Who is My Neighbor?

Using the very same conscience we have been talking about for the past few days, our scholar of the law in Sunday's Gospel reading nails the right answer with no problem. Here's the reading and then I've got a couple of bits of commentary that were fruitful for me.

There was a scholar of the law who stood up to test Jesus and said,
"Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
Jesus said to him, "What is written in the law?
How do you read it?"
He said in reply,
"You shall love the Lord, your God,
with all your heart,
with all your being,
with all your strength,
and with all your mind,
and your neighbor as yourself."
He replied to him, "You have answered correctly;
do this and you will live."

But because he wished to justify himself, he said to Jesus,
"And who is my neighbor?"
Jesus replied,
"A man fell victim to robbers
as he went down from Jerusalem to Jericho.
They stripped and beat him and went off leaving him half-dead.
A priest happened to be going down that road,
but when he saw him, he passed by on the opposite side.
Likewise a Levite came to the place,
and when he saw him, he passed by on the opposite side.
But a Samaritan traveler who came upon him
was moved with compassion at the sight.
He approached the victim,
poured oil and wine over his wounds and bandaged them.
Then he lifted him up on his own animal,
took him to an inn, and cared for him.
The next day he took out two silver coins
and gave them to the innkeeper with the instruction,
'Take care of him.
If you spend more than what I have given you,
I shall repay you on my way back.'
Which of these three, in your opinion,
was neighbor to the robbers' victim?"
He answered, "The one who treated him with mercy."
Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."

Lk 10:25-37

This is one of the most famous parables, thorougly studied and commented upon over the ages. I'm used to hearing many takes on it. However, these snippets from some commentaries struck me with force this time.

Instead of giving the lawyer the answer he demanded, Jesus' answer demands from the lawyer his answer to the question: Are you a good neighbor? He must answer the question now, instead of asking it, and he must answer it in his deeds, not just his thoughts and his words. ... Jesus' answer ["Go and do likewise"] does not tell us who to pin the label of "neighbor" on but tells us to pin it on ourselves by our actions.

Peter Kreeft, Food for the Soul, Cycle C

Clearly the scholar is the illustration of what we've been thinking about from the first reading in Deuteronomy. He knows what is good and what is evil. It is in his heart and he listens. Of course, then Jesus tells him go to and do it, which is the necessary step in being the good neighbor. Don't just think about it, but act on it.

In Conversation with God has more on this beginning with someone who I've never heard anyone dwell up on in a homily, the victim.

This is my neighbour: he is a man, any man whoever who has need of me. Our Lord makes no specific reference to race, friendship or blood connections. Our neighbour is anyone who is close to us and has need of help. Nothing is said of his country, or of his background or social condition: homo quidam, just a man, a human being.

If Jesus answered the question instead of, in classic rabinnical style, turning the question around to the scholar, this is what he would have said. In asking his question, he is answering it. Everyone is our neighbor. I knew that, but because parable goes on to focus on the good Samaritan in such detail, it never struck me with such force as this last Sunday.

So what does the "go and do likewise" mean? It is spelled out. When the need is recognized we should act.

Firstly, he went up to him. This is the first thing to be done whenever we encounter misfortune or need; we have to get up close, we cannot just observe the situation from a distance. The Samaritan next did what had to be done: he took care of him. The charity Our Lord asks of us is shown in deeds; it consists in doing whatever needs to be done in each individual case.

God places our neighbour, and his needs, along the road of our life. Love is always ready to do whatever the immediate situation demands. It may not be anything particularly heroic or difficult; indeed what is called for is very often something small and simple: This love is not something reserved for important matters, but must be exercised above all in the ordinary circumstances of daily life (Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et spes).

The Father Had Two Sons

Rembrandt, The Return of the Prodigal Son, c. 1669, via Web Gallery of Art

The parable of the prodigal son is my very favorite parable.

I know I'm not alone in this. It is one of those with so many layers of meaning and also one to which we all can relate, whether it is with the prodigal or elder son.

