Luke 16:19-31 (Lazarus and the rich man)

This passage occurs in the Revised Common Lectionary, Year C.  It last occurred in September of 2025.
 
Summary:
The story begs for a different ending, one where someone can go back and straighten out the sinners, in this case, the rich man's brothers. The story also begs for an ending because it ends in Hades with Abraham speaking a word of hopelessness. 

Two potential places to find hope here.  First, there is some support in the story for the notion that Hades is a time of testing rather than a permanent home.  Second, the mention of the resurrection from the dead sends us away from the story of Lazarus and to the story of Jesus. For me, I will always emphasize that Christ's death overcomes the chasm, but I don't think it would be fair to Jesus' words to let people off the hook when it comes to how we treat the poor!

Words that pack some punch!

εὐφραινόμενος (from εὐφραίνω, literally eu-phrain, meaning "rejoice").  [As a side note, how the word φρήν comes into English is fascinating.  Google frenetic or phrenology].  The point here is that the guy was super happy even though the poor were miserable right in front of him.  There is a desire in this passage to throw stones at billionaires, but I don't think they are the only ones rejoicing when everyone else is poor.  When have you celebrated when others were impoverished right nearby?

αδης (16.23; hell, hades; the α has a rough breathing mark meaning its "ha" ): This word appears throughout the New Testament. Some poking around is interesting here; For more on hell, see my post on hell here.  A few remarks here:

1. Luke doesn't mention the word very often, except in the context of punishment (see also 10.15).
2. The word and idea of Hades has its own meaning in the Greek mythological world. However, because the Septuagint translates "Sheol" so often as "Hades", the word is fairly common in the New Testament.  Curiously, Matthew uses the word "gehenna" instead of "Hades" for "Shoel"; but how Matthew use "gehenna" and Luke use "Hades" seem the same. 
3. The Bible seems to shift, perhaps even develop, its thoughts on hell and resurrection.

• On one level, Sheol is simply the place of God's absence. Psalm 88:5 says God doesn't even remember those in Sheol. Psalm 113:25 and Isaiah 38:18 suggest the dead in Sheol cannot praise God. In this sense, Sheol simply means death as the end.
• On another level, however, the OT also envisions Sheol as a place of punishment: (Psalm 9:17; Proverbs 5:5). In this sense, Sheol means hell.
• On another level, Sheol seems not entirely absent of God or goodness: God can hear prayers from Sheol (Jonah 2.3) and still find us there (Psalm 139:8). In this sense, Sheol almost functions like purgatory.
• Shoel and Hades become a personified force set against God in the Bible (Psalm 49:15; Matthew 16:18). At some points, it seems that God is in control of Sheol (Hos 13:14; 1 Sam 2:6). Regardless, Sheol/Hades finally loses: Rev 20.

To summarize all of this, the more you get into this stuff, the more of chasm you find yourself in. What is hell? Is it a judgment pit? It is a time of separation? In this parable, it is both. Is there rescue from it? This is the most haunting part of the parable. The rich man doesn't get out of hell.

I wonder, having heard some other interpretations on this parable, if the rich man does not get out  of Hades because the sinner inside of him has not died yet!  (He still view Lazarus as an object, not as a person).

βασανος (16.23;28; torture; pain): This word origin is interesting: "a dark-coloured stone on which pure gold, when rubbed, leaves a peculiar mark." (Liddell-Scott)  In the NT, Matthew and Luke uses this word to imply more than simply testing, but also physical pain. One might be tempted to translate this word as "testing" here; that Hades was simply a place of testing for Lazarus, but the existence of fire in verse 24 suggests something more than simply mental trials.

χασμα (16.26; chasm): The word appears only once in the NT, but it should be familiar enough to English readers: chasm; a pit!

λαμπρως (16.19; splendidly): You will not find this word easily in concordances; that is because it is the adverb form of the adjective: "lampros" (omicron vs omega)

The word is akin to the word for "lamp" and means bright like the sun or stars. In the NT, Jesus will wear a lampros robe, but only before Herod.  Jesus will actually declare himself the morning star; the star portion here is literally "lampros." (Rev 22:16). James warns against people who wear such nice clothing thinking highly of themselves (James 2:2-3).

Sentence break-down:
BGT Luke 16:19  Ανθρωπος δε τις ην πλουσιος και ενεδιδυσκετο πορφυραν και βυσσον ευφραινομενος καθ' ημεραν λαμπρως
NRS Luke 16:19 "There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day.

Ανθρωπος δε τις ην πλουσιος: "A certain man was rich." You can ignore the "δε"; the "τις" is the "indefinite" article in Greek, ie "a, any, certain."  It is not before the word "man" as it should be in English, but you can tell they are linked because they are both nominative singular masculine.  But even if you didn't know that, if you see some "ti..." word not at the beginning of a sentence it almost always will function as an indefinite article, you just have to find which word it matches.  Perhaps you could poetically phrase this, "There once was a rich man."
Significance here:  Lazarus, the poor man, gets a name.  The rich does not.  This is the opposite of our world.

