Lent Day 4: Outsiders in Luke 4

Luke 4 contains a curious passage:

“No prophet is accepted in his own native place. Indeed, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah when the sky was covered for three and a half years and a severe famine spread over the entire land. It was to none of these that Elijah was sent, but only to a widow in Zarephath in the land of Sidon. Again there were many lepers in Israel during the time of Elisha the prophet; yet not one of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian.” 4:24-27.

This is said in response to the doubt his fellow Nazarenes have when he claims for himself the mantle of prophet in their presence (4:17-21). In Luke, this episode comes at the beginning Christ’s ministry, just after he returned from his 40 day retreat in the dessert (4:1-13), and this is literally first experience preaching—so I suppose one takeaway is that even Christ “failed” at first.

In any case, this isn’t what makes the passage so interesting I feel the need to blockquote it at length. No, it’s interesting because it’s our first example of Christ—of God—interpreting Scripture we see in Luke. It’s the first time he interprets the meaning. The reason I find it fascinating. The story about Elijah and the widow in Zarephath is found in 1 Kings 17. The story of the Naaman the leper and Elisha is found in 2 Kings 5.

1 Kings 17 is our first introduction to Elijah in Scripture. Unlike the lyric introduction of God’s call of Jeremiah Jeremiah 1), we are introduced to Elijah with a terse and ominous prophecy he gives to the Israeli King Ahab: “As the Lord, the God of Israel, lives, whom I serve, during these years there shall be no dew or rain except at my word.” (1 Kings 17:1). Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Lord’s next command to Elijah is leave Ahab rather abruptly, and he eventually finds himself led to Zarephath—a Phoenician city in modern day Lebanon—with God promising a “designated” widow to provide for him. (17:9). Apparently this was unbeknownst to said widow, because Elijah finds a widow outside the city walls, and asks her for water and some bread. She replies she has only a handful of flour and a little oil and she and her son are but waiting for death. (17:11-13). Elijah responds that she should go cook something and “the jar of flour shall not go empty, nor the jug of oil run dry” until the end of the drought. (17:14). And lo and behold, the widow does what Elijah said, and all involved were able to eat for a year. (17:15). Because one miracle is never enough, he later heals her son when her son is afflicted with sickness—and then she recognizes Elijah as “a man of God” from whose mouth “the word of the Lord comes truly.” (17:17-24).

It is interesting this is the story Jesus chooses to prove his point. Perhaps there are no better stories—I don’t know, I’m not an Old Testament scholar. However, on first glance it hardly appears Elijah was “sent to” the widow to preach or for her benefit, as Jesus’ description in Luke 4 would make it appear. No, God tells Elijah the widow is supposed to “provide for” him, yet, in the end, Elijah (and the Lord, of course) is the one who ends up allowing the widow to provide for both of them. Perhaps this is not a mistake. Jesus is at home, where he grew up. One’s home is meant to nourish you, to provide for you. “There’s no place like home.” Yet, already being the sign of contradiction Simeon prophesized in Luke 2, Jesus, instead, is met with incredulity. They call his father by name—seemingly incredulous that this carpenter’s son could have the audacity to call himself a prophet. Yet, he responds by reminding them of this story, where the one who was meant to be nourished instead does the nourishing. Perhaps this is not only furtherance of the rebuke Jesus makes on the face of his words—that they doubt in the face of truth—but a failing at their duty to provide for one of their own. But perhaps not. See, the widow was not failing in a duty to provide, in the sense that she literally had no food with which to feed Elijah. Instead, God had chosen her to provide for his prophet, despite her very lack of ability to do so. And then He provided her the resources to do it, assuming she followed the words of his prophet. Perhaps Jesus is saying the Nazarenes are similarly inadequate to provide for a prophet of the Lord, without the aid of the prophet himself. And he is rebuking them for not accepting his truth, bemoaning that a prophet must go far from his homeland to find someone who will listen to truth without second guessing its bearer.

Moving on to Jesus’ second example, in 2 Kings 5, Naaman is a great general of Aram—a neighboring kingdom of Isreal—and he is a leper. An Israeli girl the Arameans had captured in a raid told Naaman that he should go see “the prophet in Samaria,” who could heal his leprosy. (2 Kings 5:1-3). Elisha indicates Naaman should wash in the Jordan to be healed. (5:8). Naaman initially doubts the instructions, complaining “are not the rivers of Damascus, the Abana, and the Pharpar, better than the waters of Israel? Could I not wash in them and be cleansed?” but his servants call him out, saying “if the prophet had told you to do something extraordinary, would you not do it? All the more now, since he said to you, ‘Wash and be clean,’ should you do as he said.” (5:12-13). Naaman follows Elisha’s instruction, and so is healed. (5:14).

Naaman’s story is different than the widow of Zarephath’s in the sense that Naaaman sought out Elisha. However, perhaps the significance Jesus is pointing to in his reference of this story is twofold. Not only are the prophet’s instructions followed with respect (after a little urging) by the outsider, but the instructions themselves were not so alien as Naaman expected. Naaman’s first reaction is, “I thought that he would surely come out and stand there to invoke the Lord his God, and would move his hand over the spot, and thus cure the leprosy.” (2 Kings 5:11). Indeed, the waters of Damascus that Naaman references are known for being clean, while the Jordan—not so much. However, in following the seemingly mundane act, Naaman is cleansed. So, too, the Israelis look for the clear. Indeed, he even criticizes them for expecting the miraculous, rebuking them for impliedly saying “Do here in your native place the things that we heard were done in Capernaum” (Luke 4:23). Instead

Interestingly, in both stories, the initially doubts. So Jesus cannot be trying to imply prophets are immediately with respect outside of their homeland. No—both the widow and Naaman initially doubted—though ultimately they were open to God’s grace. However, in the widow of Zarephath, he reminds them that it is God who provides the strength to serve him through listening to his Word. In there reference to Naaman, he reminds them of God’s presence in the seemingly mundane. We should remember Elijah’s experience, also in 1 Kings,

“Then the Lord said, ‘Go outside and stand on the mountain before the LORD; the Lord will be passing by.’ A strong and heavy wind was rending the mountains and crushing rocks before the Lord- but the Lord was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake - but the LORD was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake there was fire - but the LORD was not in the fire. After the fire there was a tiny whispering sound. When he heard this, Elijah hid his face in his cloak and went and stood at the entrance of the cave.” (1 Kings 19).

As we go through Lent preparing for Christ coming through death on the cross, and perhaps as we prepare for a new Pope, we should remember that we do not need an impressive outsider or the miraculous to see God. Rather, the seemingly mundane, limited, and oh-so-normal, through the grace of God, can bring God’s healing to our lives.