I'd bet, though, a lot of parishes heard homilies about the prodigal son, while the elder son wasn't even mentioned. That's what happened to us. It is easy to understand why. We love the father's forgiveness, kindness, and mercy. Many people relate to the prodigal son so that makes his reunion with the father even more poignant.

What gets forgotten is the context that made Jesus tell the parable in the first place.

It is not really equally about the two sons. The struggles of both are important but Jesus is telling this parable to the Pharisees in response to their complaints about the time he spends with sinners. He's trying to get them to understand the prodigal son's journey, the father's joyful love, and the problems with the elder son's response.

The whole point of this parable is the complaints of the elder son and the father's pleading with him.

Sadly, it took me a very long time to even understand what the problem was with the elder son's complaints. They seemed pretty reasonable to me. Which says a lot about my basic personality. But once I did, it put a whole new cast on the story, one that stuck with me.

I wonder if many of us don't have a lot more in common with the elder son than we'd like to think.  How many times have I issued internal judgment on those around me? How many times have I patted myself on the back for how good I am and, therefore, how much better? How many times have I craved praise while deploring the "less worthy" who received it instead?

And that is part of the point too. Just as our fellow Christians are equally sons, we are equally sinners ... just maybe not in as public a way as those we judge. Reading the parable, we notice that Jesus leaves it open-ended. We don't know what the elder son does. Is there a conversion of heart? Not all Pharisees were hostile to Jesus. Was it partially because they reflected on parables like this one?

Our priest drew a final conclusion about the prodigal son that we shouldn't love God just for the things he can give us, that we need to seek out a personal relationship with Him. That is insightful and can be applied equally to the elder son. He talks to his father as if he were an employer, not someone he loves. As in the Rembrandt painting above, he stands in judgment of his father's mercy and forgiveness. There is nothing personal or loving in him.

Here is the parable, having removed the parables of the sheep and coin that Jesus tells first to make His point. Those have value and do add to the meaning of the main parable, but I thought I'd put the streamlined version here to make it easy to look at the family's journey.

The tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to listen to him, but the Pharisees and scribes began to complain, saying, "This man welcomes sinners and eats with them."

So to them he addressed this parable.

Then he said, "A man had two sons, and the younger son said to his father, 'Father, give me the share of your estate that should come to me.' So the father divided the property between them.

After a few days, the younger son collected all his belongings and set off to a distant country where he squandered his inheritance on a life of dissipation.

When he had freely spent everything, a severe famine struck that country, and he found himself in dire need. So he hired himself out to one of the local citizens who sent him to his farm to tend the swine. And he longed to eat his fill of the pods on which the swine fed, but nobody gave him any.

Coming to his senses he thought, 'How many of my father's hired workers have more than enough food to eat, but here am I, dying from hunger. I shall get up and go to my father and I shall say to him, "Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I no longer deserve to be called your son; treat me as you would treat one of your hired workers."'

So he got up and went back to his father. While he was still a long way off, his father caught sight of him, and was filled with compassion. He ran to his son, embraced him and kissed him.

His son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you; I no longer deserve to be called your son.'

But his father ordered his servants, 'Quickly bring the finest robe and put it on him; put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Take the fattened calf and slaughter it. Then let us celebrate with a feast, because this son of mine was dead, and has come to life again; he was lost, and has been found.' Then the celebration began.

Now the older son had been out in the field and, on his way back, as he neared the house, he heard the sound of music and dancing. He called one of the servants and asked what this might mean. The servant said to him, 'Your brother has returned and your father has slaughtered the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.'

He became angry, and when he refused to enter the house, his father came out and pleaded with him. He said to his father in reply, 'Look, all these years I served you and not once did I disobey your orders; yet you never gave me even a young goat to feast on with my friends. But when your son returns who swallowed up your property with prostitutes, for him you slaughter the fattened calf.'

He said to him, 'My son, you are here with me always; everything I have is yours. But now we must celebrate and rejoice, because your brother was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.'"

Luke 15: 1-3; 11-32

About Those Seeds: part 1

This is from a few weeks (?) ago but only now have I found the time to share it. Jesus tells the well known parable from Luke 8:4-15 of the sower and the seeds that fall on various sorts of ground. I found it worth some meditation and am going to share it in several parts.