και ενεδιδυσκετο πορφυραν και βυσσον : Verb here is imperfect, emphasizing the continuous nature. I would translate this with an adverb: "he was ALWAYS dressed in purple and fine linen."  I saw this poetically translated as "He was used to dressing in purple..."   (Side note:  Purple was an expensive cloth and reserved only for the rich and noble).

ευφραινομενος: circumstantial participle (note: no "the" near by and no "to be" verb). Easy to translate: rejoicing

καθ' ημεραν: idiomatic for "every day"

λαμπρως: splendidly, like the sun; exceedingly luxurious.

Luke 16:1-13

This passage occurs in the Revised Common Lectionary, Year C, most recently September 2025.

Summary:
The Greek for this week does nothing to improve the harshness of the text. Quite the opposite! According to the Greek, the manager (literally the economist) is praised for being shrewd, but Jesus point blank calls him αδικια (adikia), which means unrighteous. Furthermore, the eternal homes of the wealthy are σκηνας "skenas" or tents, the word used for the tabernacle in Exodus or the tents on the mount of Transfiguration.  Finally, we are commended, not simply to use "worldly wealth" but actually -- "unrighteous mammon." What is going on!?!

In spite of the bizarre metaphor of the shrewd manager, I think this parable reflects a few consistent themes of the Bible relating to money and possessions: 

- All our money and possessions ultimately belong to God
- Money and possessions are scarce and so we are called to be good stewards -- good economists!
- Money and possessions can become a god, a god who cannot prevent death; a god who will only demand more.

I think what is unique is this:
- We are eternal beings; our life on earth is somehow connected to our life in heaven.  How we use our money has eternal consequences.  This is most challenging for me conceptually to consider the relationship between heaven and earth.  In terms of preaching, it makes me ask -- where is the grace in this passage?  Where is the cross and resurrection in the midst of this?  I feel like we must push this parable to its breaking point to get to the cross -- all of us worship money and none of us would have an eternal home without Christ. 

Side note:  In 2019 I preached about how this passage in no way presented an image of how God intends for the world to be, but rather describes how the world actually is.  I contrasted the economy of God in Luke 15 against the economy of the shrewd in Luke 16.  We are in, but not of this world.  This resonated with people

Key words:
Relating to heavenly things:

σκηνη (skenas, meaning "house", 16.9):   This word does not simply mean house.  The word literally means "tent" or really "tabernacle."  It is used in both the OT as the word for Tabernacle (think Exodus) and then in the NT when Peter wants to build tents during the transfiguration. People no longer lived in tents by the time of Jesus, so this term is clearly used to suggest something other-worldly.

This is especially true when it is combined with αιωνιους, meaning eternal.  To give you a sense of the power of this word, consider 2 Corinthians 5:1 "For we know that if the earthly house (οικος) we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal (αιωνιους) in the heavens."  Humans do not make eternal things.  Only God does!

δεχομαι ("welcome" or "take" 16:4,6,7,9):  This word appears more in Luke then any other verb. Look where else it comes into play:
2:28 Simeon "receives" the baby Jesus
18.17 Children "receive" the kofG as a child
22.17 Jesus "took" the cup and gave thanks...
There is something central about welcoming in Luke's Gospel!  The reason I include this verb is because welcoming someone into an eternal tent is a beautiful and wonderful thing. 

Relating to earthly things:
οικονομος; οικονομια ("oikonomos" or "oikonomia", meaning "manager", 16:1,2,3,4; other cognates appear in this passage):  This word comes into English as "economics" or "economist." BDAG translates it as "estate manager" and "steward" or "treasurer."  In my first economics class as an undergrad, we learned that economics is about the allocation of scarce resources.  This person is shrewd with his scarce resources, that is for sure.  Luke 16 is about managing scarcity; Luke 15 is about living in abundance!

αδικια ("adikia " meaning "unrighteous", 16;8,9):  This word is often translates in this context as "dishonest" or "shrewd."  The word does not mean dishonest.  It means unrighteous or evil.  (Like in Genesis 6, God sees that the world is full of αδικια and decides to flood the whole thing).  δικαιος - the root word here - means righteous.  What is also striking is how Jesus uses this word specifically. 
οικονομος της αδικιας:  economist of unrighteousness

It if makes you feel better, the owner never praises the man for being dishonest, but does call him shrewd, φρονιμος (16.8)

εκλιπη (from εκλειπω, meaning "fail", 16:9)  I think the whole passage rises and falls on this verb.  The money always runs out...money always fails too.  As does living on this earth.

μαμωνας (mammon, meaning "wealth", 16.9,11,13):  The word used by Jesus toward the end of the passage is not simply possessions but "mammon."  This could possibly refer to an ancient Syrian deity of wealth.  This may or may not be the case, but it is certainly true that Jesus is personifying money here.  We have seen this in our lives where money becomes a thing to be loved, feared and trusted above all things.

At one point Jesus refers to "μαμωνας της αδικιας":  mammon of unrighteousness.  I think that Jesus would maintain that all mammon is unrighteous.  But is all money unrighteous?

