Encourse Wiki

New Testament — Topic 11

Properties3
tagstopic
courseNew Testament
unitTopic 11

42 min read

New Testament — Topic 11

The Savior’s Social Service. Part 8.

  • The Sermon at the Feast of the Dedication. (John 10:22-42). The Return of the 70 Disciples. (Luke 10:17-24).
    • The Parable about the Good Samaritan. (Luke 10:25-37) and others (Luke 11:5-8), (Luke 12:13-21), (Mat. 24:42-51 and Luke 12:35-48), (Mat. 24:45-51; Luke 12:42-48).
    • The Fall of the Siloam Tower. (Luke 13:1-5) The Parable about the Fruitless Fig Tree. (Luke 13:6-9) The Healing of the Deformed Woman. (Luke 13:10-17)
    • The Parable about Those that Love to be First. (Luke 14:7-15). The Parable about the Invitees to the Supper. (Luke 14:16-24). The Parable about the Prodigal Son. (Luke 15:11-32).
    • The Parable about the Unjust House-Steward. (Luke 16:1-17). The Parable about the Rich Man and Lazarus. (Luke 16:19-31). The Teaching on the Sanctity of Marriage and on Celibacy. (Mat. 19:3-12; Luke 16:18)

The Fall of the Siloam Tower. (Luke 13:1-5) The Parable about the Fruitless

Fig Tree. (Luke 13:6-9) The Healing of the Deformed Woman. (Luke 13:10-17)

The Fall of the Siloam Tower.

(Luke 13:1-5)

Returning from Jerusalem, the people told the Lord about the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. The Jews often staged uprisings against the Roman rule. In all probability, this was one of these uprisings that occurred within the temple during a major feast-day, when the armed Roman soldiers were safeguarding the peace. Judging by this narration, Pilate ordered the rebellious Galileans to be put to death in the temple. This was at the same time as the sacrifices were being offered, and as a consequence, the blood of the dead mingled with the blood of the sacrificial animals. Jesus Christ explained, that such a violent death in such a holy place cannot be explained in that those Galileans were more sinful than the others: therefore, one shouldn’t think that those who perished were less righteous than those who were unharmed — those, who the Lord did not punish in such a severe manner. The Lord is only forbearing, waiting for their repentance.

The meaning of the Lord’s words is such: you are the similar sinners as they are and will also perish likewise if you don’t repent. The Lord’s judgment had already passed for them, while for you, it will arrive this way or another, “unless you repent”. It is possible that here the Lord is hinting at God’s judgment, held over the Jewish people when Titus Flavius destroyed Jerusalem and the great number of Jews died inside the temple, similarly to those Galileans killed by Pilate. With this, the Lord Himself recalls another occurrence, when a tower of Siloam collapsed, crushing 18 people — were they more sinful than the other inhabitants of Jerusalem? — Who knows. Both the accidents the Lord offers to be understood differently: this is only the warning to the living: “unless you repent you will all likewise perish!” — i.e., death will overtake you when you are not ready, burdened with sin. Developing this thought, the Lord tells the parable about the fruitless fig tree.

The Parable about the Fruitless Fig Tree.

(Luke 13:6-9)

The owner of the vineyard in this parable is understood to be Lord God, Who is waiting for the Jewish people’s repentance (they are represented in the parable as the fruitless fig tree). To plant a fig tree in the vineyard is unusual, however, this also bears an important thought — that the Jewish people occupied the special position as the chosen people, standing alone among the other nations of the world, just as the fig tree stood alone in the vineyard. The vineyard owner is to be understood like the Lord Jesus Christ, having come to the God-chosen Jewish people, spending 3 years of the public ministry and doing everything possible to convert the Jewish people towards the saving faith in Him, as in the Messiah, and expecting from the Jews the fruits of His labor. “After that you can cut it down” — this is the grim forecast of God’s punishment that reached the Jewish people, for still not turning to God, not bringing any expected fruits, who on the fourth year of the Lord Jesus Christ’s ministry, delivered Him to death on the cross. For that, it was rejected by God and punished by the Roman invasion and terrible destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. The Son of God (the vineyard owner in the parable) is presented as the Interceder for the people, begging God the Father about mercy towards them.

The Healing of the Deformed Woman.

(Luke 13:10-17)

During His stay in Galilee, while teaching in the synagogue, the Lord performed a miracle by curing a woman that was deformed for eighteen years and could not straighten up. The head of the synagogue became indignant, because the healing took place on a Saturday, which according to the law prohibited any type of activity. Turning to the people, he expressed this indignation aloud. For that, the Lord called him a hypocrite (as He usually called the Pharisees), indicating that his indignation was aroused not by the imaginary violation of the Sabbath, but through plain jealousy towards the Lord-Healer. With that, the Lord explained that the performance of good deeds is not prohibited on the Sabbath, if it is permitted to do the essential earthly matters, like care about the farm animals. “So, ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom satan has bound — think of it — for eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath?”, i.e., it is precisely on the Sabbath that it is possible to do benefactions to those in need. “Daughter of Abraham”, i.e., the cured woman was a native Judean, and the head of the synagogue, on whom rested the responsibility of caring for his flock’s well- being, should have been happy for Christ Savior’s benefaction, yet he was indignant.