And as he sowed, some seed fell along the path, and was trodden under foot, and the birds of the air devoured it. The seed was completely lost without having given any fruit. Later on, Jesus explained to his disciples the parable and the reason for this loss: hearts which have become hardened through a lack of contrition are incapable of receiving the divine word. This bad ground represents the heart which has become accustomed to unclean thoughts, so "parched" as it were that it cannot receive and sustain the seed (St. Gregory the Great). The devil finds in souls of this kind a source of resistance to God's saving Grace.

On the other hand, a soul which reacts to imperfections and transgressions by sincere repentance actually attracts divine mercy. True humility allows God to sow his seed and have it bear abundant fruit. This is why we should use this parable to examine our spirit of reparation for the falls of every day, even in the least serious things. Do we go to Confession frequently and with a sincere yearning for divine assistance?

In Conversation with God (vol. 5, ordinary time weeks 24-34) by Francis Fernandez

Luke Bible Study - Index

LUKE

• Temptation in the Wilderness, I
• Temptation in the Wilderness, II
• Daily Bible Study Series
• Galilee: The California of Israel?
• Nazareth - Crossroads of the World
• Counting Sins the Pharisee Way
• Common Courtesy
• Diverse Women
• The Sower and the Seed
• Deadly Storm
• Those Pesky Samaritans
• That Crucial Moment
• Setting the Scene
• Ask and You Will Receive
• Nothing New Under the Sun
• Feasts and Banquets, Part I
• Feasts and Banquets, Part II
• The Shepherd's Joy
• The Lost Coin
• The Prodigal Son
• A Familiar View of Divorce
• The Entry of the King
• The Sadducees' Question, Part I
• The Sadducees' Question, Part II
• Jesus' Anger
• Leaving Nothing to Chance
• Jesus' Trial Before the Sanhedrin
• The Jews' Blackmail of Pilate
• The Traitor's Kiss
• The Road to Calvary
• There They Crucified Him
• 23:39-43 - The Promise of Paradise
• 23:44-49 - The Long Day Closes

The Long Day Closes

LUKE 23:44-49
This passage covers the darkness falling over the land, the Temple veil splitting, Jesus' death, and the Centurion's words acknowledging Jesus' innocence. A lot of significance is covered in a small amount of writing.

1. The Temple veil. William Barclay tells us:

This was the veil which hid the Holy of Holies, the place where dwelt the very presence of God, the place where no man might ever enter except the High Priest, and he only once a year, on th great day of Atonement.

The Navarre Bible points out:

The tearing of the curtain of the temple shows the end of the Old Covenant and the beginning of the New Covenant, sealed in the blood of Christ.

2. Jesus' death. The details of Jesus' death, brief as they are reveal two things which William Barclay illuminates.

• Jesus cried with a great voice. Three of the gospels tell us of this great cry (Matthew 27:50; Mark 15:37). John, on the other hand, does not mention the great cry but tells us that Jesus died, saying, "It is finished." (John 19:30) In Greek and Aramaic It is finished is one word. It is finished and the great cry are, in fact, one and the same thing. Jesus died with a shout of triumph on his lips ... He shouted it like a victor who has won his last engagement with the enemy and brought a trememdous task to triumphant conclusion.
• Jesus died with a prayer on his lips. "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." That is Psalm 31:5 with one word added -- Father. that verse was the prayer every Jewish mother taught her child to say last thing at night. Just as we were tauight, maybe to say, "This night I lay me down to sleep," so the Jewish mother taught her child to say, before the threatening dark came down, "Into thy hands I commit my spirit." Jesus made it even more lovely for he began it with the word Father. Even on a cross Jesus died like a child falling asleep in his father's arms.

3. The Centurion's words. The Navarre Bible points out that his acknowledgment of Jesus is just one of many brought by the cross. I always had noticed these but never put them all together like this.