οφειλω (opheilo, meaning "debt", 16:5,7): This word can used in all sorts of beautiful ways (Lord's prayer, Matthew 6:12). Here it is more straight forward in its use. A reminder that this passage is very real; debt is as old as currency. For many in the Bible -- and today -- debt is also a massive problem. What if Jesus really meant cancel your literal debts each time we pray the Lord's prayer! That might be easier than forgiving others our sins. Now, you might say, wait, nobody owes me anything. Really? If you own business stocks or an investment accounts, somebody, somewhere, however indirectly, owes you something.

 Greek grammar concept:  Circumstantial participle.
The thing that causes most Greek readers to stumble is the circumstantial participle. While some are very tricky, probably 50% are very easy. Let's look at one. In verse 16.2 the sentence starts out with one:
φωνησας
Bible Works parses this as "verb participle aorist active nominative masculine singular"

Scary, right? Well, look, there is no "the" near by it, so its not an adjectival or substantive participle; there is no form of "is/was/to be" nearby, so its not supplementary. So its going to be circumstantial. Which means we need to figure out three things: What happened? Who did it? And how does this connect to the rest of the sentence?

What happened: Get the BW translation of the verb, or just pull it from your memory: phone...means hear. So, what happened, well, someone hears/got heard

Who did it? Well, your brain probably figured this one out already -- the rich man. But if you need help here, you need to break down what BW tells you into two buckets. First bucket is "aorist active." That relates to the action. The second bucket is "nominative mas...singular" which relates to who does the action. Who is the nominative, masculine, singular? Well, it is the single man subject of the sentence, who is, as your brain knew already, the rich man.

And how does this connect? Well, in this case you first got to put the verb in its tense. Which is here an aorist: "Heard" Now you add in the what and who + the phrase "under the circumstance"
"Under the circumstance of the rich man heard"...
Yuck. Make it English:
"After the rich man heard" or "When the rich man heard."

It sounds like a lot of work, but your brain probably pulled out "heard" and "rich man" right away. See how you do with the second word in 16.5.

Sentence break down:
εγνων τι ποιησω ινα οταν μετασταθω εκ της οικονομιας δεξωνται με εις τους οικους αυτων
NRS Luke 16:4 I have decided what to do so that, when I am dismissed as manager, people may welcome me into their homes.'

εγνων: I know. Just looks funny. Simple verb.

τι ποιησω : Notice the direction of the accent on "ti" Indicates it is a question. The verb poihso can be either future or aorist subjunctive. In this, does not matter. What will vs. what shall I do.

ινα οταν: Double whammy of conjunctions. Both demand subjunctive verb: "In order that whenever..."

μετασταθω: Verb conjugated based on conjunctions

εκ της οικονομιας: ex takes genitive. Not sure what kind this here. genitive of separation?? Doesn't really matter: "Out of this administration."

δεξωνται με: Here the "me" is the object and not the subject. Question -- how does one know this? Why could, in this infinitive phrase, this been a question at all?  [Because in an infinitive phrase the subject is also in the accusative case]

εις τους οικους αυτων: 2nd week of Greek: Into his house.

Luke 15:1-10

This passage occurs in the RCL Year C.  Most recently September 2025
 
Summary: 
The key words in Luke 15 are "lost" and "found." They occur over and over. But a reader of English would know this. 

Something worth considering when preaching:  Jesus includes three metaphors for lost and found and together they cover many situations that our parishioners experience.  Each in its own is a great passage, together they make an amazing trifecta.

A little ripple in the text, but hopefully a good insight. Having found her coin, the woman invites her female friends over. This is the only occurrence in the NT and OT of female friends (φιλας)! So while we (Lutheran) pastors delve into the mechanics of lost sinners repenting, let's not forget the fact that everyone in this passage, Jesus, the shepherd and the woman, call together their friends and rejoice!

Also, don't overlook the lost coin.  Plenty of people have felt lost in their own home and own space!

Key words:
ευρισκω (15.:,5,6,7,8,9; "find") To remember this verb, remember Archimedes running through the city naked shouting "Eureka" when he realized how buoyancy worked.

απολλυμι (15:4,6,8,9; "lost") This word has a range of meaning, from destroy to perish. Worth noting is that it is not the sheep who passively gets lost, but actually, the shepherd who loses the sheep!

μετανοουντι (participle of μετανοεω; 15:7, 10, "repent")  This word is fascinating in general and specifically in this passage.  In the Old Testament, the word for repent is the Hebrew S-U-V.  It comes from the word to turn.  The idea is of a person turning to God from their ways or the way they were going.  The Greek word means something a bit different -- literally 'over-mind' or even 'after-thought.'  The idea being that reflecting on a situation causes one to have a change of attitude that leads to a change of behavior.  The Greek word then emphasis more the mind and the Hebrew more the body, although real repentance includes both.

