The flood destroyed them all (Lk 17:27-17:27)

“They were

Eating

And drinking.

They were marrying

And being given

In marriage,

Until the day

Noah entered the ark.

The flood came.

It destroyed all of them.”

 

ἤσθιον, ἔπινον, ἐγάμουν, ἐγαμίζοντο, ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας εἰσῆλθεν Νῶε εἰς τὴν κιβωτόν, καὶ ἦλθεν ὁ κατακλυσμὸς καὶ ἀπώλεσεν πάντας.

 

Luke indicated that Jesus said that at the time of Noah, they were eating (ἤσθιον) and drinking (ἔπινον).  They were marrying (ἐγάμουν) and being given in marriage (ἐγαμίζοντο), until the day Noah entered the ark (ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας εἰσῆλθεν Νῶε εἰς τὴν κιβωτόν).  The flood came (καὶ ἦλθεν ὁ κατακλυσμὸς).  It destroyed all of them (καὶ ἀπώλεσεν πάντας).  There was something similar, at times almost word for word, in Matthew, chapter 24:38-39, thus indicating a Q source.  Jesus said, via Matthew, that they were eating (τρώγοντες), drinking (καὶ πίνοντες), marrying (γαμοῦντες), and giving in marriage (καὶ γαμίζοντες) right up until the day when Noah entered the ark (ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας εἰσῆλθεν Νῶε εἰς τὴν κιβωτόν).  They knew nothing (καὶ οὐκ ἔγνωσαν) until the flood came (ἦλθεν ὁ κατακλυσμὸς) and swept them all away (καὶ ἦρεν ἅπαντας).  There was a slightly different ending, but the comparison with Noah is the same in both Luke and Matthew.  How important is the flood at the time of Noah to your life?

Advertisements

The banquet is ready (Lk 14:17-14:17)

“At the time

For the dinner banquet,

The host sent

His slave

To say to those

Who had been invited.

‘Come!

Everything

Is ready now.’”

 

καὶ ἀπέστειλεν τὸν δοῦλον αὐτοῦ τῇ ὥρᾳ τοῦ δείπνου εἰπεῖν τοῖς κεκλημένοις Ἔρχεσθε, ὅτι ἤδη ἕτοιμά ἐστιν.

 

Luke indicated that Jesus said that at the time for the dinner banquet (τῇ ὥρᾳ τοῦ δείπνου), this host sent his slave (καὶ ἀπέστειλεν τὸν δοῦλον αὐτοῦ) to say to those who had been invited (εἰπεῖν τοῖς κεκλημένοις).  “Come (Ἔρχεσθε), everything was ready now (ὅτι ἤδη ἕτοιμά ἐστιν).”  This is somewhat similar to Matthew, chapter 22:3, perhaps indicating a Q source.  Matthew had Jesus continue with his parable about the king, not the host, who sent his slaves (καὶ ἀπέστειλεν τοὺς δούλους αὐτοῦ) to call the invited guests (καλέσαι τοὺς κεκλημένους) to the wedding feast or banquet (εἰς τοὺς γάμους).  In either case, there was a specific special invitation via the slaves or servants inviting these people to the great feast or banquet.  Have you ever received a personal invitation to a dinner banquet?

See you later! (Lk 13:35-13:35)

“See!

Your house is forsaken!

I tell you!

You will not see me

Until the time comes

When you say.

‘Blessed is the one

Who comes

In the name

Of the Lord!’”

 

ἰδοὺ ἀφίεται ὑμῖν ὁ οἶκος ὑμῶν. λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν, οὐ μὴ ἴδητέ με ἕως ἥξει ὅτε εἴπητε Εὐλογημένος ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι Κυρίου.

 

Luke indicated that Jesus said to Jerusalem that nothing of their house was left for them as it will be forsaken (ἰδοὺ ἀφίεται ὑμῖν ὁ οἶκος ὑμῶν), using the second person singular.  With a solemn pronouncement (λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν), Jesus said that they would not see him, Jesus (οὐ μὴ ἴδητέ με) until the time came when they said (ἕως ἥξει ὅτε εἴπητε) the Hallel Psalm 118:26, “Blessed is the one who comes (Εὐλογημένος ὁ ἐρχόμενος) in the name of the Lord (ἐν ὀνόματι Κυρίου)!”  Both Luke and Matthew, chapter 23:38-39, have this desolation of Jerusalem, almost word for word, so that this may be a Q source.  Matthew was more detailed.  He indicated that Jesus said that their house of worship would be left desolate at its destruction (ἰδοὺ ἀφίεται ὑμῖν ὁ οἶκος ὑμῶν), because Yahweh God would abandon the Temple of Jerusalem.  In a solemn pronouncement (λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν), they would not see him again (οὐ μή με ἴδητε ἀπ’ ἄρτι), until they would say the Hallel Psalm 118:26 about blessed is the One who comes in the name of the Lord (ἕως ἂν εἴπητε Εὐλογημένος ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι Κυρίου).  This was a warning against the powerless Temple of Jerusalem, perhaps indicating that Temple had already been destroyed by the time of this writing.  Does the destruction of the church Notre Dame de Paris sound like the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple to you?