Jesus' redemptive death on the cross immediately begins to draw people towards God by way of repentance: as he made his way to Calvary there was the probable conversion of Simon of Cyrene and the lamentations of the women of jerusalem; at the cross, the repentance of the good thief, the effect of grace on the Roman centurion, and the compunction felt by the crowd reported in this verse. Jesus had prophesied, "When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men to myself" (John 12:32). this prophecy begins to come true on Golgotha, and it will continue to be fulfilled until the end of time.

This is the final entry I'll make from my study of Luke. I believe I'll be moving on to Genesis next. Some really great stuff there that you'd never expect, including good coverage of typology. More about that later.

The Promise of Paradise

LUKE 23:39-43
Like most people I always liked the fact that even in His utmost suffering Jesus so generously rewarded the criminal who stood up for Him. Think of it. That might have been the only good deed that man ever did but it was enough to get him into paradise. When we read William Barclay's explanation of what that promise really meant we see just how generous Jesus is.

It was of set and deliberate purpose that the authorities crucified Jesus between two known criminals. It was deliberately so staged to humiliate Jesus in front of the crowd and to rank him with robbers...

The word Paradise is a Persian word meaning a walled garden. When a Persian king wished to do one of his subjects a very special honor he made him a companion of the garden which meant he was chosen to walk in the garden with the king. It was more than immortality that Jesus promised the penitent thief. He promised him the honored place of a companion of the garden in the courts of heaven.

Very cool.

There They Crucified Him

LUKE 23:32-38
This is the crucifixion where Jesus was between two criminals, the soldiers cast lots for his garment, and the inscription, "King of the Jews" was placed over him. William Barclay tells us the common way this was done. There was no new "aha" moment for me in reading this but it served to reinforce the horror of crucifixion. I have read that crucifixions commonly were done through the wrist instead of the hand but for all I know there may have been more than one way it was done.

When a criminal reached the lace of crucifixion, his cross was laid flat upon the ground. Usually it was a cross shaped like a T with no top piece against which the head could rest. It was quite low, so that the criminal's feet were only two or three feet above the ground. There was a company of pious women in Jerusalem who made it their practice always to go to crucifixions and to give the victim a drink of drugged wine which would deaden the terrible pain. That drink was offered to Jesus and he refused it (Matthew 27:14). He was determined to face death at its worst.

The victim's arms were stretched out upon the cross bar, and the nails were driven through his hands. The feet were not nailed, but only loosely bound to the cross. Half way up the cross there was a projecting piece of wood, called the saddle, which took the weight of the criminal, for otherwise the nails would have torn through his hands. Then the cross was lifted and set upright in the socket. The terror of crucifixion was this -- the pain of that process was terrible but it was not enough to kill, and the victim was left to die of hunger and thirst beneath the blazing noontide sun and the frosts of the night. Many a criminal was known to have hung for a week upon his cross until he died raving mad.

The clothes of the criminal were the perquisites of the four soldiers among whom he marched to the cross. Every Jew wore five articles of apparel -- the inner tunic, the outer robe, the girdle, the sandals and the turban. Four were divided among the four soldiers. There remained the great outer robe. It was woven in one piece without a seam (John 19:23-24). To have cut it up and divided it up would have ruined it; and so the soldiers gambled for it in the shadow of the cross. It was nothing to them that another criminal was slowly dying in agony.

The inscription set upon the cross was the same placard as was carried before a man as he marched through the streets to the place of crucifixion.

The Road to Calvary

LUKE 23:26-32
Jesus carries his cross and Simon of Cyrene was impressed by the soldiers to assist. When I read the details about this I remember that when studying Acts it was mentioned that a certain Simon may actually have been the same Simon of Cyrene. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if what started out as a bad experience wound up being the saving of his soul. William Barclay tells us the history to go with this segment.

When a criminal was condemned to be crucified, he was taken from the judgment hall and set in the middle of a hollow square of four Roman soldiers. His own cross was then laid upon his shoulders. And he was marched to the place of crucifixion by the longest possible route, while before him marched another soldier bearing a placard with his crime inscribed upon it, so that he might be a terrible warning to anyone else who was contemplating such a crime. That is what they did with Jesus.