In this particular case, it is worth asking -- what is repentance?  What new mind does the sheep have?  What new mind does that coin have?  Ironically the only character who shows repentance (as we think of it) is the younger son, who is never described by Jesus as repenting.  What must be renewed within us?  What must turn?  How is God involved in our repentance?  This topic is a lifetime of sermons -- so this week, what aspect of repentance do you want to focus on?

Other words:

αμαρτωλος (15:1,2,7; "sinner") Luke uses this word quite a bit -- 18 times in fact. What is interesting is that this word is not really defined; the assumption is that people know who sinners are and what this means. The first explicit sinner in the Gospel is Peter (back in chapter 5), who confesses before Jesus.

καταλειπω (15.4; "leave behind"). Ironically, the first person to "kataleip-oo" everything for Jesus is a tax collector, Levi! (Luke 5:28)

χαιρω (15.5; "rejoicing"). This word is used more in the book of Luke than in another book in the Bible. Other writers don't shy away from it (although Mark uses it is measly two times). Luke though, time and time again, emphasizes worship and devotion.

φιλας (15.9; "female friends"). This is only time in the Bible that the word friend is used in the feminine.

Grammar focus: "syn"-verbs.
In Greek one can use the pronoun "syn" (meaning with) as a prefix. This passage has a number of such verbs: συνεσθιω "synesthi-oo" (15:2, eat together) and συγκαλεω "sygkale-oo" (15:6, call together"). You might ask, why "syg" instead of "syn" in "sygkale-oo." This is because the n-k sound morphs into an g-k sound. "n" is a very soft letter. For example, "con" means with and mean English words have this as a prefix: "connect" or "contact." But the "n" often changes or disappears: "communicate" or "cooperation."  One thing to notice is that in Greek, the writers can sometimes pack a powerful punch with "syn" verbs, such as in Romans 8:17.

Sentence break-down

Luke 15:4
Τις ανθρωπος εξ υμων εχων εκατον προβατα και απολεσας εξ αυτων εν ου καταλειπει τα ενενηκοντα εννεα εν τη ερημω και πορευεται επι το απολωλος εως ευρη αυτο;

"Which one of you, having a hundred sheep and losing one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness and go after the one that is lost until he finds it?

Τι΄ς ανθρωπος: The tis here is a question...You can tell because the accent is strong (okay, my English keyboard makes it hard to make this mark). You can also tell because the last mark of the sentence is a semicolon, indicating a question. This is really the only word in Greek where the accent type matters. If it were not a strong accent, the sentence would read: "any man of you." (Strong face forward; weak lean backwards!)

εξ υμων: The "of/from you" has a fancy genitive name but the translation is straight forward: "which among you"/"of you" (I believe this is called a partitive genitive)

εχων εκατον προβατα και: participle here...can you guess which type? Well, there is no "the" nearby, so probably not a substantive or adjectival. Also, no "to be" verbs nearby, probably not a supplementary. You guessed it: Circumstantial: "Under the circumstances of "having" sheep. To simplify: "having sheep"

απολεσας εξ αυτων εν: The circumstances have changed: "lost" a sheep :-( The "hen" meaning "one" is out of order for our English minds, so we read it as "of them one" but our brains should be able to reorder this: "one of them."

ου καταλειπει τα ενενηκοντα εννεα: a question that has a "ou" to start expects a "yes" for answer. I remember this alphabetically: "mh" expects "no"; "ou" expects "yes" (m-n-o-y). Do you know why the ninety has the "ta" in front of it? Email me and I will tell you!

εν τη ερημω: In the wilderness. Can you guess why this phrase is in the dative?

και πορευεται επι το απολωλος: Here we have a substantive participle: The one who is lost. It has a preposition (epi) before it; don't let this distract you. Substantive participles are easy to translate!

εως ευρη αυτο; Alas, they put this little diddy at the end. The word εως, a conjunction, demands the subjunctive here, hence why eurisko looks so stinking weird!

Luke 14:25-33

This passage occurs in Year C of the narrative lectionary, most recently Sept 4, 2022.

Summary:
Regardless of the great imagery used in Jesus passages, the word "hate" is the stumbling block to this passage. BDAG suggests a softer translation, as in "disregard." I think this is better than "hate" but this doesn't really save the day! Jesus words to disregard our family is difficult to understand.  I offer below a handful directions for preaching.

I have some notes on the verb tenses today.  They do not change the challenge of the passage, but certainly sharpen its bite.

Key words:
μισεω (14.26; "hate") Hate may not be the best translation here. BDAG puts it, "depending on the context, this verb ranges in meaning from 'disfavor' to 'detest.' The English term 'hate' generally suggests effective connotations that do not always do justice, especially to some Semitic shame-honor oriented use of μισεω (שנא in Hebrew) in the sense 'hold in disfavor, be disinclined to, have relatively little regard for.' In fact, BDAG even suggests translating it "disfavor, disregard" in contrast to preferential treatment"

Note:  In previous years, I left open the possibility that Jesus calls for us to have emotional antipathy toward our family.  I do not believe this is the case, for Jesus calls us to love our enemies.  Three preaching possibilities then emerge

- I think Jesus is calling us to move toward him, forsaking all other priorities in our lives.  To what extent do we let love of not just things, but others, get in the way of our devotion to Jesus?