The words “satan has bound” have differing interpretations: some surmise that the woman’s sickness was the result of the action of an evil spirit, to which the Lord permitted to deform her body, just like he allowed, for example, righteous Job to be afflicted with leprosy: the others assume that the woman’s illness was the result of her iniquitous life. Saint Gregory the Dialogist considers that as the fruitless fig tree, so the deformed woman, are two examples of one and the same state of corruptness of the human race. After hearing the Lord, those opposing to Him became ashamed, because they, of course, could not deny the fairness of His words. The rest of the people — the common people — rejoiced for all the glorious deeds, coming from Him.

The Parable about the Good Samaritan. (Luke 10:25-37) and others (Luke

11:5-8), (Luke 12:13-21), (Mat. 24:42-51 and Luke 12:35-48), (Mat. 24:45-51; Luke 12:42-48).

The Parable about the Good Samaritan.

(Luke 10:25-37).

This parable is narrated only by St. Luke, as the Lord’s reply to the tempter’s (Scribe’s) question, wishing to trap Him in His words: “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” The Lord forces the sly lawyer to answer his own question through the words of Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18, about love for God and for the neighbors. By pointing him at the demands of the law, the Lord wants to force him to plunge into the power and meaning of these demands, and comprehend how far he is from fulfilling them. Apparently, the lawyer felt this, and that’s why he, “wanting to justify himself” asked: “And who is my neighbor?” i.e., he wanted to show that even though he may not be fulfilling the law as required, it’s because of the uncertainty of its demands, for it is unclear, for example, whom one should regard as a “neighbor”. In response, the Lord narrated the wonderful parable about a person that fell into the hands of robbers, and was subsequently ignored by the passing priest and Levite, and who only saw compassion from a Samaritan — the man, hated and despised by the Jews. That Samaritan knew better than the priest or Levite, that in order to fulfill the law, there shouldn’t be any distinction between the people: everyone is our neighbor. As we can see, the parable is not fully suitable to the question of the lawyer. While the lawyer was asking: “Who is my neighbor?” the parable indicated how and who of the three, seeing the miserable, became his neighbor.

Consequently, the parable doesn’t instruct on who should be regarded as a neighbor, but how one can make himself a neighbor for every person that is in the need of compassion. The difference between the lawyer’s question and Lord’s answer is of great significance, because in the Old Testament, in order to shield God’s chosen people from vile influences, there were found the differences between the surrounding people, and only the countrymen and people of the same faith were regarded as “neighbors” by the Jews. The moral law of the New Testament abolishes those differences and teaches the all-embracing Evangelical love towards all the people. The lawyer was asking: who is my neighbor — as if fearing to love those people that he shouldn’t. The Lord instructs him that he should make himself a neighbor to the one in need, and not question, whether he is his neighbor or not: he should not be looking at the people but into his own heart, so that he would not have the coldness of the pagan priest or Levite, but the mercy of the Samaritan. If you are going to differentiate logically between the neighbor and stranger, you will not be able to avoid the cruel coldness towards the people. You will pass those who “fell among thieves”, just like the priest and Levite, even though that miserable — as a Jew — was their neighbor. Mercy is the condition of inheriting eternal life.

The Parable about the Persistent Appeal.

(Luke 11:5-8).

Both Evangelist Matthew and Evangelist Luke in 11:1-4, expound the text of the Lord’s Prayer, beginning with the words “Our Father” and further, beginning with verse 5, the precise Lord’s teaching about the persistency in prayer. Following His inexplicable goals, God does not grant immediately that what is asked for, even though it may be in conformity with His will. By the narration about a friend, who was asking for bread and receiving it as the result of his insistence, the Lord wishes to instill the essentiality of resoluteness in prayer.

The Exposure of the Scribes and Pharisees.

(Mat. 23:1-39 and Luke 11:37-54).

The two condemnatory speeches, addressed to the Scribes and Pharisees, which are very similar in both the content and expressions, are mentioned by both Evangelists Matthew and Luke, but with a difference: the exposure presented by Saint Luke, was expressed by the Lord at the dinner to which He was invited by a certain Pharisee, concerning the washing of hands. On the other hand, the exposing speech, narrated by Matthew, was uttered by the Lord in the Temple of Jerusalem, shortly before His sufferings at the cross. It has to be assumed that the Lord exclaimed similar exposures and similar expressions on several occasions. It is quite probable that, while not narrating the Lord’s grim sermon that was described by Saint Matthew, Saint Luke quoted a few pronouncements from it, which he attributed to the Lord when he was exposing the Pharisees during the dinner, about which he narrated alone. In both the sermons, the Pharisees are exposed for the exaggerated attention to “outer” cleanliness, while neglecting their “inner” cleanliness, i.e., cleansing their souls of sinful passions and vices.

