062. Chapter 3 - At the Gate of Nain
Chapter 3 - At the Gate of Nain
Nain
Nain is located on the northern slope of Jebel Duhy, now often called Little Hermon, a mountain about twenty-five miles southwest of Capernaum. On its southern slope is located Shunem, the town where Elisha was so hospitably received by the Shunammite woman and her husband and where the resurrection of their child took place (2 Kings 4:8-37). Endor, the home of the witch where Samuel appeared to Saul on the night before his death, is two miles east of Nain (1 Samuel 28:1-19). In modern times the ruins of Nain were first identified by Robinson. The location is precisely where it was said to have been by Eusebius and Jerome. That it was of sufficient size and importance to be a walled city in the first century is shown by Luke’s description: “the gate of the city” (Luke 7:12). The Time
Luke declares that this dramatic miracle of the resurrection of the son of the widow of Nain occurred “soon afterwards,” after the healing of the centurion’s servant. Following a different manuscript reading, the a.v. has “the day after.” Nain is about a day’s journey from Capernaum. As this is now approaching the southern edge of Galilee and the northern border of Samaria, it gives a clear indication of how intensive the campaign in Galilee was, since it reached at a later time over into Phoenicia to the northwest and to Caesarea Philippi and Mount Hermon to the northeast. On the basis of the manuscript reading that this resurrection was “on the following day” after the healing of the centurion’s servant, McGarvey suggests that Jesus arrived at the end of a day’s journey from Capernaum and that it was about the sunset hour when the funeral procession was going out of the city. The Bier
Plummer says that the “bier” may not have been a simple stretcher on which the body of the young man was carried, but that it may have been a coffin. He cites the last verse of the book of Genesis and the reference to the coffin in which the body of Joseph was placed in Egypt. He also cites references in Herodotus to the custom of the times. But there is a strong suggestion of poverty as well as tragedy in Luke’s description: “the only son of his mother, and she was a widow” (Luke 7:12). It seems evident from the entire narrative that the body of the young man was being carried Out on a bier where it was in full view of the multitude that followed in the funeral procession. If this is true, then everything which happened was in the open to be seen by all present. Inasmuch as the resurrection of the daughter of Jairus was in an inner chamber with only five other witnesses present and Lazarus was called from the recesses of the tomb, it is interesting to observe the fact that this young man is raised in the presence of all. Even in the case of the most elaborate funeral in Palestine in this period, that of Herod the Great, the body was borne in full view of all on a golden bier from Jericho where he had died to Frank Mountain, near Bethlehem, where he had prepared his burial site. Josephus says, “The body was carried upon a golden bier, embroidered with very precious stones of great variety, and it was covered over with purple, as well as the body itself: he had a diadem upon his head, and above it a crown of gold; he also had a sceptre in his right hand” (Antiq. XVII:VIII:3). Commentators seem to be equally divided as to whether there was a coffin or a simple stretcher in this funeral at Nain. But certainly it was not closed for the body of the young man was immediately accessible. The Crowds
There were two multitudes present on this occasion. One was a multitude which was following Jesus; the other was the funeral procession coming forth from the city. The presence of a multitude following Jesus raises speculation as to whether many of them had come with Him all the way from Capernaum, where the excitement over the healing of the centurion’s servant must have been very great, or whether most of them had come from towns near Nain. The sending forth of the seventy on a missionary tour later on shows that there was a large group of disciples who followed Jesus whenever they could. The nature of the crowd coming out of the city was self-evident. Did these people of Nain recognize Jesus at a distance, or was His identity only made known to them as the two crowds met?
Faith
It was the regular procedure of Jesus to require faith on the part of those seeking a miraculous blessing. This has been God’s program through the centuries: “He that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him” (Hebrews 11:6). The demand for faith and the severity of the tests of faith given before the miracle was performed differed with different individuals who had different backgrounds. In the resurrection of Jairus’ daughter and of Lazarus the intensity of the appeals made and the faith shown by Jairus and by Mary and Martha is strongly emphasized. When a demon-possessed man found himself in the presence of Jesus, the demon had the man helpless in his power, and the man could not make any appeal or declare or show his faith. The demon did the speaking through the man. But by His divine insight Jesus could read the hearts of these men, and by His divine foresight He could foreknow the outcome. An Unasked Miracle This miracle at the gate of Nain is one of several in which Jesus made the first move before any appeal had been made to Him. People came to Him constantly asking to be cured miraculously of all sorts of dreadful maladies and afflictions. Jesus was always ready to grant their petitions. But in the resurrection of this young man, in the healing of the lame man at the Pool of Bethesda (John 5:1-47), and the healing of the man born blind (John 9:1-41), we find Jesus making the first approach. It is important to study these incidents and see how Jesus proceeded in each case to bring forth intense desire and expectant Jesus’ Method faith in the heart before the miracle was performed. He might have raised this young man from the dead at a distance with no suggestion of any connection with his divine Person and power. He might have walked alongside this funeral procession as they passed in the roadway and have raised the young man back to life without a word, a look, or a gesture. But this would have defeated the primary purpose of miracles. It is true that He had the strong motive of sympathy; this is emphasized in this very incident: “He had compassion on her” (Luke 7:13). But as the soul is more important than the body and eternal life in heaven more precious than our temporary stay in this world, so the bringing of obedient faith and salvation to the lost is the supreme objective of these miracles which confirm the truth of His claims and His teaching.