- Jesus will help us ultimately create fictive families, social groups that extend beyond blood lines (or extend into his blood line).  What are ways in which the church can function as a truer family for people?

- To what extent must we let go of someone in order to love them?  Ie, we can love someone so much that we make an idol of them, or seek to live vicariously through them or attach to much of our worth to the relationship.  Buddhism teaches the need for detachment.  To what extent must we detach ourselves in order to fully love?  

ἑαυτοῦ (14.27, "himself") Jesus does not tell us to bear HIS cross, but our cross.  I know almost no people for whom bearing their cross does not involve loving their family.  In the end, we cannot escape our duty to our neighbor, especially our parents and spouses (both enshrined in the 10 commandments!)

μαθητης (14:26, 27 and 33; "disciple", but read on)  The word μαθητης means literally student.  In Latin, student is "disciplus" and so we get "disciple."  The word disciple then, sounds like discipline in English.  There is indeed a discipline element of following Jesus.  Yet, the word in Greek does not imply discipline, but rather an intimate student, one who seeks to be caught up in the way of the master.  However, I wonder if in this case, we would do better to translate it as student.  How might this sound:

"If anyone comes to me and does not disregard his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters-- yes, even his own life-- he cannot be my student."  

It is not necessarily less harsh, but it makes is clear -- Jesus is not seeking emotional aggression against our family, but rather we cannot learn from him unless we are willing to make him first in our lives.

I also appreciate the fact that Jesus distinguishes between those who are hanging out with him and those who will learn from him.  Are you hanging out with Jesus?  Or are you learning from him?

Some other interesting words:
* οχλοι (14.25; "crowds") This word does not mean leaders or elite, but really the everyday mass of people; can also mean 'mob'

* ψηφιζω (14.28; "calculate") I don't think it is important for this passage, but this is the verb that is used in Revelation to indicate it is time to "add" up the number values for a word such as "KASER NERON" (666).

* εμπαιζω (14.29, "ridicule") In Luke's Gospel, Jesus is the only one mocked (18:32;22:63, 23:11, 23:26)

* αποστασσω (14.33, "give up") This word means basically "say good-bye." This is a fun image, saying good-bye to one's possessions.  For 2028, let's expand this!

Grammar concept: present tense

A number of verbs in 14.25-27 are in the present tense. Greek does not distinguish between present progressive (I am running) and present like English (I run). Generally the present tense connotes present progressive. When I was taught Greek, I was taught to even add the adverb "continually" to present tense translations, "I am running continually." I am not sure if this is as helpful in all cases, but the basic point of my teacher bears itself out in Greek. The present tense generally signifies an action that is on-going. In this case, the verb of carrying the cross, following and (gasp) hating are all in the present tense. 

To put it simply:  All the important verbs in this passage are in the present tense, suggesting that renouncing our possessions, disregarding our loved ones, bearing our cross and following Jesus are on-going, life-long activities. That sounds difficult. Good thing the most gracious chapter in the entire Bible is next

Sentence break-down: 14.33

Greek: ουτως ουν πας εξ υμων ουκ αποτασσεται πασιν τοις εαυτου υπαρχουσιν ου δυναται ειναι μου μαθητης
"So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions."

ουτως ουν: "Thus, therefore" or "Likewise." Two little words here. Don't change much; they appear a combined nearly 2000x in the NT/OT so its good to recognize them for that they are, namely, fill-in words that don't alter too much!

πας εξ υμων: "All of you" This you can literally translate word for word. The pronoun is in the genitive, but your brain figured this out automatically.

ος : hos is a relative pronoun. They behave a lot like in English. Relative pronouns start a relative clause, like, "I love the one whom I married." Whom I married is the relative clause here. The relative pronoun, like in English, is in the case that it functions within the relative pronoun. Back to my example, this would not be correct English: I love the one who I married. Who must become a whom because it is not behaving as a subject in the relative clause. This happens in Greek too. Greek relative pronouns behave a bit differently, or perhaps one could say, a bit more advanced. Because the nouns (and thus pronouns) have a gender, you can connect the pieces a bit more clearly in Greek, because the pronoun contains more information that will link it back to what it refers. In English, it is considered poor writing to move the "antecedent" (the thing to which the relative pronoun refers) far away from the pronoun. Greek has less of a problem doing this. Moreover, Greek can build massive sentences that continue to add relative sentences.

ουκ αποτασσεται: literally "is not saying good bye." Reminder here -- the verb is in the present tense. This suggests Jesus is not talking about a one time action.

