Luke 6:20-31 (Luke 6:17-26)

This passage occurs in Revised Common Lectionary for All Saints Sunday in year C, most recently November 2025.  A similar passage, Luke 6:17-26, also occurs in the RCL, year C, Epiphany, most recently February 16, 2025.
 
Summary:

You don’t need Greek to catch the big picture here: Jesus is turning the world upside down and is, well, happy about it!  The Greek helps us wrestle with the thornier issues of 
WHO are blessed;
WHEN are they blessed;
& WHAT does this blessing look like?

The Greek doesn’t change the radical nature of the passage but rather invites us into the rugged yet rejoicing terrain of Jesus’ thought.

A Warm up:

οχλος ("crowd", 6:17 and 6:19; embedded in a verb in 6:18)  The word means crowd in a pejorative way.  This is the riff-raff.  There is a strange verb in 6:18 (ενοχλεω) that means to cause trouble, giving a sense of the connotations around the word οχλο. 

καταβας (participle form of καταβαινω, meaning go down, 6:17).  It is worth pointing out that before he begins to preach to the masses, he goes down and then stands among them -- on a level playing field.  We've forgotten how to do this in the church, to go to people and meet them where they are.

επαρας (from επαιρω, meaning "lift up", 6:20).  Jesus did not simply look up, but he lifted his eyes into them. Luke begins this passage with emotional intensity!

Key Words:

μακάριος (‘blessed’ or ‘happy’: 6:20; 21; 22): The theological Lexicon of the New Testament (Spicq) helps us understand the striking nature of Jesus' use of this word.  After a long summary of the Greek understanding of what it means to be blessed (pretty much what average Americans think), the Lexicon finally reviews Jesus' words: “It is impossible to insist too strongly on the meaning of this μακάριος …This is much more than contentment; it is an interior joy that becomes external, elation translated into shouts, songs, and acclamation. …Secondly, the new faith implies a reversal of all human values; happiness is no longer attached to wealth, to having enough, to a good reputation, power, possessions of the goods of this world, but to poverty alone.”

οι πτωχοι ("the poor", 6:20).  Blessed are the poor. The Bible does not say, “Blessed are you who are poor.” It simply says, “Blessed are the poor.” I prefer talking about people as individuals first and adjectives second (the people who are poor vs the poor).  But it brings up the question here -- is Jesus talking about the individuals who are poor or the whole group?

πλουσίος (‘rich’; 6:24): Luke uses this word more times than the rest of the Gospels combined. Generally, Luke has a fairly negative attitude toward the rich, however, it would be unfair to say that Luke, or therefore Jesus, simply criticizes them. Zacchaeus, for example, is rich; Jesus comes to his house!  It is also hard to imagine that the rich does not include most of the people that listen on a Sunday to us.

οὐρανος (‘heaven’: 6:23): It might be tempting to think of heaven as a “state of being” rather than a place. However, in Luke’s Gospel, heaven is not simply a relationship or a state of the world, but a place. Luke uses the word 35 times, almost exclusively to refer to the dwelling place of God, and in a very concrete way, namely, the space above us.  According to Luke, Jesus is not saying:  Well, you will be poor but you will have me. Jesus is saying, you are suffering now but have a reward (μισθός) in heaven. But we will return to this point!

μισθός (‘wages’ or ‘reward’: 6:23 also 6:35). This word literally means pay, as in a worker receives his pay for a day’s work (Luke 10:7; Matthew 20:8).

A Classic Theological Translation Problem  

η βασιλεια του θεου (6:20)

η βασιλεια του θεου: “Kingdom of God” is tricky. The genitive case has a lot of possibilities. In English this ambiguity is preserved because the word “of” is ambiguous too. A few examples of possible translations:

a) “Kingdom belonging to God” (The house of my family)

b) “Kingdom from God” (Sound of water drops)

c) “Kingdom done by God” (Singing of a choir)

d) “Kingdom for God” (Love of money)

e) “Kingdom consisting of God” (as in “bag of money)

So, which is the right one?  First, we can leave it ambiguous, as almost every translator does:  “Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.”

But we could translate a bit more boldly:  “Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom from God.”  The poor are blessed as they receive the most important gift...which is perhaps given to them by faith!

