What is quite interesting is the number of paragraphs that are introduced by asyndeton (ø). There seems to be an unusually high number of them.

More details to follow when I’ve done some more work…

Most (Bock, Culy, Nolland) conclude that they are narrators comments; while Morris argues for a continuation of Jesus’ works.

It is the “awkwardness” of the third-person references (e.g. “the crowd”) that lead many to argue for narrators comments. But it is just as awkward that there is neither any conjunction or re-introduction of speech in v31.

This, I fear, is an example of the lack of attention that is paid to discourse features by many commentators and exegetes.

Given the way Luke (and other NT authors) purposefully use conjunctions and other discourse features to mark and structure their work (see e.g. my notes on Luke 1:5-38) it seems strange that so many commentators are happy so simply recognise the strange absence in v31 without letting it influence their decision about vv29-30.

I’m not (necessarily) claiming that vv29-30 are Jesus words – but I am suggesting that the lack of the discourse features should at least be weighed alongside the awkwardness of the grammar.

But it occurred to me this week that sometime the absence of any specific “discourse features” can tell us things too.

I preached on Luke 7:1-17 this Sunday. I came to the conclusion that the miracle of the raising of the widow-from-Nain’s son and the response there was a negative contrast to that of the centurion in the first half of the passage. Whereas the centurion clearly puts his trust in Jesus – to the extent that Jesus is amazed by his faith; the significant absence in the Nain narrative is the lack of any mention of faith at all. No one in Nain puts their trust in Jesus. All they do is recognise that Jesus is a prophet being used by God.

Key to this understanding is the phrase in v16 “God has visited his people”. I don’t believe this to be a statement that Jesus is God – but rather a mere recognition that God is using Jesus powerfully. I came to this conclusion partly because the phrase “God has visited” or similar is used repeatedly in Luke and the OT to refer to God being at work, without any claim to divinity (for example the phrase is used for the end of the famine in Ruth 1:6).

But also, the word order of that clause in v16 is “bog standard”. Luke (and the speakers in Nain) don’t add any particular emphasis on any part of that clause. It is simple V-S-O. There is no topic/focus parts. There were mechanisms available to the speakers/writers to emphasis, if they had wanted to, that “God(!!) has visited is people” if they were coming to the conclusion that Jesus was God. But no such markers are present. Rather there is a simple statement, that God is at work for the benefit of his people.

(That is the BW9 Leedy diagram of the clause). It’s not clear from the diagram (but I put it in there anyway!), but the word order is not changed from the default/expected order at all. The verb comes first, followed by the subject, followed by the object.

Sometimes there is significance in the absence of anything significant.

I’m starting to get really annoyed by the lack of useful stuff in commentaries. The number of commentators and preachers who ignore the structure of the passage is not helping in my preparation!

Fortunately, I discovered this file by Stephen Levinsohn which actually takes note of the conjunctions that are present in the text iself – rather than trying to divide the sermon by some kind of random subjective thematic strategy.

The two biggest issues that I find that are missed by most is the “speech orienter” in v39 and the use of γάρ in v43.

The speech orienter inv39 is the only bit of non-speech in the whole sermon and so is significant in determining the structure of the sermon. Most commentators and preachers seem to completely ignore it. What comes before v39a is “direct teaching” and what comes after is parabolic teaching. There is a distinct division.

The other big issue that people seem to miss or ignore is the use of γάρ in v43. Γάρ functions to introduce material which provides background/support for what preceded it – and yet most exegetes like to make v43 the start of a new section, which it cannot be. Vv43 function to explain vv41-42. As Levinsohn writes

‘To illustrate why only he who himself is reformed is able to reform others, Jesus tells the parable of the good and corrupt tree’ (Geldenhuys). A key word in v42 is Hypocrite, as a hypocrite is like a bad tree which attempts to bear good fruit.

Levinsohn makes a number of other useful observations about the conjunctions, like the double use of πλήν in vv24 and 35 which divide two sections (vv20c-27 and 27-39) into subsections (20c-23,24-26 and 27-34, 35-39).

Go read the document for some genuinely helpful exegesis of a difficult passage!

One of the issues I came across was related to Jesus’ parable in Luke 5:36-39. It’s a famous passage about new/old clothes and new/old wine/wineskins.

I came to the conclusion that there is a lot of assumption done about this passage, without the necessary rigorous exegesis that it required. Every commentator (except one) that I read on those verse assumed that Jesus = new and Pharisees/Judaism = old. That is a very well loved interpretation of these verses.

However, I want to question the validity of that interpretation. During my prep, exegesis and research, I came to the conclusion that the text makes much more sense if we understand the parable to be working the other way round – that is, that Jesus is the old and the Pharisees are new.