πασιν τοις εαυτου υπαρχουσιν: "all your possessions." A couple of things here. First, it is all in the dative, because it is the object of the verb "αποτασσεται." This is a case where the dative takes the direct object (normally accusative). Don't ask why. Just accept that some verbs take a direct object in the dative! If it helps, think about it this way. To translate the dative, you often can add the word "to" in front of the word. In this case we add in, "say good-bye TO all your possessions." The only word here not in the dative is "εαυτου " which here is a genitive of possession (ie, belonging to you.). It is slightly out of order for our English eyes. Literally you get here: "to all the belonging to you possessions." Or more eloquently: "All your possessions."

ου δυναται ειναι: Not able to be! This is a case where to describe what is happening is complex (helper verb taking an infinitive) but translation is easy: "not able to be." (normally to translate an infinitive in English (from Greek) you need to add "to" in front of the verb).

μου μαθητης: Like with the word "εαυτου " we have a genitive possessive occur before the noun: "my disciples."

Luke 14:1;7-14

This passage occurs in the Revised Common Lectionary, Year C, most recently on August 28, 2025.

Summary:
At first glance, this passage seems practical moral advice with a heavenly reward. Jesus' use of δοξα (doxa) and δοξη (doxe) suggest something deeper is going on. δοξη is a fairly uncommon word meaning "banquet." In fact, in the OT, the people who throw such banquets are normally Persian kings! Also unusual is the word δοξα, or glory. Although it is a fairly common word, here it is translated unusually as "honor." This is possible, but really stretches it. The word is not really a word one would associate with mortals. In fact, the last time we heard the word in Luke's Gospel was when the angels announced Jesus birth. These two words, in other words, are fairly out of place for a typical meal. Which suggests that what is at the stake (and not steak) is hardly a common meal, but the feast of the humbled yet exalted one! He is the one to whom glory will be given.

Key Words:
δοξα (14.10; "honor"): Normally we think of δοξα as glory (Think OT and the "glory of the Lord"). Here, however, it is translated as honor...well, maybe. Luke only uses this word three other times. When Jesus is born and the angels sing (2.9 and 14) and when the people cry out during Jesus' entry in to Jerusalem. The context permits translating δοξα as "esteemed." However, it has such divine implications that it points us back to Christ, to the one to whom glory is given.

δοξη (14.13; "meal"): This word is very rare in the New Testament; only used twice. The other time it is in Luke when Levi, the tax-collector, invites Jesus to his house. When this word is used in the OT, it normally refers to banquets put on by Persian kings. In other words, this is a big, rich party that few can actually host.

If you put these words together, you get a very surprising twist at the end of the story:  Who is invited to this feast of glory?  Jesus commends us to invite those on the outside.  Jesus here is introducing table fellowship to the unthinkable.

δικαίων (form of δίκαιος, 14.14)  It is a humbling reminder that even in the Gospel of Luke, there is a limit to inclusion, a limit to salvation.  The resurrection if for the righteous.  Which leads to the question -- who is righteous and how are they made righteous?  Here you might find a way to a broad and expansive tent, but heaven isn't for sinners as they are, but sinners made righteous by Christ.  The gate does narrow (see 13.24).

Other words worth pondering:
ταπεινοω (14.11; "humble"): This word is often paired with exalts (υψοω).  In Philippians 2 and Hebrews 12, we are reminded that Jesus humbles himself that he might be exalted.

μακαριος (14.14; "blessed"): This is the word Luke (and Matthew) use for the beatitudes, "Blessed are..."

καλεω (14.7; used 7 times in this passage!; "invite") This word is used virtually very sentence. It means invite and call.  If we think about this parable as a reference to God, then we get a new name for God in vs 10:  The one who has invited or called you.  God as one who calls!  (I still remember one of my first chapel services at Luther Seminary, during orientation week.  A Greek/NT professor preached on this text and focused on this word!)

αισχυνη (14.9; "disgrace" or "shame"): One would expect to find this word quite frequently in the NT, especially given the 'fuss' about honor/shame societies (see my post for the previous week's lectionary Gospel!). While this word appears quite frequently in the OT, it is rather rare in the NT. This might be an avenue for more reflection. Is Jesus neglecting this dynamic in his society?  Is it so much a part of the world that the writers do not need to mention it?  In this case, Jesus seems to be appealing to people's sense of honor and shame, telling them that seeking honor is itself shameful.

Aside: One of the places "shame" (αισχυνη) is used in the NT is Philippians 3:19 -- "their glory is their shame." Classic line.

Sentence deconstructed:
και εγενετο εν τη ελθειν αυτον εις οικον τινος των αρχοντων των φαρισαων σαββατω φαγειν αρτον και αυτοι ησαν παρατηρουμενοι αυτον

14.1 On one occasion when Jesus was going to the house of a leader of the Pharisees to eat a meal on the Sabbath, they were watching him closely.

και εγενετο : This is a typical way to begin a sentence. It simply means: "And it happened." It is unnecessary.

εν τη ελθειν αυτον : Technically this is an "articular infinitive with preposition." This means a couple of things. It combines a preposition (in) with an article (the) with an infinitive (coming). Literally: "In the coming." You have to translate the preposition as an adverb: "While he comes..." The problem with an infinitive is that it is, well, infinite. This means it is un-conjugated. You don't know who is doing the action. So, to indicate this, they stick the subject of an infinitive clause in the accusative. In this case, auton, or he.