He began by carrying his own Cross (John 19:17); but under its weight his strength gave out and he could carry it no farther. Palestine was an occupied country and any citizen could be immediately impressed into the service of the Roman government. The sign of such impressment was a tap on the shoulder with the flat of the blade of a Roman spear. When Jesus sank beneath the weight of his Cross, the Roman centurion in charge looked round for someone to carry it. Out of the country into the city there came Simon from far off Cyrene, which is modern Tripoli. No doubt he was a Jew who all his life had scraped and saved so that he might be able to eat one Passover at Jerusalem. The flat of the Roman spear touched him on the shoulder and he found himself, willy-nilly, carrying a criminal's cross.

The Traitor's Kiss

LUKE 22-47-53
This scene is the famous betrayal by Judas. William Barclay tells us just how significant the traitor's kiss was.

When a disciple met a beloved Rabbi, he laid his right hand on the Rabbi's left shoulder and his left hand on the right shoulder and kissed him. It was the kiss of a disciple to a beloved master that Judas used as a sign of betrayal.

This makes Jesus' words, "Judas, would you betray the Son of man with a kiss?" even more poignant. The Navarre Bible points out that there also is an implication of trying to save Judas in these words. I never had contemplated Judas' long companionship with Jesus in terms of the constant forgiveness that Jesus was offering but it becomes clear when reading this.

In contemplating this sad betrayal by an apostle, Jesus treats Judas in a very gentle way and yet shows up the malice and ugliness of his treachery; for the last time he tries to win Judas back.

... "Even to Judas," St. Thomas More comments, "God gave many opportunities of coming to his senses. He did not deny him companionship. He did not take away from him the dignity of his apostleship. He did not even take the purse-strings from him, even though he was a thief. He admitted the traitor to the fellowship of his beloved disciples at the last supper. He deigned to stoop down at the feet of the betrayer and to wash his feet with his most innocent and sacred hands Judas' dirty feet, a fit symbol of his filthy mind [...]. Finally when Judas, coming with his crew to seize him, offered him a kiss, a kiss that was in fact the terrible token of his treachery, Christ received him calmly and gently ... if we see anyone wandering wildly from the right road, let us hope that he will one day return to the path, and meanwhile let us pray humbly and incessantly that God will hold out to him chances to come to his senses, and likewise that with God's help he will eagerly seize them..."

The Jews' Blackmail of Pilate

LUKE 23:13-25
It is crystal clear from this reading that Pontius Pilate did everything in his power to keep from condemning Jesus to death. However it is equally plain that the Jews were able to force Pilate to do their will in this matter. How was that possible? What did they have on him? William Barclay explains.

It is literally true that the Jews blackmailed Pilate into sentencing Jesus to death. The basic fact is that, under impartial Roman justice, any province had the right to report a governor to Rome for misgovernment, and such a governor would be severely dealt with. Pilate had made two grave mistakes in his government of Palestine.

In Judaea the Roman headquarters were not at Jerusalem but at Caesarea. But in Jerusalem a certain number of troops were quartered. Roman troops carried standards which were topped by a little bust of the reigning emperor. The emperor was at this time officially a god. The Jewish law forbade any graven image and, in deference to Jewish principles, previous governors had always removed the imperial images before they marched their troops into Jerusalem. Pilate refused to do so; he marched his soldiers in by night with the imperial image on their standards. The Jews came in crowds to Caesarea to request Pilate to remove the images. He refused. They persisted in their entreaties for days. On the sixth day he agreed to meet them in an open space surrounded by his troops. He informed them that unless they stopped disturbing him with their continuous requests the penalty would be immediate death. "They threw themselves on the ground and laid their necks bare, and said they would take death very willingly rather than that the wisdom of their laws should be transgressed." Not even Pilate could slaughter men in cold blood like that, and he had to yield. Josephus tells the whole story in The Antiquities of the Jews, book 18, chapter 3.