Missing word:  'To Be'
In Greek, as in Hebrew, a sentence can occasionally lack a verb. For example, Psalm 25:8 is translated as, “Good and upright is the LORD.”  The Hebrew simply reads "Good-upright LORD."  Admittedly, Hebrew always seems to be missing words the English reader longs for. However, here Hebrew is simply putting the adjectives (good and upright) in predicate form. This is how grammar people, whose addiction to Latin is scary, describe the placement of the word “brown” in: “The cow is brown” instead of “The brown cow.” The point is that the author is saying that the rest of the stuff in the sentence (like in Psalm 25: Good and upright) describes the subject (God). Because of the rules of Hebrew, you don’t have to use a verb when you do this. You let the reader do the work.

Greek does this less frequently (far less frequently) but on occasion it still happens. In verse 6:23 we have such a construction:ιδου γαρ ο μισθος υηων πολυς εν τω ουρανω
or literally “Behold for your wages great in heaven.” A predicate adjective, meaning, the phrase “great in heaven” describes the wages (even though we lack the verb "is" or "will" or any form of "to be").

So has our grammar helped us derive meaning? Well, maybe. The point is that the wages are great and are in heaven. We know then, the WHAT (great) and the WHERE (in heaven). The question then is WHEN do we get them! The sentence grammar suggests they are in existence now.  But do we have access to them?

For those that think this is too much of a stretch, consider that almost all of the promises are in the future: blessed are those who weep, they will be comforted.  However, the Kingdom of God belongs to the poor now.  Yet, again, do they (we) have access to it?  And in what way?

Luke 18:9-14

This passage occurs in the Revised Common Lectionary, Year C, most recently October 26, 2025.

Note:  In some years this passage occurs on the same Sunday as Reformation Sunday (traditionally commemorated by Lutheran churches the last Sunday in October).  Many choose to preach that Sunday on the 'classic' Reformation texts, including John 8. However, I offer the Reformation themes of justification, forgiveness, atonement, sinner-saint, law and Gospel are all present here!

Summary:

This is a small passage, but loaded with meaning! A little thing worth pointing out: The worshipers go up to worship and come back down. A reminder that worship isn't just like every other experience. We come into the presence of the living God. Like the tax-collector in this passage and Isaiah before him, this demands our confession!

Key words:
αναβαινω (go up; 18:10) and καταβαινω (go down; 18:14); It is a small note, but it is interesting that the worshipers go up to worship and come down into their homes. Luke does not seem to use the language often (Jesus does go up into the mountain to pray in Luke 9:28) but this seems like something worth mentioning in our casual culture -- even the sinners must go up to worship.

τελονως (tax-collector; 18:10,11,13): The word tax-collector is used almost exclusively in the same breath as sinners. Tax-collectors (publicanus in Latin) were notorious for taking more than their fair share.  I've read more recently that tax-collectors though lived a terrible life in that they were always under fire from above to collect more; the people hated and despised them.  In short, they were lonely folks.

εξουθενεω (despise; 18:9): This word is not just reserved for tax-collectors, but Christians run into this problem...(See Rom. 14:3, 10; 1 Cor. 1:28; 6:4; 16:11; 2 Cor. 10:10)

δικαιοω (justify; 18:14): Lovely word for us Lutherans (and all Christians). A reminder, God justifies. Never used in the active sense correctly; by this I mean that in the Bible and in real life, we can try to justify ourselves, but finally, only God makes right. Even in James, when works do the making right, the person is still only passively justified! (See James 2:21-25). (There are times when the verb appears in the active voice; but this normally occurs when God speaking or the people asking for God to bring justice).

κτωμαι (κταομαι; 18:12):  The word here means to earn.  The person is attributing their success to themselves!

ιλασκομαι (have mercy on; Luke 18:13). A rare word in the NT; only used as verb in Hebrews 2:17.  Normally the word for mercy is ελεος (as in Kyrie Eleison).  

This word (ιλασκομαι ) and its cousins are always a matter of intense debate: How do we translate the concept of appease/expiate for sins? What does Paul means by this in Romans 3:25??