In both the sermons, the Lord compares the Pharisees with coffins, “which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all type of dirt”. As well, the Lord condemns the Pharisees for their love of being honored, that they apply unbearable burdens on men’s shoulders, while they themselves “will not move them with one of their fingers,” that they formally and punctually fulfill the outward requirements of the law on “tithes”, “but have neglected the weightier matters of the law”: justice, mercy and faith,

i.e., being true to God and His moral law. The Lord also condemns the lawyers because they “have taken away the key of knowledge”, i.e., as though they have taken complete possession of the Old Testament law, which was supposed to lead people towards Christ. And having taken possession of this key, do not enter Christ’s Kingdom themselves and do not allow the others to enter, falsely interpreting the law. The Lord also accuses the Pharisees in stoning God’s Prophets, sent to them by the “Wisdom of God”, i.e., by Him, as He is the Hypostasis Wisdom of God, represented under such a name in the chapter 8 of Proverbs.

In conclusion, the Lord calls upon them the blood of all the righteous, beginning with Abel, slain by his brother Cain, to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, killed between the altar and the temple. Apparently, this was the same Zechariah who by the order of Joash, was stoned in the courtyard of the Lord’s house. The others surmise that this was Zechariah — the father of John the Baptist.

The Parable about the Reckless Rich Man.

(Luke 12:13-21).

Seeing the Lord’s great influence, a certain person turned to Him with the request to order his brother to share the inheritance with him. The Lord refused him, because He didn’t come to earth to sort out the petty conflicts based on human passions. Apart from that, He preached the renouncement of earthly possessions. With that, any kind of decision could raise dissatisfaction with one or the other side of the conflict, and even a clash and judicial lawsuit — something the Lord did not wish to happen. At the same time, that was not the reason why human interests in general were strange to the Lord, but in that His task was not to determine the exterior measures of order, but to re-educate the hearts and minds of the people. This is the example for all the preachers of the Gospel and servants of the Church.

In relation to the request addressed to Him, the Lord told a parable, warning against the sickness of “covetousness”, i.e., the passion of acquiring possessions for the purpose of enjoying the earthly blessings. “One’s life”, i.e., his well being or happiness, “does not consist in the abundance of the things he possesses”. One individual had an abundant harvest in his fields. Without any thought for his life thereafter, all he thinks about is how to utilize his wealth for the earthly pleasures. He has no thoughts of God, of spiritual life, but only about the animalistic, carnal pleasures: “eat, drink and be merry.” He had no inkling that his last day on earth would arrive and he would be unable to enjoy his gained treasures. “Fool! This night your soul will be required of you; then whose will those things be which you have provided?” — “you will not receive any benefit from the treasures you gained, and who will end up with those treasures, will be of no importance to you”. Instead of accumulating earthly treasures for oneself, one must grow rich in God, i.e., be concerned about obtaining eternal, incorruptible treasures or virtues, which can be acquired by expending earthly riches not on the low, carnal pleasures but on good deeds of various types.

The Parable about the Servants, Awaiting the Return of their Master.

(Mat. 24:42-51 and Luke 12:35-48).

One has to be ready at all times, because it’s unknown when Christ’s Second Coming or death will arrive — which has the same meaning for a person. In both instances, a person will be obliged to give an account to God on how he lived his earthly life. “Let your waist be girded” — the image taken from the Eastern loose clothing: whenever anything had to be done, such loose and long attire was girded around the waist with a belt, so that it would not get in the way. Consequently, this expression means — to be ready. “Your lamps burning” expresses the same thought: the servants should be ready to meet their master with the lighted lamps when he returns home at night. Just as alert servants have to be ready to meet their master at any hour of the night, whenever he returns home — “come in the second watch, or come in the third watch” — so should the true followers of Lord Jesus Christ be morally ready to meet His Second Coming. The Lord promises blessedness for this spiritual vigilance

— “blessed are those servants”. This blessedness is figuratively presented in that the master will “gird himself” and begin to serve his servants, as if making them his guests — a tremendous honor that can only be bestowed to the servants according to the Eastern customs.

The Parable about the Wise House-Steward.

(Mat. 24:45-51; Luke 12:42-48)

The Lord does not give a direct answer to Peter’s question as to whether that parabolic speech is addressed to the Apostles only, or to everybody. But it can be seen from the further dialogue that the Lord’s exhortation about the spiritual vigilance applies to all the followers of Christ. In this second parable, the Lord praises the faithful and wise house-steward, “whom his Master made ruler over His household”, for the proper fulfillment of the entrusted to him duty — “to give them food in due season”. He also predicts the sad fate of that house-steward who, not expecting the early return of his master, begins to neglect his responsibilities through the improper behavior: he “begins to beat his fellow servants, and to eat and drink with the drunkards.” Such a type of servant will be subject to great tortures: “cut him in two” — the punishment applied in the East to the worst criminals. Evangelist Luke adds that the punishment for such derelict servants will not be identical: the one who knew the master’s will, will bear the heavier punishment than the one who didn’t, although, the latter will be punished for not attempting to learn his masters will. The one, who was given more opportunity to fulfill that will, will be punished greater for neglecting to fulfill it.