Pilate followed this up by bringing into the city a new water supply and financing the scheme with money taken from the Temple treasury. (This was referred to in Luke 13:1-5. Pilate had decided rightly that Jerusalem needed a new and improved water supply. He proposed to build it and, to finance it with certain Temple monies. It was a laudable object and a more than justifiable expenditure. But at the very idea of spending temple monies like that, the Jews were up in arms. When the mobs gathered, Pilate instructed his soldiers to mingle with them, wearing cloaks over their battle dress for disguise. They were instructed to carry cudgels rather than swords. At a given signal they were to fall on the mob and disperse them. This was done, but the soldiers dealt with the mob with a violence far beyond their instructions and a considerable number of people lost their lives.)

The one thing the Roman government could not afford to tolerate in their far-flung empire was civil disorder. Had the Jews officially reported either of these incidents there is little doubt that Pilate would have been summarily dismissed. It is John who tells us of the ominous hint the Jewish officials gave Pilate when they said, "If you release this man you are not Caesar's friend" (John 19:12) They compelled Pilate to sentence Jesus to death by holding the threat of an official report to Rome over his head.

It is also clear that Pilate had a record of making terrible decisions and the way he handled Jesus' case was just such another example.

Jesus' Trial Before the Sanhedrin

LUKE 22:63-71
Anyone who is at all familiar with the Gospels knows that the Sanhedrin told half-truths and lies to Pontius Pilate to get him to consider Jesus' execution. What I didn't realize until now is just how far the Sanhedrin subverted their own judicial policies in order to do this. It becomes crystal clear when we compare Jesus' treatment with William Barclay's explanation of typical court procedures.

The Sanhedrin was the supreme court of the Jews. In particular it had complete jurisdiction over all religious and theological matters. It was composed of seventy members. Scribes, Rabbis and Pharisees, priests and Sadducees, and elders were all represented on it. It could not meet during the hours of darkness. That is why they held Jesus until the morning before they brought him before it. It could meet only in the Hall of Hewn Stone in the Temple court. The High Priest was its president.

We possess the rules of procedures of the Sanhedrin. Perhaps they are only the ideal which was never fully carried out; but at least they allow us to see what the Jews, at their best, conceived that the Sanhedrin should be and how far their actions fell short of their own ideals in the trial of Jesus.

The court sat in a semi-circle, in which every member could see every other member. Facing the court stood the prisoner dressed in mourning dress. Behind him sat the rows of the students and disciples of the Rabbis. They might speak in defense of the prisoner but not against him. Vacancies in the court were probably filled by co-option from these students. All charges must be supported by the evidence of two witnesses independently examined. A member of the court might speak against the prisoner, and then change his mind and speak for him, but not vice-versa.

When a verdict was due, each member had to give his individual judgment, beginning at the youngest and going on to the most senior. For acquittal a majority of one was all that was necessary; for condemnation there must be a majority of at least two. Sentence of death could never be carried out on the day on which it was given; a night must elapse so that the court might sleep on it, so that perchance, their condemnation might turn to mercy. The whole procedure was designed for mercy; and, even from Luke's summary account, it is clear that the Sanhedrin, when it tried Jesus, was far from keeping its own rules and regulations.

Leaving Nothing to Chance

LUKE 22:7-23
I really never thought of Jesus making arrangements ahead of time for the Passover until I read what William Barclay had to say about the arrangement for the upper room. Then I wondered why I never noticed it before.

Once again Jesus did not leave things until the last moment; his plans were already made. The better class houses had two rooms. The one room was on top of the other; and the house looked exactly like a small box placed on top of a large one. The upper room was reached by an outside stair. During the Passover time all lodging in Jerusalem was free. The only pay a host might receive for letting lodgings to the pilgrims was the skin of the lamb that was eaten at the feast. A very usual use of an upper room was that it was the place where a rabbi met with his favorite disciples to talk things over with them and to open his heart to them. Jesus had taken steps to procure such a room. He sent Peter and John into the city to look for a man bearing a jar of water. To carry water was a woman's task. A man carrying a jar of water would be as easy to pick out as, say, a man using a lady's umbrella on a wet day. This was a prearranged signal between Jesus and a friend.