εις οικον τινος των αρχοντων των φαρισαων: "into the house" is fairly straight forward. The rest is a genitive where we just put in a lot of "ofs": 'of one of the leaders of the pharisees.'  Worth contemplating that the Pharisees had leaders.  Those seeking holiness found a way to hierarchy very quickly...

σαββατω : The sabbath here is in the dative; here this is a dative revealing when something happens, ie, "on the sabbath." So you can combine this with the earlier infinitive (we are still in the infinitive phrase here): "When Jesus went on the sabbath into the house of one...pharisees...

φαγειν αρτον: Here we have another infinitive, which completes the other verb, "went" as in, "he went to eat." Oddly enough, the object of this infinitive phrase is also in the accusative, "arton" or bread. In an infinitive phrase, both subject and object can be in the accusative!

και αυτοι ησαν παρατηρουμενοι αυτον: Let's take care of the "autoi"s here. The first is plural, they; the second is mas. sing, him. 95% of "auto"s are not going to be translated as "self" or "very" but are simply pronouns.

ησαν παρατηρουμενοι: A really complex way of making a verb in the imperfect -- put an imperfect for of "to be" with a perfect tense participle. Used quite frequently with middle/passive verbs. But simple to translated: "were watching."

Luke 13:10-17

This passage occurs in the RCL year C, most recently August 24, 2025.

Summary:  I do not think our culture needs to hear words encouraging us to ignore the Sabbath.  Clearly we are in the entirely opposite place than the Jewish world of 2,000 years ago.  What is the consequence?  We are bound by our exhaustion, our stress and our love of our works.  Jesus comes to free this woman from Satan's chains and evil spirits.  I argue that if Jesus were around today, he would seek to free us from the chains that our lack of Sabbath structure imposes on us.

2025 add-on: A reflection on honor/shame

Note for 2028:  I ended up, in 2025, preaching on being seen

Key words on healing
λυω (luo, "free"; 13.15;13:16): "...untie his ox; should not this woman...be set free."  This word appears in two consecutive verses, however, we likely miss this.  First because the English translators translate the word differently in verses 15 and 16.  Second, it appears in a slightly more difficult form as λυθηναι in 13:16.  The verb, which many of us know from all sorts of conjugation charts, means "to loose, to set free." Jesus makes a play on words here: You set free your animals; I set people free. 

This passage puts this illness in terms of binding and releasing in two other places.  We are told in verse 12 that Jesus απολελυθαι the woman.  This word, essentially a linguistic sibling to λυω means "release."  Jesus even says that the woman was in δεσμος (chains, 13:16; also used as verb in this sentence).

ανωρθωθι (from ανορθοω, "straighten", 13.13): "...she stood up straight"  This verb comes from the prefix/preposition "ana" which means upright or again and the adjective "ortho" meaning straight. It simply means straighten up or restore. It is not an especially common word in the Bible, but it recalls the words from the book of Psalms: "The LORD opens the eyes of the blind. The LORD lifts up those who are bowed down (146:8)." [Technical note:  The Psalm translation is in a slightly different order.]

ασθενειας  ("weakness," 13.11)  This word does not necessarily mean crippled or hunched over.  It simply means "frailty, weakness, want of strength."  The ambiguity around her illness creates a potential for connection with this woman.  It could be physical, it could be emotional, it could be spiritual, it could be communal.  It is unclear if the spirit was causing her infirmity; or she simply has a spirit that could be described as frail.  In the end, she will have multiple layers of healing

• Physical:  She stands up
• Spiritual:  She glorifies God
• Communal:  She is called by name, by Jesus, in front of everyone (Child of Abraham) and restored to a place of honor.

παντελες (13.11): "could not straighten up at all..." The word builds "pan", meaning "all" and "teles" meaning complete together for a 1-2 punch, like a baseball announcer shouting "it could...go...all...the...way."  The woman was bound up over herself so she did not have the power to stand up into her full measure.

Honor/Shame

καταισχύνω ("be put to shame", 13.17)  Increasingly, I have tried to pay attention to words around shame and honor.  First, this is a matter of understanding the biblical world, which was likely more of an honor-shame society than ours today.  Shame, as opposed to guilt, is not necessarily the internal feeling of remorse, but the social embarrassment at reducing the social rank of one's family or clan.  What mattered was not so much that your sin was forgiven, but that your social standing was restored.  You can see how in many situations, Jesus' work of forgiveness and healing were intended to retore the person to community and in fact, a good status within that community, not simply to address the individual's failures or limitations.