Challenge to Faith
First Jesus spoke to the sorrowing mother. In brevity and explosive content His words must have thrilled not merely the mother, but all who heard: “Weep not.” These words cannot be reduced to ordinary words of comfort spoken at a funeral. All Galilee was ablaze with excitement over His miracles. The funeral procession undoubtedly was led by the mother, with the pallbearers and the bier and then with other mourners following. Even as He spoke these decisive words of challenge and promise they seem to have come to a sudden halt. “He came nigh and touched the bier” (Luke 7:14). What divine sympathy, authority, and power were expressed in that gentle touch. We are apt to pass over the startling nature of this interruption. But if some person today should go out in the street, halt in such peremptory and authoritative fashion a funeral on its way to the cemetery and announce that there was no need for grief and no need to proceed further with the burial plans, that person would instantly be dubbed a maniac. The shocking impact of this interruption on the funeral procession was the instant forerunner of excited hope. The tremendous miracles Jesus had been performing gave an entirely different background to the interruption of this funeral by Jesus. The Dead Are Raised
Luke relates immediately after this miracle the coming of two disciples of John with his question of doubt. In His answer Jesus cited His miracles: “the dead are raised up” (Luke 7:22). This resurrection of the young man justifies entirely the declaration of Jesus. But the manner in which He introduces this evidence seems to suggest that Jesus raised more persons than the three recorded in the Gospel narratives. The fact that Luke is the only Gospel writer who records this miracle at the gate of Nain merely confirms the declaration of John that there were a vast number of miracles, sermons, events, and scenes which the inspired writers did not record. The brevity of the accounts is one of the most impressive proofs of their divine inspiration. At any rate, here at Nain in this exciting moment they knew the marvelous miracles of Jesus, and they knew that the Old Testament prophets Elijah and Elisha had raised the dead. The Lord of Life That Luke should refer to Jesus as “the Lord” on the eve of this mighty miracle is most appropriate. He was God as well as man; He was “the Lord” of life and death. He not only had power on earth to forgive sins (Mark 2:5-12), He could raise the dead, even as He had recently claimed in Jerusalem (John 5:25-29). Luke may have intended his use of the title “the Lord” to lead his readers to compare their faith with the expressions of growing faith uttered by the crowd which witnessed the miracle. Luke calls Jesus “the Lord” in Luke 10:1, Luke 10:41; Luke 11:39; Luke 12:42; Luke 13:15; Luke 17:6; Luke 19:8, Luke 19:31; Luke 22:61. The Divine Summons In the majestic manner of heaven Jesus addressed the dead man: “Young man, I say unto thee, Arise” (Luke 7:14). He spoke to the daughter of Jairus and summoned Lazarus in this same manner. This is the natural course in awakening a person who is asleep. A sharp staccato call of the name of the sleeping person usually suffices. Jesus could raise the dead as easily as we can awaken one asleep. The divine power of Jesus is never more manifest than in raising the dead. “And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he gave him to his mother” (Luke 7:15). The tenderness with which Jesus presented the young man to his mother reminds one of the manner in which Elisha called the Shunammite woman and returned her son alive (2 Kings 4:36, 2 Kings 4:37).
Myth?
Modernists attempt to reduce this account to the status of a myth by such terms as “allegorical,” “mythical,” or “spiritual resurrection.” Meyer says, The natural explanation of this miracle as of the awakening of a person only apparently dead so directly conflicts with the Gospel narrative, and moreover, places Jesus in so injurious a light of dissimulation and pretence, that it is decisively to be rejected, even apart from the fact that in itself it would be improbable, nay monstrous, to suppose that as often as dead people required his help, He should have chanced every time upon people only apparently dead” (Com. on Luke, p. 346).