What is interesting here is that the tax collector does not offer a sacrifice of bulls (see Deut 21.8) or any animal following Old Testament codes, but simply a broken and contrite heart, recalling Psalm 51.  This person is appealing to the mercy of God without any other mediator than his own confession.  Which Jesus declares acceptable.

This would then bring up the preacher's dilemma.  How can we help people arrive at a point of having a broken and contrite heart, a point of recognizing their deep and utter need for God?  This requires preaching the Law!  However, this must be done with skill so that it does not simply remain an objective criteria for a good sermon (did you preach the law?) but becomes the internal monologue of the hearer (I have fallen short).  However, this must move finally toward the Gospel and the person must still have space and be in a place to hear the good news.  In short, preaching a sermon in which the sinner is put to death and the new creation arises is not as easy as it sounds...the more one tries it, in fact, the more one realizes that it is a work of the Spirit and not our own!

τω αμαρτωλω (sinner, 18:13)  The word here for sinner includes the article:  THE sinner.  He is not just a sinner, but THE sinner!

υψοω (exalt; 18:14) The word here, interestingly, is used in Luke 1:52; God promises to exalt the humble! (And again in Luke 14:11, an almost copy of 18:14). Luke uses this word in an adjective form (exalted) quite frequently to refer to God.

Grammar review: Substantive participles

These are the easiest participles to translate. You get definite article+participle.

Easy formula:

The one/ones who do X.

The only thing that can trip you up is that occasionally you will get other words around them and in between them like: "de" or "pas" (all).

So: o δε ακουσας (Luke 18:23) is simply
The one who listens.

Verse analysis:
Luke 18:14 λεγω υμιν κατεβη ουτος δεδικαιωμενος εις τον οικον αυτου παρα εκεινον οτι πας ο υψων εαυτον ταπεινωθησεται, ο δε ταπεινων εαυτον υψωθησεται
NRS Luke 18:14 I tell you, this man went down to his home justified rather than the other; for all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted."

See also Luke 14:11 for the almost same sentence!
First step is to divide this sentence into three parts:

1) λεγω υμιν
2)  κατεβη ουτος δεδικαιωμενος εις τον οικον αυτου παρα εκεινον
3) οτι πας ο υψων εαυτον ταπεινωθησεται, ο δε ταπεινων εαυτον υψωθησεται

How did I decide on this breakdown? Well, the comma and dot (semicolon essentially) suggest this. οτι (hoti) is a conjunction that also tells you as a reader that a new clause is starting

1) λεγω υμιν: Simple interjection -- I am saying to you.

2) κατεβη ουτος δεδικαιωμενος εις τον οικον αυτου παρ' εκεινον -- this is a big one, so let's break this down. Take the low hanging fruit first:

εις τον οικον αυτου: Into his house. εις takes the accusative case; αυτου is genitive to describe the relationship of the house to the man. Simply translate with "of" as in "into the house of him." Or more elegantly, "into his house"

παρα εκεινον:
note:  I had translated this small phrase incorrectly.  Here are my revised comments:
The word "para" can mean "alongside of."  Some have then pushed this phrase (including NT scholar Amy Jill-Levine) to argue for the translation, "Justified, he went into his house along with the other one" arguing that the justification to which Jesus refers is given to both the pharisee and the publican.  I'd like to argue this is not the best translation.  I think the typical translation, in which para here is translated "as opposed to the other one", is the preferred translation.

First, in terms of textual criticisms, there are a few different traditions in the manuscripts regarding this passage.  The other variants add in (or replace para with) η meaning "rather."  If you have a variety of manuscripts, it seems more logical, at least to me, that people would replace words with synonyms, than words that would signify an entirely different ending to the parable.

Second, grammatically para used in the accusative suggests a parallel position --  an "adjacent comparison of reference" in the words of my-becoming-friend Matthew Frost.  Any time you have para+accusative in the New Testament, para refers to someone living along a water body or it refers to something in opposition to something else.  I.e., comparison is the function of the preposition in the New Testament when used with the accusative.