The Parable about the Unjust House-Steward. (Luke 16:1-17). The Parable

about the Rich Man and Lazarus. (Luke 16:19-31). The Teaching on the Sanctity of Marriage and on Celibacy. (Mat. 19:3-12; Luke 16:18)

The Parable about the Unjust House-Steward.

(Luke 16:1-17).

This parable completely and unnecessarily confuses many people. Bishop Theophan the Recluse explains this excellently: “Every parable has a hidden meaning and explains the essence of some subject figuratively, although it is not analogous in all respects to the subject, which it is trying to explain. That’s why it is unnecessary to explain every part of the parable in minute detail.” Only the basic thought of a parable is important. Concerning this parable, many are confused that the owner of the estate — which undoubtedly is understood to be God — praised his house-steward, who had been stood down from running the estate, for his fraud, having falsified his masters receipts in collusion with his debtors, so that they “may receive him into their houses”, i.e., to regain their support after losing his position. But the master didn’t praise his servant for his swindle as such, but for his resourcefulness that he had shown when finding himself in a disastrous situation. The meaning of the parable is that

we are only the temporary masters of the earthly gifts, which are under our control purely because God entrusted them to us during our terrestrial life. Consequently, we must utilize these earthly blessings so that with their help to secure ourselves in the forthcoming eternal life. We, however, often fail to do this — we do not display the wisdom, shown by the unjust house-steward. That’s why the Lord stated that “the sons of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the sons of light.” Besides, like the house-steward, we must “make friends for yourselves by unrighteous mammon, that… they may receive you into an everlasting home.”

Wealth is called “the unjust mammon” because it is often secured unjustly, is often applied unjustly, often makes a person unjust towards others, and never justifies the concerns about it and the hopes for it. Consequently, the only wise usage of wealth is to use it to help the needy, to use it for all types of the benevolent works, so as to make them the means of gaining the Heavenly Kingdom for ourselves. After all, we are going to lose the wealth one way or another — we shall not be able to take it with us — while the good deeds that we accomplished with its help, will always remain with us and will serve as our justification at God’s Dread Judgment.

In conclusion, the Lord states: “He who is faithful in what is faithful also in much; and he who is unjust in what is least is unjust also in much. Therefore, if you have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? And if you have not been faithful in what is another man’s, who will give you what is your own?”,

i.e., if you were untrustworthy with the earthly wealth, were unable to manage it as you should have to, for the benefit of your soul, then how can you be entrusted the spiritual wealth, of blessed gifts?

In response, the covetous Pharisees began to laugh at the Lord, as it seems, unwilling to admit that passion for the earthly wealth can be an obstacle for the acquisition of the spiritual gifts. To expose them, the Lord narrated the whole parable on the misuse of the wealth — about the rich man and Lazarus.

The Parable about the Rich Man and Lazarus.

(Luke 16:19-31).

The fundamental thought of this parable, is that the incorrect application of wealth deprives a person of the Kingdom of Heaven, and leads him down into hell for eternal tortures. Some wealthy man, used to dress in the purple mantle and byssin attire. The purple mantle was an outer Syrian garment of the expensive reddish fabric, while the byssin was a white, soft fabric made of Egyptian fine linen. The rich man lived lavishly, holding great feasts daily, living, consequently, purely for his own pleasures. At the gates of his residence there laid a beggar, named Lazarus. The word “Lazarus,” in the literal sense, means “God’s help” — i.e., a “beggar”, who was abandoned by everyone and who could only rely on God. His suffering further was increased through the dogs licking his scabs, as apparently, he was too weak to drive them away. It was indeed in this beggar that the rich man could have acquired a friend who, according to the preceding parable’s idea, would have accepted him, after his death, into the eternal dwellings. However, as it can be seen, the rich man was a heartless person, pitiless towards the beggar — although not stingy, for he had feasts daily. He didn’t spare his money, but spent it on his own pleasures.

After his death, the beggar’s soul was taken up into Abraham’s bosom. It is not said that he was taken “into Heaven,” as it was open only with the Lord Jesus Christ’s suffering and resurrection. What is expressed here is that being a true son of Abraham, Lazarus shared his after-death fate with Abraham, finding himself in the state, full of consolatory hopes for the future joy, which awaited all the righteous. Without a doubt, Lazarus earned his consolatory state through his great suffering without complaints. “The rich man also died and was buried.” Apparently, the burial is mentioned because it was luxurious, while Lazarus’s cadaver was simply thrown out to be devoured by wild animals. But the rich man found himself in hell, tortured.