Second, this has incredibly powerful missiological implications.  (A good summary of the differences between honor-shame and guilt-innocence cultures can be found here -- the book this website references is a great read!)  In the last 300+ years, as Western cultures have grown increasingly individualistic, we have tended to have more of a guilt-innocence paradigm for understanding life and therefore Scripture.  This has meant that our understanding of atonement and salvation tends to be understood in terms of guilt and innocence.  This category of thinking is unlikely an effective way to formulate and communicate the Gospel to shame-honor cultures.  This may help explain the ineffectiveness of the Christian missionary efforts in Asian, Middle eastern and African cultures where honor-shame dynamics are more important than guilt-innocence.  There has been an incredibly renewed interest among missionary movements to attend to the honor-shame (and power-fear) dynamics at work in the cultures where they work but also the Gospel narrative itself!

Third, I wonder if our culture may actually becoming more honor-shame as we worry less about abstract rules for moral conduct.  We spend more time signaling our virtue to others rather than worrying about our own righteousness before God.  But I also wonder if we are living a new world that is based on honor-shame but it is individualistic rather than communal.

Fourth -- least importantly -- there is some sense that "καταισχύνω" means disappoint.  

• Hope does not put us to shame(καταισχύνω), because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. (Romans 5:5)

In this light, it is interesting to think that Jesus disappointed the leaders of the synagogue!

However, I think the better interpretation, within an honor-shame dynamic is to see that Jesus gives her honor and reduces their social rank by upstaging them.

Other words

διδασκων (didaskoon, participle meaning "teaching", 13:10)  A reminder that Jesus is teaching on the sabbath.  He continues teaching until the end.  Perhaps a reminder that good teaching isn't just about content, but about transformation!  (Also this is the last time Jesus is in a synagogue!)

χειρας ("hands", 13:13)  Jesus touches her!  A reminder that the word is embodied and incarnate.  He speaks, but he also touches.

αγανακτων (aganakton, meaning "indignant", 13.14): "Indignant because Jesus..." The word here has its root in "agony." The people watching are in agony over Jesus performing a healing!  How easy it is to get upset about mercy!

εθεραπεθσεν (from θεραπευω, "therapy", meaning "heal", 13.14): "healed" The word began in Greek by meaning service to the Gods; almost like worship! It became to mean, it seems, service that the Gods could render, namely, healing.

υποκριται (hypocrites, 13.15):  This word came right into English!  (The rough breathing mark over the υ means it is sounded hy.)  The word literally means "down judge-er/answer-er." It comes from theater, where the person has to speak to the people from a different height than the others. It came then to mean someone who pretends.

I might also add something about δει...

Total breakdown of 13:11
και ιδου γυνη πνευμα εχουσα ασθενειας ετη δεκαοκτω και ην συγκυπτουσα και μη δυναμενη ανακυψαι εις το παντελες

NRSV Luke 13:11 And just then there appeared a woman with a spirit that had crippled her for eighteen years. She was bent over and was quite unable to stand up straight.

The sentence begins with "και ", typical for a Greek sentence and essentially translatable by either "and" or a "period."  It can also mean but, even, more, also, etc...

The next word is "ιδου " This word, like the Hebrew hennah means "pay attention!" It does not describe what happens in the narrative, but it is a direction for the reader.

"γυνη πνευμα εχουσα ασθενειας" Before we parse this, let's just stick in the word-for-word translations: "woman spirit having weakness." The specific cases (accusative verses genitive) help here, but one can probably deduce this reads: "a woman having a spirit of weakness." For modern readers we'd like to take out the word "having a spirit" and replace it with "illness" but this limits the connection we will make later when Jesus says that Satan had this woman bound.

The participle "εχουσα" looks like an aorist because it has an "s" toward the end, but this is a feminine marker! Sigh! How does one translate this participle? Because there is neither a "the" (definitive article) nor a helping verb anywhere near by, you can assume it is a circumstantial. If we then use the formula "A woman, under the circumstance of having, an ill spirit" we see we can toss out the formula and just roll with it, "A woman having a ill spirit."

"ετη δεκαοκτω" 18 years.

και ην συγκυπτουσα ; Here we come to a supplementary participle. You will come to love these because your brain in English already thinks this way.  If you see a form of a "to-be" verb (ie, ην) next to a participle, you can read it like in English -- just stick in the basic translation of the words -- "The woman was bent over." This is the very complex way in Greek of forming the imperfect tense!

και μη δυναμενη ανακυψαι: This is a train wreck by Luke! He basically continues to leave the helping verb, here δυναμενη (to be able) as a participle. This means he must use "μη " for a negative instead of "ou" (all non indicative no-s should be μη and not ou). He then connects it with an aorist infinitive. Ouch.  At the end of the day: "was not able to stand up"

εις το παντελες: This use of εις here basically makes the adjective, παντελες, an adverb because it now describes the action of standing up straight.  The way Luke writes this little tidbit here though leaves a very poetic end to the sentence:  "She was not able to stand up into completeness."  Her not standing up had an impact in her life beyond simply being hunched over.

Late Summer 2025 Preaching

I will not be posting the next couple of weeks, but here are links for the next few weeks

July 27

Luke 11:1-13

August 3

Luke 12:13-21 

August 10

Hebrews 11:1-3, 8-16

Luke 12:32-40

August 17

Isaiah 5:1-7

Hebrews 11:29-12:2

Luke 12:49-56