R.Bultmann thinks he can prove this is myth because the dead man is represented as “the only son of his mother and she a widow.” He cites the epileptic boy of Luke 9:38 and Jairus’ daughter (Luke 8:42). But Luke is the only one of the Synoptic writers who records the detail that it was the only child in these homes. Even if Bultmann’s contention had any force, it would not apply to the accounts of Matthew and Mark. There are three witnesses. Only one specifies this detail. A skeptic who is searching desperately for some clue to attack seems never to consider that this detail is a simple statement of historic fact. The effort to say that there is a climactic creation of myth — (1) on the death bed; (2) in the funeral procession; (3) in the grave four days — meets the instant rebuttal that Luke is the only’ writer who records two of these cases of resurrection, and he testifies they occurred in the opposite order: (1) in the funeral procession (Luke 7:11-17); (2) on the death bed (Luke 8:49-56).
Impact on Crowd
There is a difference of opinion among the commentators as to whether the consensus Luke reports from the crowd represents the remarks of two different people or groups of people. “A great prophet is arisen among us: and, God hath visited his people” (Luke 7:16). The punctuation in the a.s.v. indicates the translators felt these were two distinct statements. The a.v. makes this conclusion even more manifest. “A great prophet” suggests instant comparison with the greatest prophets of the Old Testament. W. Manson says, “That ‘God has visited his people’ need not imply that in the popular judgment the Messianic days have come, but only that a prophet has appeared (cf. Luke 9:18, Luke 9:19)” (Com. on Luke, p. 77). But why should one doubt the Messianic turn in their tribute when we know that this was the first question in the minds of the first hearers of John the Baptist: “all men reasoned in their hearts concerning John, whether haply he were the Christ” (Luke 3:1-38 :l5). How much more would they constantly reason thus concerning Jesus? “A great prophet” falls short of Messianic declaration, but they must have been wrestling with the problem. “Secretly for fear of the Jews” must have been the motif of some. The humble, spiritual ministry of Jesus would have caused many to feel they would have repudiated themselves and their fond Messianic dream of national glory if they had hailed Jesus as the Messiah. The Messiah
“God hath visited his people.” Meyer says, “In His appearance they saw the beginning of Messianic deliverance” (Commentary on Luke, p. 346). B. Weiss says, “The others see in Him, as His Messiah, God visiting His people” (Commentary on Luke, p. 58). Evidently someone cried out in the midst of the crowd, as awed silence followed the miracle, “A great prophet is arisen among us,” and a general murmur or shout of assent arose from the crowd. Then someone else cried out, “God hath visited his people,” and again the crowd gave enthusiastic assent. This second declaration reminds one of Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23 : “And they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.” We cannot tell how far anyone in the crowd could have had in mind the supernatural character of the Messiah as they joined in this tribute, “God hath visited His people.” But certainly they must have heard of the claim Jesus had made to have the power to forgive sins and the charge of blasphemy the Jews had made against Him. This was at nearby Capernaum more than a year before. And some of them must have been in Jerusalem at the recent Passover when Jesus had clearly claimed to be deity and the Jews had charged Him with blasphemy, “but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God” (John 5:18). The Son of God
Some person of deep spiritual discernment in the crowd may have heard His sermon in Jerusalem in which He had claimed to be God and to have the power to raise the dead (John 5:21) and may have spoken now in excited realization that He had proved His claims. Luke records a consensus of the crowd, but the words may have had varied content to different people. Since “A great prophet” falls short of “the Christ,” it is logical that “God has visited” is not an assertion of “the Son of God.” But it is oversimplification to conclude that no one in the crowd could have put deep, mysterious meaning into His words as He uttered this extraordinary tribute: “God hath visited his people.” It is not merely the question as to whether they understood the predictions of the Old Testament that the Messiah would be a supernatural Being who would come on the clouds of heaven, would execute judgment on the wicked, and would reign forever (Isaiah 7:14; Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah 9:7; Psalms 2:1-12; Daniel 7:13, Daniel 7:14). It is rather the question as to whether they understood Jesus’ claims to deity (Matthew 9:2-8; Mark 2:5-12; Luke 5:20-26; John 5:17-47), and, in spite of His humble, spiritual campaign, related His prodigious miracles to these claims; whether they had been startled and shocked by the terrified testimony of the demons that He was the Son of God (Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34, Luke 4:41), and whether they had understood the furious charges of blasphemy which the Pharisees had made against Jesus because He “called God his own Father, making himself equal with God” (John 5:18).