Now, you might strongly disagree with my conclusion there – but the main point I want to raise is that there is nothing in the text itself which demands the parable be interpreted one way round or the others. The fact that almost every preacher and commentator takes Jesus as NEW is nothing more than an assumption which most, if not all, fail to address or defend.

In fact, the only time in these verses where any preference is expressed towards either old or new is in v39 where Jesus says “the old is better”. Most interpreters are required, by their presuppositions, to understand Jesus as making a negative comment about the Pharisees refusal to accept Jesus. The problem with that is that, once again, it is slightly forced onto the text. Not to mention the fact that most people recognise that old wine is better than new wine – so Jesus’ words make most sense if he is saying that the old is better, that He is the old and that the Pharisees are adding new rules which tear, spill and destroy the old.

One of the more challenging aspects of prep was working out what Luke includes this healing of the leper within this section. There is a clear emphasis on sin and discipleship – but where does leprosy fit in?

Well, I think the answer lies in the fact that 5:12-16 aren’t really a healing miracle – they are a cleansing miracle. There is no mention of the effects of the skin disease on the man. No mention of his dry, wrinkly, flaky skin which was restored to Nivea smoothness.

Rather, what is emphasised (3 times) is the “cleansing”. What adds support to this is the fact that Jesus points the man to go to the priest. It is Leviticus 14:1-32 which deals with the procedure for cleansing skin diseases. And these 32 verses (in the LXX) contain more occurrences of the “cleansing” word than any other chapter in the bible.

So I think the point is not that the man was suffering from a skin disease, but that his condition meant he was separated from people and from God. He was unclean. And it is this uncleanness that Jesus miracle deals with.

This connects with the next miracle (healing of the paralytic lowered through the roof) which also focuses more on the man’s uncleanness before God than on his disability.

As I read Luke 4:29 (which is part of the passage I’m preaching on Sunday morning) I noticed that they both don’t translate a personal pronoun.

καὶ ἀναστάντες ἐξέβαλον αὐτὸν ἔξω τῆς πόλεως καὶ ἤγαγον αὐτὸν ἕως ὀφρύος τοῦ ὄρους ἐφ᾽ οὗ ἡ πόλις ᾠκοδόμητο αὐτῶν ὥστε κατακρημνίσαι αὐτόν· (Luk 4:29 GNT)

And they rose up and adrove 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. (Luk 4:29 ESV)

They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff. (Luk 4:29 NIV)

They got up, drove him out of the town,a and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him down the cliff. (Luk 4:29 NIVO)

and rose up and thrust Him out of the city; and they led Him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw Him down over the cliff. (Luk 4:29 NKJ)

Jumping up, they mobbed him and forced him to the edge of the hill on which the town was built. They intended to push him over the cliff, (Luk 4:29 NLT)

Although it is not a significant point on the exegesis of this passage, I do think Luke’s choice to use αὐτῶν  instead of the article is significant. In the context, the Nararenes have rejected Jesus (and so rejected God’s salvation) because they don’t like him, they are too familiar with him and they don’t think he matches their criteria for the Messiah.

At a number of points previously in the passage, it has been emphasised that Nazareth is Jesus’ hometown (vv16, 22, 24). At the end, however, this is no longer Jesus’ hometown – this is their town. It is not simple the town, neither is it his town. It is their town (the their must be referring to the πάντες…ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ of v28). In rejecting Jesus – Jesus has rejected them. Nazareth has, in a manner, forfeited its right to proundly claim to be the hometown of the Messiah who brings God’s jubilee salvation (cf Isa 61:1-2 with Lev 25:8ff).

Luke comparison

We read them as, “Jesus, if you really are the son of God (which I doubt) then prove it by…”

However, this cannot be what the text means. What the devil says to Jesus is Εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ, which is a 1st class conditional protasis which is followed by an apodosis (that doesn’t include ἀν). The significance of 1st class conditional statements is that they are assumed to be true, at least for the sake of the argument.

Satan is assuming that Jesus is the Son of God.

This is just one of the ways that I am starting to see how this passage is generally badly handled, misunderstood and misapplied.

You have to be really dull to not notice that Isa 5:8-30 is a section which is characterised by and structured around the six-fold appearance of the word “woe” (vv8, 11, 18, 20, 21, 22).

In every other of the woe’s, the NKJV (as with all other translations) simply joins clauses with “and” or “who”. In Hebrew the second line begins with “and”. So why do they add this extra woe in v22? I really don’t know – any suggestions are welcome.

The problem I have with this is that they are making it very difficult for an English reader to pick up on what Isaiah is doing – they are distorting and disguising the authorial intention. I don’t like it!