Next year cut it down (Lk 13:9-13:9)

“If it bears fruit

Next year,

Well and good!

But if not,

You can cut it down.”

 

κἂν μὲν ποιήσῃ καρπὸν εἰς τὸ μέλλον· εἰ δὲ μήγε, ἐκκόψεις αὐτήν.

 

Luke concluded this unique parable story.  This gardener told his owner that if this fig tree would bear fruit during this time (κἂν μὲν ποιήσῃ καρπὸν εἰς τὸ), then well and good (μέλλον).  However, if it did not (εἰ δὲ μήγε), that they would cut it down (ἐκκόψεις αὐτήν).  There was one more chance, but only one more.  Have you ever given anyone an extra chance?

Pilate and the Galileans (Lk 13:1-13:1)

“At that very time,

There were some present

Who told Jesus

About the Galileans,

Whose blood

Pilate had mingled

With their sacrifices.”

 

Παρῆσαν δέ τινες ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ καιρῷ ἀπαγγέλλοντες αὐτῷ περὶ τῶν Γαλιλαίων ὧν τὸ αἷμα Πειλᾶτος ἔμιξεν μετὰ τῶν θυσιῶν αὐτῶν.

 

Luke uniquely said that at that very time (ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ καιρῷ), there were some people present (Παρῆσαν δέ τινες) who told Jesus (ἀπαγγέλλοντες αὐτῷ) about the Galileans (περὶ τῶν Γαλιλαίων), whose blood (ὧν τὸ αἷμα) Pilate (Πειλᾶτος) had mingled (ἔμιξεν) with their sacrifices (μετὰ τῶν θυσιῶν αὐτῶν).  This is a unique passage of Luke that talked about a contemporary event of Jesus.  Apparently, Pontius Pilate, who was rather cruel, had killed some Galileans when they were worshiping at the Jerusalem Temple.  However, there is no other indication about this incident anywhere else, nor is it clear how many Galileans were involved.  What do you think about killing people while they are praying in a place of worship?

The Levite passed by (Lk 10:32-10:32)

“Thus,

Likewise

A Levite,

When he came

To the place

Saw him.

He passed by

On the other side.”

 

ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ Λευείτης κατὰ τὸν τόπον ἐλθὼν καὶ ἰδὼν ἀντιπαρῆλθεν

 

Luke continued his unique story.  Jesus said that a Levite also (ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ Λευείτης) came to this same place (κατὰ τὸν τόπον ἐλθὼν) on the road.  He saw the wounded man (καὶ ἰδὼν).  Then he too crossed over to the other side of the road (ἀντιπαρῆλθεν), so as not to engage with this man.  The same questions can be asked of this Jewish Levite that were asked about the priest.  Was it because of ritual purity?  Was he in a hurry, so that he did not have time to stop?  Did he simply not care?  Was it too much of a bother?  Normally, the Levites do not come in for much criticism in the gospel narratives.  Levites were sons of Levi, and tied to ritualistic practice at the Temple.  For instance, the father of John the Baptist was Zechariah and his mother Elizabeth, both of them were descendants of Aaron.  Zechariah was a priest in the Jerusalem Temple, while Elizabeth was from a Levite family.  These Levites had Temple duties.  Thus, they were religious ritual leaders in the Jewish community.  Both the priest and the Levite represented the upper religious strata of the Jewish community.  Do you think that religious leaders should set an example by their lifestyle?

The priest went by (Lk 10:31-10:31)

“Now by chance,

A priest

Was going down

That road.

When he saw him,

He passed by

On the other side.”

 

κατὰ συγκυρίαν δὲ ἱερεύς τις κατέβαινεν ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ ἐκείνῃ, καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτὸν ἀντιπαρῆλθεν.

 

Luke uniquely continued this story or parable about who is my neighbor.  Jesus said that by chance (κατὰ συγκυρίαν), a certain Jewish priest (δὲ ἱερεύς τις) was going down (κατέβαινεν) this same road (ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ ἐκείνῃ).  He saw the badly wounded man (καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτὸν), but he passed by on the other side of the road (ἀντιπαρῆλθεν).  There is a lot of speculation on why this priest did not help this man.  Was it because of ritual purity?  Was he in a hurry, so that he did not have time to stop?  Did he simply not care?  Was it too much of a bother?  Certainly, a Jewish priest had standing in the Jewish community.  Other than the high priest, he represented the most important level of Jewish society.  What is certain is that this high-ranking religious leader did not engage in any way with the afflicted man on the other side of the road.  He clearly saw him, as he specifically crossed over to the other side, so as not to be bothered by him.  The ritual purity argument has been raised since a priest could not touch a corpse.  However, there was no mention of a dead body.  Do you always have an excuse on why you do not help other wounded people?