Third, prepositions are hard to nail down...so let's even say we agreed that the changes from παρα to η were cover-ups of the uncomfortable nature of the story...and that this should mean "along with."  At this point, παρ' εκεινον appears after the prepositional phrase "into his house" and not "justified" suggesting that this phrase would be modifying with "into the house" or functioning as an adverb for the main verb (went down.)  In short, at best, you could argue that the man walked along with each other.  But this seems really counter intuitive to the story.

Fourth, the whole context -- the whole story -- is one of contrast.  It seems entirely out of character to sandwich a moment of cooperation and grace in a story of over exaggerated contrast with a conclusion that says the outcomes are different for these different groups of people (the humble and the exalted).

Now...can you talk about how the pharisee is justified by grace and that in the Kingdom of God, both walk along side each other.  Yes.   But this is not a grammatical possibility for this story, although theologically always a a possibility!

Okay, so now you've got: κατεβη ουτος δεδικαιωμενος into his house as opposed to the other one.

The κατεβη is the east part: Simple means he/she/it went down, which makes sense because you have "into his house" and also, earlier the Greek says they went up to worship (vs 9).

The ουτος is a bit trickier because you don't see it that much. It simply means this/that. If Jesus had used "autos" it would have simply read: "He went down" By using ουτος Jesus can say, "This very one" adding a bit of emphasis.

Now you've got: "This very one went down into his house from there." You can officially tackle the participle! Which in this case means "being made righteous," or "being justified." A circumstantial participle to boot...So he did all of this going down under the circumstance of being justified.

So, let's put this all together: "This very one, having been made righteous, went down into this house unlike the other one.

Now we come to the last part of the sentence:
3) οτι πας ο υψων εαυτον ταπεινωθησεται, ο δε ταπεινων εαυτον υψωθησεται

Basically you have a little parallel going here:

substantive participle+infinitive; substantive participle + infinitive

So you get, "all who do X, then Y; all who do Y, then X."

(See above for substantive participle translation)

All who exalt themselves will be humbled; all who humble themselves will be exalted.

Luke 18:1-8

This passage occurs in the Revised Common Lectionary Year C, most recently in October 19, 2025
 
Summary
This parable does not simply commend us or even command us to pray; rather it humbles into prayer. The Greek used indicates Jesus told them this parable to make it necessary for them to pray. The particular construction and use of the word "necessity" do not suggest a teaching moment, but a transformation one, where people are humbled into prayer. What kind of God would compare himself to an unjust judge, who only gives in when brow-beaten? Furthermore, the particulars of the grammar -- the inclusion of the word "they" -- reveal this is not simply about the need for prayer in the abstract, but this parable is intended for us who hear it that we would pray.

The preaching task then is not simply to teach about prayer but fill the peoples hearts (and guts) with a hunger for prayer.  For those preaching with the Revised Common Lectionary, this passage is paired with Jacob wrestling with God, perhaps the example of God making it necessary for someone to pray.

Key Words
δει: (It is necessary; 18.1). The translations suggest Jesus used this parable to 'show' people they should pray. Actually, the word in Greek carries more force then should; It is used, for example, when Jesus says, "it is necessary for the son of man to die." Furthermore, the word "show" is never used. Luke (in the Greek) does not say this parable shows them why prayer is necessary but the parable makes prayer necessary! See below for more on the construction.

εκδικεω (revenge, 18.3;5) This word is hardly used in the NT; it does not simply mean justice, but really vengeance (as in Romans 12:10; Vengeance is mine.").  It is an interesting note that in civil society AND in our relationship with God, we need to allow vengeance to be the work of God, not of our hands.

υπωτιαζω (wear out or beat; 18:5) This word does not simply mean annoy or wear down, but means to give a black eye. Paul talks in 1 Cor 9:27 about beating his body (and not punching the air).

μακροθυμια (delay, 18:7). This word does not really mean delay. It means be patient (as in love is patient, 1 Cor 13:4). It seems that the verse ought to be translated, "Will God not be patient?" This is really strange because patience is one of the key characteristics about God.  Jesus really seems to be pushing his point here.  In the abstract, God is patient, but in our prayer life God becomes something more immediate and involved.

