good point here:

" Jesus has the Divine right to summarize the enirety of the passages in just one short phrase. ."

Yes He in fact does! Whether or not He quotes Isaiah word for word or simply paraphrases - it's the same! Jesus has absolute mastery of the scriptures. The only potential problem here is that He would have likely been excpected to quote it verbatim if reading a scroll. He might have gotten some funny looks if He read it as a paraphrase. Although as I mentioned earlier Luke goes on to point out that everyone looked at Him as He sat down - the mention of this is not anecdotal - it portrays Him as the teacher who authoritatively makes a statement and then retruns to His place while His audience ponders it.

I think for this reason that 2 is very plausible - although I personally do not have a problem with 3 either.

 

Russell55,

That's all very true - but this passage poses a bit of trouble for those who adhere to a word-for-word original scripture. Clearly what Luke said is a little different from what the BHS and LXX have for Isaiah. I personally do not believe we have any word-for-word inspired documents, original autographs or otherwise simply because language is so human and so changeable. The import of the passage is clear and in this there is no discrepancy. If you hold to the absolute "God-breathedness" of any particular FORM of the bible than this is a problem because either Luke is off a little or our OT has not been transmitted with absolute fidelity. Neither of these things in my opinion are a stumbling block to the belief that the bible is God's inspired word - but then I believe that the few phrase differences between manuscripts and bible versions are just "par for the course" for any written body passed down over centuries.

 

Sorry, Mike and Precepts-Jesus was reading verbatim to a crowd skeptical of Him-and had He not read verbatim, soneone in the crowd would've immediately called Him down.

OF COURSE Jesus could've quotes any scripture exactly, w/o the use of a book. But He was TEACHING the crowd, as was His custom, and these people recognized the WRITTEN Scriptures as their highest authority in all religious matters. And He used the scroll in order to be able to say, "THIS SCRIPTURE" after He'd read it aloud. Did Jesus not often say, "It is WRITTEN", especially to Satan? Why, the very word 'scripture' means an act or a product of writing or a body of writings considered authoritative.

I believe Jesus read aloud what Luke said He did, and that there's absolutely NO valid reason for anyone who believes every word of the Bible to believe any differently.

 

I also believe Jesus had, and still has, the power and authority to quote any Scripture as He chooses-and in fact, was the actual Giver of most of them-but Hebrews says, Jesus Christ, the same, yesterday, today, and forever.

Fact is, the passage in question was within the copy of Isaiah used by Jesus that day. The people to whom He was reading did NOT know He was God, as is evident in the rest of Luke 4. The simple, logical explanation that does NOT call either Luke or Jesus into question is that the version of isaiah from which He read was NOT the Masoretic edition commonly used for today's Bible translations.

We can see this even better when comparing Acts 8:27-35 with Isaiah 53:7-8. Here Luke plainly says they were READING a Scripture-and these men did NOT have authority to change it. Clearly, they were using another version of Isaiah besides the copy translated into the KJV OT. Dr. Bob has shown that Isaiah 53:7 as quoted in Acts 32-33 exactly matches the Septuagint. Now, whether Philip & the Ethiopian were using the Septuagint or were using another version is unknown, but it clearly was NOT the Masoretic version.

 

Cranston, you and others are just snagged by your opinion in this matter to try and prove it.

You all are failing to see that Jesus read from the scroll what "is written" That does not mean he quoted necessarilly, no. It only means he related what the Word of God says.

The Word of God is inspired in ANY language. Inspiration is to inspire to think, to reckon what is said; Jesus did exactly that in Luke 4. He offered the chance to consider what He read, and what He said; He inspired the Words and the people present reacted to that inspiration.

The words are ONLY inspired as they promote the reader to be inspired to thought on the things of God and how to reason what he is brought to the consideration by the inspiration by the Word with God.

It's what the Word causes you to think and think upon righteousness.

Jesus expounded upon Isaiah, that is evidenced by the reaction of those present, not exactly how Cranston thinks it ought to be, his thoughts are NOT inspired by the Highest Thought.