And so, from afar, he sees Abraham and Lazarus in his bosom. Contemplating the joy of the righteous by the sinners increases their suffering in hell, and, perhaps, gives them hope, though it is vain, for some relief. Just as previously Lazarus wished to satisfy his hunger with crumbs, now the impoverished rich man begs for few drops of water to cool his burning tongue. But he is denied even with such small relief: as Lazarus is comforted in proportion to his former sufferings, so the rich man is suffering in proportion to his light-minded and heartless gaiety. Apart from this, Abraham presents another basis of his refusal: God’s immutable sentence, through which between the place of joy for the righteous and the place of suffering for the sinners, has been established the abyss, which cannot be crossed, in full accord with the moral abyss that separates the ones from the others. Abraham also refuses the rich man’s request to send Lazarus to his father’s house, to warn his brothers not to follow in the footsteps of his lifestyle. “They have Moses and the Prophets,” i.e., the written Old Testament, from which they can learn how to live, so as not to end up in that place of sufferings.

The rich man confesses that like himself, his brothers are deaf to the teaching of God’s Law, and that only the extraordinary appearance of the dead can bring them to their senses and thereby, force them to change their lifestyle for the better. Hearing that, Abraham replied that if they have reached such moral downfall that they would not listen to the voice of God, expressed in the Holy Gospel, then all the other persuasions will also be futile. The unbeliever astounded by the extraordinary appearance of the dead, will begin to explain that appearance in the different light, and will again remain the same unbeliever and unchanged. The fact that it happens alike, can be seen from the example, when the stubbornly disbelieving Jews were unconvinced by the countless signs and miracles that the Lord Jesus Christ performed: they did not even believe, seeing the resurrection of Lazarus, and had thoughts of killing Him. The whole thing is that the heart, corrupted by sin, stubbornly refuses to believe in the future sufferings that await the sinner, and one cannot convince it with any miracles.

The Teaching on the Sanctity of Marriage and on Celibacy.

(Mat. 19:3-12; Luke 16:18)

Each time the Pharisees approached Jesus Christ with some kind of question, they did that not to learn but to “tempt” Him, hoping that He might be blamed for saying something contrary to the law. There they too asked Him: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” This caused arguments among the Pharisees and the public. Some — the followers of the teaching of Rabbi Gillel — were saying that one could divorce for any reason, while the others — the followers of Rabbi Shamai, insisted that one could divorce only on the grounds of adultery. The Pharisees were waiting to see what the Lord would say, so that they could discover something to use against Him.

According to the Law of Moses (Deut. 24:1), it is permissible to give a wife a divorce bill, “if she finds no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her.” Showing no signs of disagreement with the thoughts expressed by the rabbis, the Lord quotes the Gospel, and points at God’s image of husband and wife, and through this, reveals the true purpose of marriage as the God-established institution, thereby resolving the enticing question. God created one man and one woman: consequently, the Creator’s intention was for the man to have one wife and not leave her. This marital bond is closer and tighter than the blood-ties of a son with his father and mother, whom he leaves for the sake of his wife: two people become one, in thoughts, feelings, aims, actions — they have to be one creature. And if through God’s initial determination, they are united in such a way, they should not be separated. There can only be one exception permitting the divorce: “sexual immorality”. This is because adultery in itself destroys the matrimonial concept, and the marriage as such ceases to exist.

Moses permitted to divorce because of “hardness of the hearts”, which resulted that husbands tormented and maltreated their unloved wives, i.e., he allowed the minor evil, in order to avoid the major one. Christ re-establishes the initial law of marriage, confirming its inviolability. Confused by such a demand, the disciples said: “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry,” i.e., it’s better not to enter into marriage at all, than having married, to endure a malicious and shrewd wife without an option of sending her away. The Lord corrects His disciple’s flippant conclusion with His answer. He confirms that on the one hand “it is better not to marry,” while on the other, He points out that the state of being unmarried, together with preserving the chastity, is not easier than being in a married state, but is so difficult and heavy that not everybody can undertake such a feat: “all cannot accept this”, i.e., may pick up and carry it, “but only those to whom it has been given.”

With these words, the Lord elevates chastity to such a high moral level, where the highest and most complete state of spiritual life can be found, for all the best, that any human can possess, He always as a precious gift of the Heavenly Father (for example, see: understanding the mysteries of God’s Kingdom, Mat. 13:11: the faith of Peter 16:17 and many others). At the same time, “but only those to whom it has been given” doesn’t mean that this gift of God doesn’t depend on our personal will. Saint John Chrysostom states that it is given to those who seek it. Those entering the exploit of chastity, have the great need in God’s help and receive it, if they seek it conscientiously.

Further on, the Lord compares chastity with the voluntary eunuchs, which of course shouldn’t be understood literally — only in the absolute physical sense — as can be seen from the context. These eunuchs are not physical, but spiritual. The Lord opposes them specifically to the physical eunuchs when He states: “There are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men.” It cannot be said of them that they had undertaken the exploit of chastity, because by the very physical nature, they are incapable of having married life. To distort oneself, to become a eunuch for the sake of the Heavenly Kingdom, means to cut off the carnal desire, to kill the internal physical lust and decide to lead unmarried life for the sake of the more favorable service to God, and reaching the Kingdom of Heaven, what can be greatly disturbed by the family responsibilities. “He who is able to accept it, let him accept it” — no one is forced to take this exploit, but those who feel strong enough to lift it, with God’s help, should do so. As Saint John Chrysostom states: “With these words, the Lord showed the complete possibility of achieving this virtue and through that to stimulate the desire in people to achieve it”.