Grammar point
See sentence review about articular infinitives. Read this and then try 18:5, the first five words. Hint: δια here means "because."
Also 18:4 is a great example of an "ει" clause where "ει" means "since" and not "if"

Sentence review
NRS Luke 18:1 Then Jesus told them a parable about their need to pray always and not to lose heart.
18:1 ελεγεν δε παραβολην αυτοις προς το δειν παντοτε προσευχεσθαι αυτους και μη εγκακειν

ελεγεν δε παραβολην αυτοις : "Then he was telling them a parable." The four words here are all learned in the first few weeks of Greek: λεγω, to speak; δε, and; παραβολη, parable; αυτος, he/she/it. However, you've got to work a bit to put then together. Let's start with "δε." It typically suggests a change in speaker.  In this case, Jesus is still speaking so Luke likely wants to give some indication that the topic has changed.  You can ignore this, or add a "then/when/and" to connect this sentence to the previous one. The next word to look at is "παραβολην." Easy enough -- you just have to realize that in Greek, they rarely ever include an indefinite article (τις) and so you have to add "a" before the word.

"λεγω" is simply to speak, but because it is in the imperfect (parsing review: why not aorist or future?), you have to give a little bit of umph here: "Was continually telling...", something that reflects the on-going nature of the action. Finally you go to "αυτοις ." This is "he" in the plural dative. First, make it plural: "they" now dative: "to/with/for/through them." Put this all together and you get: Then he was telling them a parable.

προς το δειν παντοτε προσευχεσθαι αυτους: "so they would need to pray all the time." The παντοτε is the easy part; simply an adverb meaning always or at all times The tricky part is the "articular infinitive with preposition." In this case, "προς το δειν." Pros means toward; when used in an articular infinitive, it shows purpose or reason. The purpose of the parable then, is the necessity of prayer. The parable is not really "to show them it is necessary" but really, "so that they would need to pray."  More tricky here, the verb "dei" requires another verb (it is necessary to do something), which in this case is "pray" (προσευχεσθαι ). So you get: "for the reason of being necessary to pray." The αυτους is simply here an accusative form of autos, or "they." Because its part of an infinitive clause, it behaves not as an accusative, but as a nominative, namely, the subject. This might not seem like much, but by adding this word it moves it from "the necessity of prayer" to "the necessity of them praying."

και μη εγκακειν: "Not be discouraged." The μη is the Greek "no" for non-indicative moods. What does that mean? Well, if the sentence is "I do not go to the store" the 'no' in Greek would be "ουκ." However, if you have a command or an infinitive or a participle, you get "μη " In this case, the word discouraged is connected with the verb, "δει" or it is necessary. You know this because it is an infinitive and not an imperative (a command). So the parable is also for the purpose of them not losing heart.

Last little grammar bonus:

Εἰ (if/since, 18:4)  This is a great example of where the "if" actually means "since" because the verbs  if connects to are in the indicative mood and not the subjunctive.  

Luke 17:11-19

This passage is found in the Revised Common Lectionary, Year C, most recently October 12, 2025  
 
Summary:
This week has just about every key theological word: glory, salvation, Eucharist, healing, mercy. 

Earliest take:  The man literally falls (πιπτω) on his face to give God thanks. When was the last time you were not simply knocked to your knees, but you actually fell flat on your face in thanksgiving -- got so low to the ground you could smell the carpet??

Later take:  Faith and Healing are related, as are physical and spiritual healing

2025 take:  Reflections on insider-outsider dynamics

Key Words

Words about insider-outsider dynamics

αλλογενης (17:18, "foreigner"): This word is used only once in the NT. It literally means "other genes." That is the kind of God we have in Jesus Christ, one who welcomes ones with other genes; not other customs, but other genes!  (Okay, we know that all humans share like 99.9% of the same genes, but the point is that Jesus cares for those who have a different "genesis" than we do).  This passage is one of many humbling reminders that ethnic divisions are not simply a product of social media, but have long existed.  Even though Jesus has come to erase them, he certainly is aware of them and their power.

λεπρος ('lepros', 17.12, "leper"): The Greek is interesting here in that the word 'leper' appears before the word for man (andros). The first thing we find out is not their humanness, but their disease. The NIV and NET cover up this fact their translations.  How often do we identify people by their disease and not their humanity!  Perhaps part of healing is the restoration of the primacy of our human identity!  To push is further, Christ's salvation means we are no longer called "fat" or "white" or "athletic" or "nerdy" but instead we are called "child of God."