It is the Real Wonder their eyes were fixed upon Jesus, He had just revealed to them prophecy fulfilled in their very presence, why them would they react in any negative manner? They were amazed, they fixed their gaze upon the very Messiah.

Do we really expect the Messiah to be quoting verbatim the Scripture when He spoke? That's sort of silly. The woman at the well in John 4 said, "When Messias cometh, He will tell us all things."

That tells us, and her at that moment, that the Messiah will tell us what the Scripture actually says, w/o any doubt, or reason to misunderstand when the Inspired Word is told to us what exactly it means. Thaty is what Jesus ALSO did in regards to Isaiah, like John 4, like John 3, like ...etc.

When a preacher tells us what the Word of God says, the Spirit will bear that witness, it's called Holy Ghost Inspiration that provokes one to reason with God.

We can all dilly-dally forever the "specifics" by our opinions, but the Inspiration is that which is preserved, and that by inspiration. The AV 1611 KJB offers that Inspiration to provoke one to reason. I cannot say that about the mass of mv's, my experience is they do not offer the same.

It all comes down to what is understood, not what the other says it "ought" to say, but what exactly the Word of God SAYS.

Charles, you have offered what I consider the best reasoning on this issue.

Thank You Brother

 

Of course this statement is true. But Luke says that Jesus read from the place where it is written--and then quotes the words written. Luke says, at least from my reading and what I believe is the only reasonable reading of the text, that those words he quoted were the words written on the scroll. So just because Jesus could do that, or even has the Divine right to do that, doesn't mean that that's a reasonable explanation for what happened here in this passage in Luke if it goes against the plain reading of the words Luke wrote. </font>[/QUOTE]Precisely. And even if one were to ignore what Luke clearly states and concede that Jesus altered the words of the written text of Isaiah in the Bible he was reading from, neither the Ethiopian eunuch nor Philip had the right to alter the written text -- yet they also used a different version of Isa. 53:7-8 (cf. Ac. 8:27-35).

 

Do we really expect that Jesus, our sinless example (Jn. 13:15, Heb. 4:15), would publicly set a poor example of reverence for the written word of God by *not* reading the exact words from the written text of the Bible in front of Him?

 

My copy of the LXX has the disputed phrase:

LXX Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind

HankD

 

Precepts - "Do we really expect the Messiah to be quoting verbatim the Scripture when He spoke?"

Poof, there goes the myth of KJVOism!!!!

 

Precepts - "Do we really expect the Messiah to be quoting verbatim the Scripture when He spoke?"

When Jesus at age 12 astonished the old scholars in the temple with His knowledge, we can be assured He quoted the Scriptures verbatim to whatever copies they had in the temple; otherwise those old men would've held Him in the same regard that the KJVO holds the non-KJVO.

Another fact, plain from Scripture, that the KJVOs disregard: Most of the people among whom Jesus interacted with, did NOT know who He really was. Sure, He had the full authority to change the Scriptures, but He didn't do it, as is plain from His quotes. And there's no mention from those hostile to Him-those who sought an excuse to kill Him-that He EVER altered any Scripture while He was living as a man.

 

And He did...Look at Matt 5:32:The Lord Jesus Christ ADDED to the Mosaic law of divorce found in Deut 24.

 

And He did...Look at Matt 5:32:The Lord Jesus Christ ADDED to the Mosaic law of divorce found in Deut 24. </font>[/QUOTE]And He plainly said, "But I say unto you..."! He was NOT reading. He added a LARGE amount of Scripture during his ministry, but He did NOT change any which was already established.

 

And He did...Look at Matt 5:32:The Lord Jesus Christ ADDED to the Mosaic law of divorce found in Deut 24. </font>[/QUOTE]Did the Ethiopian eunuch have the authority to change the Scriptures? Did Philip have the authority to change the Scriptures? (See Ac. 8:32-33 and Isa. 53:7-8).

 

Again, for those who have the problem of not understanding presevration of the Thought of God...... of which the mv's fail miserably.

 

The thoughts of God is perserved, in the NIV, NASB, the Message, ESV, KJV, and so on and so forth. Textually, however, there is a difference between Acts 8:32-33 and Isaiah 53:7-8, and smoke and mirrors cannot prevent that fact.