The Parable about Those that Love to be First. (Luke 14:7-15). The Parable

about the Invitees to the Supper. (Luke 14:16-24). The Parable about the Prodigal Son. (Luke 15:11-32).

The Parable about Those that Love to be First.

(Luke 14:7-15).

When the supper began, the Pharisees hurried to occupy the best places. Candidly and boldly, the Lord began to chastise their ambitiousness and in addition, narrated a “parable”. Actually, it was not a parable in the strict sense of the word but edification, taken from the parabolic form of a wedding feast, often used by the Lord, applied because it is the largest and jubilant of all feasts. “When you are invited by anyone to a wedding feast ”….By saying these words, the Lord did not mean just to show the sensible etiquette rule: here, the dialogue is about the inner disposition of the heart. That’s why the Lord concluded His parable with the words: “For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted”. Those words were said to the guests, while the Lord gave especial edification to the host.

Having observed that he invited only his friends, relatives and wealthy neighbors, the Lord suggested to him that it was wrong to invite only those who will give him his due for that hospitality. Instead, he should invite the poor, maimed, lame and blind, who are incapable of giving him his due for the invitation; it’s wrong to loathe the poor as the Pharisees did, but one should look upon the feast as at the deed that can have a moral worth, as a good deed. For this, there will be the recompense from God in the next world — “the resurrection of the righteous.” The general meaning of this edification is similar to that of the Sermon on the Mount: “But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you?”(Luke 6:32). Hearing that, someone among the guests exclaimed: “Blessed is he who shall eat bread in the Kingdom of God.”

“Apparently, this individual was not spiritually inclined for to understand this properly, i.e., he was led by human comprehension”, — supposes Blessed Theothylactus. — In other words, he expressed the sensate idea that prevailed among the Pharisees, about the Messiah’s kingdom. However, it could be that he, applying the figurative narrative commenced by the Lord, simply wanted to state how blessed are those, who will be the participants in the Messiah’s Kingdom”.

The Parable about the Invitees to the Supper.

(Luke 14:16-24).

The Lord responded to the exclamation of one of the participants of the supper with a parable, in which “great supper” was meant to be the Messiah’s Kingdom, or Christ’s Church. The organizer of that supper, the Lord God, by means of the law and the Prophets, as through His servants, invited all the Jewish people to enter the Kingdom. When that Kingdom drew near, He again invited them, but that time through Very Messiah-Christ. In some prophesies, like in those of Isaiah 52:13, the Messiah was called as the “Lord’s Servant,” who appeared as a human.

Initially, the Messiah appeared only to the “chosen” — to the Jews, with the news that “The Kingdom of God has come near”: because everything was ready. But among those Jews, to whom the initial call was made, like the experts of the Old Testament Law — the Scribes and Pharisees and other leaders of God’s chosen people, began to refuse the invitation — as though being in collusion among themselves. Their earthly, sensate motives served as the pretext for that denial, through which they became deaf for the Divine calling, and thereby rejected the Messiah-Christ that came to them. The Lord then directed the Messiah to call the tax-collectors and sinners, and as there were still many seats left after that call, the Lord then summoned the heathens into His Kingdom. Everyone that responded to the Gospel’s sermon, entered the Messiah’s Kingdom — God’s Kingdom, while those who spurned the call, the Scribes and Pharisees, found themselves excluded.

The Parable about the Prodigal Son.

(Luke 15:11-32).

This parable, which is narrated only by Evangelist Luke, is prefixed by the two short parables about the lost sheep (15:1-7) and the lost coin (15:8-10). The Pharisees condemned Jesus Christ because He “receives sinners and eats with them.” In response, the Lord told them those parables, which depicted the great joy that occurred in the heavens when a sinner, that appeared to be destroyed and lost to the Kingdom of Heaven, repented. The interpreters of the Gospel regard the 99 sheep as either God’s Angels or the righteous — living and those that have already departed and deserved the bliss; that have no need of repentance. Drachma is a small silver coin, worth about 25 kopeks. In these parables, the Lord utilizes the natural attribute of the human heart, which rejoices over the lost, but found item, even though its value is far less than of those, which hadn’t been lost.

Further on, in the parable about the prodigal son, the Lord likens God’s joy about the repentance of a sinner to that of the loving father, to whom returned the prodigal son (11-32). A man had two sons : the man represents God; the two sons — the sinners and pseudo- righteous individuals — the Scribes and Pharisees. The youngest, apparently having come of age, but of course being inexperienced and thoughtless, requests, in accordance with the Law of Moses, his portion of the father’s property (Deut. 21:17) — one third of all, while the eldest son normally received the remaining two thirds. Having received his inheritance, the young son decided to live freely according to his will. With that, he went to the faraway land where he squandered his possessions, leading the prodigal life. Likewise, the person, endowed by God with spiritual and physical gifts, having felt an attraction toward sin, begins to feel burdened by God’s law, rejects to live according to God’s will, submits to iniquity and through physical and spiritual dissoluteness, squanders all those gifts with which he was endued by God. “There arose a severe famine ” — so God often sends to the sinner that is entrenched in his sinful life, the outward misfortunes so as to force him to come to his senses.