ελεησον ('eleison', 17.13, "mercy"): The men today cry out, "Jesus have mercy" in the Greek, a chant we cry out weekly in our worship.  I also find it interesting to consider that their mutual suffering means that the lepers are no longer concerned about ethnic boundaries.  Everywhere else the Samaritan Jew boundary is observed, but not here.  The community that cries out for mercy is a community that can find ways to transcend traditional boundaries.  For us to find a way to be the body of Christ across boundary lines, we must find a way to cry out for mercy together.

Words about salvation and healing
σωζω ('sozo', 17.19, "save") The granddaddy of 'em all -- salvation -- appears in this sentence.  When Jesus says that the man's faith saved him, we see very clearly that Luke is not suggesting "your belief in a set of propositional truths gave you keys to heaven."  What Jesus seems to be saying is more on long the lines: "your trust in my word and power motivated action from you that transformed your life in a way that have experienced the salvation of God." 

- For all good theologians, faith leads to action!  One might even argue that in this case, it was the action resulting from the faith which produced the healing.  Bonhoeffer writes about this in Nachfolge.  He writes that 

• "Only the obedient believe and only those who believe are obedient"

We know obedience flows from faith; but sometimes we need to hang in there until we have faith again.

- Salvation and healing are bigger than life-after-death.  This is not to argue against ever-lasting life, but rather to suggest that the salvation of God comes to us here and now.

- Another possibility is to consider that the real healing did not involve leprosy, but restored relationship with Jesus, which only one participated in.  I am not sure that I buy this either, but hey, this blog is about asking questions and not providing all the answers, right? :-)  Perhaps a softer point, but nonetheless significant, is that for all of them, their physical healing allowed them to have restored access to the spiritual vis-a-vis the temple. 

- Outsiders may understand the miracles of faith more than insiders.  There are certain things that insiders "get" by being raised in church culture.  This Samaritan man -- would he really care to go to a Jewish priest?  He realized the greater good was Jesus, not the priest.  The insiders didn't quite get this.

ιαομαι ('iaomai', 17.15, "healed) This word comes into English in "psychiatry"

Words about worship
πιπτω (17.16, "fell", "threw himself" or even "prostrated"):  The word here is not kneel, or pray but literally fall on his face. When was the last time you prayed with your face flat on the ground?  This is common in other religions, but I rarely see Christians do this (at least, in American contexts with which I am familiar).

ευχαριστω ('eucharistoo', 17.16, "give thanks"): Literally "Eucharist"; the man, from his knees, gives thanks to God!

δοχαζω ('doxazoo', 17.18 as noun; 17.15 as verb, "glory") Here it means give praise, but the word in Greek is doxe, as in doxology.  Orthodoxy is meant to ensure the glory is given to God!

Grammar point: "Articular Infinitive"
Luke uses a whole bunch of articular infinitives. It is a construction we really don't have in English but it makes sense. 17.11 literally reads: "And it happened in the walking into Jerusalem." ' In the walking' is an articular infinitive with preposition. Which sounds complex but it means you have the following: preposition (in, with, for)+the+infinitive. In this case in+the+walking. To translate you need to figure out two things. First, who is doing the action. And second, what does the preposition mean. In this sentence, the subject of the infinitive phrase is not really given, but you can guess its Jesus and the disciples. (Reminder -- the subject of an infinitive is given in the accusative). Second, the preposition in this case, "en" signifies concurrent action. So... "And it happened in the walking into Jerusalem..." becomes "While they entered Jerusalem,"

See 17.14 to test yourself if you understand this.  In fact, 17:14 highlights that the being cleansed did not happen when they heard the word of Jesus (go to the priests) but when they left Jesus.  They were told to present themselves to the priests while they were unclean, either meaning that Jesus was giving them permission to be lepers in the temple or that they had faith in the certainty of their healing.  A fascinating debate -- either case would be a tremendous example of their faith!

Sentence breakdown:  Luke 17:16
NRSV He prostrated himself at Jesus' feet and thanked him. And he was a Samaritan.
Greek  και επεσεν επι προσωπον παρα τους ποδας αυτου ευχαριστων αυτω και αυτος ην Σαμαριτης

και επεσεν : Easy way to start a sentence. Ignore the kai (for now at least) and then translate the verb, 3rd person singular aorist: "He fell"

επι προσωπον: Easy preposition: Upon (a) face.

παρα τους ποδας αυτου: Similarly an easy phrase to translate: "at the feet of him." Reminder: αυτου and its various forms, 95% of the time, refer to prepositions. They can mean "very" and "same" but this happens rarely.

So "he fell upon a face at his feet." The NRSV simplifies: He prostrated himself.  I like it, although some many not know what "prostrated" means.

ευχαριστων αυτω: Now the sentence gets a bit trickier. However, its still pretty straight forward (as far as circumstantial participles go!). To translate the preposition, let's plug it in:
step one: Determine what type -- circumstantial
step two: rough translation by adding "ing": "giving thanks"
step three: figure out who: "the leper"
step four: adjust tense and voice -- in this case, unnecessary.
step five: put it in the sentence: "He prostrated himself at the feet of Jesus, (the leper) giving thanks."
In this case, because neither the subject nor even the verb tense changes from sentence to participle, its plug and play!

και αυτος ην Σαμαριτης: And he was a Samaritan.

This sentence can be a good review of your pronouns!

Luke 17:5-10

This passage occurs in the Revised Common Lectionary Year C, most recently October 5, 2025.
 
Summary:

The passage before this (17:1-4) is about forgiveness. Jesus tells his disciples to forgive people over and over. This is where they protest and ask for more faith, or "pistis".  Forgiveness is hard! Faith in the Gospel of Luke is not simply "getting it" or even "getting it right" but the deep hunger for Jesus that motivates us, trees and even mountains to fall down at his feet.  If you are looking for a three point sermon on faith:  Faith draws us toward Jesus for forgiveness and healing; faith leads us away from Jesus in service; faith always reveals itself in humility, not in worldly greatness.

To be less subtle -- you might want to include verses 1-4 in your Gospel reading and sermon writing.

Key words:
πιστις (17:5; 17:6; "faith") The word faith has taken on many theological meanings. A few comments about how Luke uses it. First, the people that have faith are always outside the circle of pious Jews and even the disciples.  For example:  The bleeding woman (8:48), the Samaritan leper (17:19) and the Roman Centurion (7:9). Faith leads to healing but also forgiveness (5:20, 18:42). Above all, faith leads people to move themselves toward Jesus. Faith is the motivation for people to move toward Jesus and for him to act. It is not an intellectual assent to propositions, but it is the deep, gnawing trust that moves people and moves mountains to fall at the knees of Jesus.

What I might add -- in 2025 -- is simply how unbelievable forgiveness really is, especially the act of forgiving other people.  This implies that other people are sincere in their actions, that they might change and that we might endure their failures, again.

υμων (17:5; 17:6; "our")  This is great -- the disciples ask for THEIR faith, not just my faith.  Faith is a shared entity.

διακονει (17:8; to serve, minister or wait on tables). This verb is where we get the term deacon (or diaconal). It doesn't mean anything glorious, simply waiting on tables! Just a reminder though, Jesus finally says he is the one who serves us (Luke 12:37, 22:27).

αποστολοι (17:5; "apostles") Luke uses the term apostles far more than the other writers, even indicating that at the Lord's Supper (22:14) the apostles joined him. Perhaps this is because he writes Acts! I wonder if Luke helps us see that being a disciples of Jesus necessarily means being an apostle, being sent out into the world.  Furthermore, the disciples/apostles in the book of Acts will do amazing things through their faith.  Faith is the dynamic of moving toward Christ, seeking forgiveness and mercy and then being sent away from Christ, back into the world.

As a side note -- 17:1 begins by referring to the followers of Jesus as disciples/students (μαθητης).  They are referred to as apostles in 17:5 and then servants in 17:8.  Part of our calling is to learn and grow; part of our calling is to be sent; part of our calling is to serve others.