These outer tribulations are God’s simultaneous punishment and call for repentance, at the same time.

“To feed swine” — this is the most humiliating form of activity, because the Jewish law detested swine as unclean animals. Likewise, a sinner when he gets attached to some item, through which he satisfies his sinful passion, often sinks to the lowest demeaning position. “And he would gladly have filled his stomach with the pods the swine ate” — these pods were used to feed swine and were the fruit of a certain tree, that grow in Syria and Asia Minor. This indicates the desperate state of the sinner. Then he “came to himself” — this is the extraordinarily expressive phrase. Just like an ill person that is in the state of recovering after a serious illness, accompanied with the loss of memory, suddenly regains it, so can a sinner that is filled with sin, be likened to such a sick person, that lost his senses, because he is not aware of the demands of God’s law, it is as though his conscience dies away.

Finally, the grave consequences of sin together with the outward misfortunes, force him to come to his senses: it is as though he awakens, comes out of his previously unconscious condition, and returns to his sober senses: he begins to see and understand his miserable state, and seeks means to escape from it. “I will arise and go to my father” — is the sinner’s decision to abandon his sinful ways and repent. “I have sinned against Heaven,” i.e., before the holy place where God and the pure, sinless spirits dwell, “and before you”, through neglecting the loving father, “am no longer worthy to be called your son” — this is the expression of deep humility and realization of the own unworthiness, which always accompanies the sincere repentance of the sinner. “Make me like one of your hired servants”

_
_

— is the expression of deep love for his father’s house, and agreement with even the most difficult conditions in order to enter his father’s house. All the following illustrations carry the purpose of underlining God’s limitless love towards the repentant sinner, God’s all- pardoning and that joy, which occurs, according to the Lord’s words: “there will be more joy in Heaven over one sinner who repents”(Luke 14:7).

The elderly father, having seen his returning son from afar, without knowing anything about his inner feelings, runs towards him, embraces and kisses him without giving him a chance to finish his words of repentance. He orders him to be clothed instead of the rags in the finest attire, and then holds a feast to celebrate his return., All these are the anthropomorphic features of how, through His love for a contrite sinner, the Lord receives his repentance and generously endows him with new spiritual blessings and gifts, to substitute those that were lost through his sin. “Was dead and is alive again” — the sinner, estranged from God is like being dead, because a person’s true life depends only on the source of life

— God; that’s why the sinner’s return to God is akin to the resurrection from the dead. The elder brother, angry with his father for his mercy towards his younger brother, is a living image of the Scribes and Pharisees, proud with their outward precise and exact fulfillment of the law, but cold and heartless in their souls towards their brothers; boasting with their fulfillment of God’s will, but unwilling to associate with the repenting tax collectors and sinners. Just as the older brother “was angry and would not go in”, so did the Pharisees, the false precise fulfillers of the law, getting angry with the Lord Jesus Christ, because he entered into the close association with the repenting sinners. Instead of showing compassion for his brother and father, the elder brother begins to flaunt his achievements, refuses to call his younger brother as a “brother,” contemptuously saying: “this son of yours.” The father’s response: “You are always with me, and all that I have is yours” – this indicates that the Pharisees, in whose hands the law rested, could always have access to God and His spiritual gifts. However, they were unable to earn the Heavenly Father’s benevolence while being in such a distorted and bitter, spiritual-moral disposition.

The Sermon at the Feast of the Dedication. (John 10:22-42). The Return of

the 70 Disciples. (Luke 10:17-24).

The Sermon at the Feast of the Dedication.

(John 10:22-42).

This festival was established by Judas of Maccabea in 169 BC, and commemorates the restoration, purification and sanctification of the Temple of Jerusalem, desecrated by Antiochus Epiphanes. This feast is celebrated annually over an eight-day period, commencing with on 25th December. It was cold, therefore the Lord walked around the covered gallery within the Temple. There, He was surrounded by the Jews asking Him: “How long do you keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.” The Lord was unable to respond “plainly” because they associated the word “Messiah” with the false representation of the earthly leader of people, who was supposed to liberate them from the Roman rule. The Lord answers the question wisely: He points to His past testimonies of Himself, His works and His relationship to His Heavenly Father. From all this, they should have realized a long time before that He is the Messiah, although not in the same sense that they imagined. The reason why they did not understand was because they “were not of His sheep” and “did not hear His voice.” Remembering about His sheep, the Lord pronounces the promise about granting eternal life: nobody will be able to take them from His hand, because as He said: “I and My Father are one” There could be no more definite testimony of Christ’s Divine worthiness than those words.