Grammar point: ει-αν clauses
When you see "εαν" this normally means there is a simple, "if (εαν) A, then B" However, if you see an ει-αν clause, this probably means that the conditions are false. This is the case in verse 6: If you had faith (which you don't), you would say (which you haven't). Great example of this construction is in John 11; "If (ει you had been here (which you weren't), my brother (αν) wouldn't have died (but he did)." 

Side note:  Another scholar I heard of argued that the ει clause was true, but that the αν statements built on each other.  Ie, Since you have faith, tell the mulberry bushes (which you didn't) to up root...and they would obey (which they didn't).  I don't think this is true, because John 4:10 and Matthew 24:43 have similar ει-αν-αν constructions.  In both cases it is translated condition A is false, so B and C didn't happen, not A is true, B didn't happen so C didn't happen (as this scholar argues in this case).  I am not sure how much is at stake here, but always fascinating to see how we continue to learn about ancient languages and what they mean.

Sentence review:
(Warning, this sentence is complex because Luke intermixes the various components of each sentence; using Bible Works/lexicon to tell you the cases is probably essential)

BGT Luke 17:7 Τις δε εξ υμων δουλον εχων αροτριωντα η ποιμαινοντα, ος εισελθοντι εκ του αργου ερει αυτω ευθευς παρελθων αναπεσε?
NRS Luke 17:7 "Who among you would say to your slave who has just come in from plowing or tending sheep in the field, 'Come here at once and take your place at the table'?

Τις δε εξ υμων: Basically: Who of you? Notice the accent on the word tis leans forward? This means its a strong accent, which tells you it is a question word (who, which, what) and not an indefinite article (a, any, certain)

δουλον εχων: The verb εχων is a participle.  At this point, the sentence is not too bad. For your English eyes, you probably need to switch δουλον and εχων for word order.  Then you can just do the "quick sloppy circumstantial participle" translation which is where you just add "ing" to the verb. In this case, you get: "Which of you, having a slave"

αροτριωντα η ποιμαινοντα: Here is where the train wreck comes. You have another two participles. First step -- get vocab (so your brain can help you piece this together unconsciously): "plow" and "tend." Your brain probably can figure out that the slave is the one plowing and tending. How would you know for sure? Notice how these are both accusative participles? Therefore they do not refer to the subject (the one who has the slave) but the object (the slave). So the slave is under the circumstance of plowing and tending.

So, we have so far: "Which of you, having a slave, tending and plowing." Hmm...unclear in English, so we get: "Which of you, having a slave who tends and plows,"

ος εισελθοντι εκ του αργου ερει αυτω: This clause is awful because you go back and forth between subject and object. First off, your brain knows its a relative clause because you have this ος ("hos"). In fact, hos is the subject, so we need to find a normal verb to match this with. Turns out that εισελθοντι is not a normal verb, but a participle. The verb you need to find is ερει. This is a basic verb (lego, to speak) but tough to recognize in the future form. (Who will say).  So we know that someone is speaking. We also know, thanks to the αυτω in the dative, that someone is speaking to someone. So, who are the someones? Well, the verb "εισελθοντι" is a participle in the dative, linked with the word αυτω .  In this case it functions like an adjectival participle.  Kind of strange sucker, but basically, it works like this: The one who enters from the field (εκ του αργου) is the one to whom the words will be addressed. You can know this because it all is in the dative. So you translate this relative clause like this:
"he, who will say to him, the one coming in from the field"
or:
"will say to the one (namely the slave) coming in from the field."
One final note -- the coming in precedes the speaking (the verb is in the aorist, which in the case of participles shows order in time of events), so to make it all clear:
"will say to the slave after he has come in from the field."

Put it together and you get
"Which of you, having a slave who tends and plows, will say to the him after he comes in from the field:"

ευθεως παρελθων αναπεσε? The  ευθεως means immediately...and the αναπεσε is a simple command: sit at the table.

So you have: "immediately παρελθων sit." You can translate the παρελθων (which can mean just about anything) a couple of ways. Really, it is not a key verb in the sentence; it functions more like another adverb: "immediately come over and sit." Or more politely, "Come here at once and sit!"

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.