When the Jews understood them correctly and picked up the stones to stone the Lord as a blasphemer, He disarmed them with the short question: “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?” The unexpectedness of the question confused the Jews, and showed against their will, that they inwardly acknowledged the greatness of the Lord’s miracles. That was why they dropped the stones and tried to justify their actions, by stating that they didn’t want to stone Him for His good deeds, but for His “blasphemy”. In response, the Lord refers to Psalm 81, where the people called to judge and protect the weak from the infringements of the powerful, were titled “gods” — naturally, not in the direct sense.

In citing excerpts from this Psalm, the Lord is seemingly saying to the Jews: “you cannot accuse the Psalmist of blasphemy; if he called those that were worthy of having Divine authority, “gods,” then how can you accuse Me of blasphemy — the One Who has named Himself the Son of God and having performed works that only God can do?” The Lord continues: “You could disbelieve Me, if I had not fulfilled the deeds that are typical of God alone. However, if I fulfill these deeds, you must understand that I and the Father — are One, “Father is in Me, and I in Him.” Once again, the Jews attempted to seize the Lord, “but He escaped out of their hands” — left so that nobody dared to touch Him, and traveled over Jordan to Perea. There many, who had heard about Him from John’s sermon and convinced in its genuineness, believed in Him.

The Return of the 70 Disciples.

(Luke 10:17-24).

Evangelist Luke narrates about the return of the 70 disciples soon after their departure, although undoubtedly, a significant amount of time had passed between their departure and return. Some presume that the meeting between the Lord and the disciples took place in Perea, where the Lord had not yet given any sermons. The others think that they returned to the place, from which they were sent out, i.e., to Galilee. Meeting the Lord, firstly, they expressed their joy about the fact that the demons obeyed them “in the name of Jesus”. The latter words expressed their humility. The Lord responded to this: “Do not be surprised that the demons obey you, as their leader has already been toppled: “I saw satan fall like lightning from Heaven”. The flash of “lightning” is used to present unexpectedness and swiftness. In other words, the Lord tells the Apostles that He witnessed the defeat of the prince of demons and his swift fall — like lightning — and therefore, if he was defeated, so were his legions. As the Conqueror of the hostile powers, the Lord makes possible for His disciples to feel the victory over them, calling the evil spirits allegorically as “snakes” and “scorpions”. “The important thing is not this, but that you have become worthy of salvation and joy in Heaven.” In the Scripture, God is sometimes depicted with a book in His hand, into which the names and the deeds of His faithful servants are recorded. To be written in the heavens, is to be a citizen of the Heavenly Kingdom. This should make one rejoice more than from any earthly deeds, even though they might be extraordinary, like the casting out of the evil spirits.

The Parable about the Good Samaritan. (Luke 10:25-37) and others (Luke

11:5-8), (Luke 12:13-21), (Mat. 24:42-51 and Luke 12:35-48), (Mat. 24:45-51; Luke 12:42-48).

The Parable about the Good Samaritan.

(Luke 10:25-37).

The Parable about the Persistent Appeal.

(Luke 11:5-8).

The Exposure of the Scribes and Pharisees.

(Mat. 23:1-39 and Luke 11:37-54).

The Parable about the Reckless Rich Man.

(Luke 12:13-21).

The Parable about the Servants, Awaiting the Return of their Master.

(Mat. 24:42-51 and Luke 12:35-48).

The Parable about the Wise House-Steward.

(Mat. 24:45-51; Luke 12:42-48)

The Fall of the Siloam Tower. (Luke 13:1-5) The Parable about the Fruitless

Fig Tree. (Luke 13:6-9) The Healing of the Deformed Woman. (Luke 13:10-17)

The Fall of the Siloam Tower.

(Luke 13:1-5)

The Parable about the Fruitless Fig Tree.

(Luke 13:6-9)

The Healing of the Deformed Woman.

(Luke 13:10-17)

The Parable about Those that Love to be First. (Luke 14:7-15). The Parable

about the Invitees to the Supper. (Luke 14:16-24). The Parable about the Prodigal Son. (Luke 15:11-32).

The Parable about Those that Love to be First.

(Luke 14:7-15).

The Parable about the Invitees to the Supper.

(Luke 14:16-24).

The Parable about the Prodigal Son.

(Luke 15:11-32).

_
_

The Parable about the Unjust House-Steward. (Luke 16:1-17). The Parable

about the Rich Man and Lazarus. (Luke 16:19-31). The Teaching on the Sanctity of Marriage and on Celibacy. (Mat. 19:3-12; Luke 16:18)

The Parable about the Unjust House-Steward.

(Luke 16:1-17).

The Parable about the Rich Man and Lazarus.

(Luke 16:19-31).

The Teaching on the Sanctity of Marriage and on Celibacy.

(Mat. 19:3-12; Luke 16:18)

The Sermon at the Feast of the Dedication. (John 10:22-42). The Return of

the 70 Disciples. (Luke 10:17-24).

The Sermon at the Feast of the Dedication.

(John 10:22-42).

The Return of the 70 Disciples.

(Luke 10:17-24).

Graph View

Backlinks