Passover

LUKE 22:1-6
This passage deals with Satan entering into Judas. However, from a historical point of view what I find most interesting is Barclay's description of Passover preparations.

There were elaborate preparations for the Passover. Roads were repaired; bridges were made safe; wayside tombs were whitewashed lest the pilgrim should fail to see them, and so touch them and become unclean. For a month before, the story and meaning of the Passover was the subject of the teaching of every synagogue. Two days before the Passover there was in every house a ceremonial search for leaven. The householder took a candle and solemnly searched every nook and cranny in silence, and the last particle of leaven was thrown out.

More importantly, William Barclay sets the scene of why the Romans were worried about the possibility of a riot after Jesus' arrest.

Every male Jew, who was of age and who lived within 15 miles of the holy city, was bound by law to attend the Passover. But it was the ambition of every Jew in every part of the world to come to the Passover in Jerusalem at least once in his lifetime ... Because of this vast numbers came to Jerusalem at the Passover time. Cestius was governor of Palestine in the time of Nero and Nero tended to belittle the importance of the Jewish faith. To convince Nero of it, Cestius took a census of the lambs slain at one particular Passover. Josephus tells us that the number was 256,500. The law laid it down that the number for a Passover celebration was 10. That means that on this occasion, if these figures are correct, there must have been more than 2,700,000 pilgrims to the Passover. It was in a city crowded like that that the drama of Jesus was played out.

Jesus' Anger

LUKE 19:45-46
I have to back up for a minute in the progression through Luke as I realized I forgot to include a very interesting bit of historical clarification. This is when Jesus cast out those who were selling in the Temple. When we know how things really worked, then we can see why Jesus reacted with such violence to the money changes and sellers of animals. Again it is William Barclay who provides these historical insights.

First, let us look at the money changers. Every make Jew had to pay a Temple tax every year of half a shekel ... it must be remembered that it was equal to nearly two days' pay for a working man. A month before the Passover, booths were set up in all the towns and villages and it could be paid there; but by far the greater part was actually paid by the pilgrims in Jerusalem when they came to the Passover Feast. In Palestine all kinds of currencies were in circulation, and, for ordinary purposes, they were all -- Greek, Roman Tyrian, Syrian, Egyptian -- equally valid. But this tax had to be paid either in exactly half shekels of the sanctuary or in ordinary Galilean shekels. This is where the money changers came in. To change a coin of exact value they charged one maah, [1/6 of a shekel]. If a larger coin was tendered a charge of one maah was made for the requisite half shekel and of another Maah for the giving of change ... it was an imposition on poor people who could least of all afford it.

Second, let us look at the sellers of animals. Almost every visit to the Temple involved its sacrifice. Victims could be bought outside at very reasonable prices; but the Temple authorities had appointed inspectors, for a victim must be without spot or blemish. It was, therefore, far safer to buy victims from the booths officially set up in the Temple. But there were times when a pair of doves would cost over fifteen times inside the Temple as they did outside. Again it was a deliberately planned victimization of the poor pilgrims, nothing more than legalized robbery. Worse, these Temple shops were known as the booths of Annas and were the property of the family of the High Priest. That is why Jesus was brought first before Annas when he was arrested (John 18:13). Annas was delighted to gloat over this man who had struck such a blow at his evil monopoly.

The Sadducees' Question, Part II

LUKE 20:27-40
So now that we know that the Sadducees believed that Mosaic law says nothing about resurrection, it is easy to see that they hoped to make a fool of Jesus with their question of the wife who married the seven brother in turn. The Ignatius Study Bible states Jesus' response in a nutshell.

Jesus deals with his objectors on their own terms: first, by denying that marriage exists in the next life and, second, by deliberately citing the Mosaic law against them. The burning bush episode shows that Yaweh identified himself with the patriarchs long after their death (Ex 3:6). If Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are still with God, then life must endure beyond death and a future resurrection is implied in the Pentateuch.

William Barclay makes an important point about what we learn about Jesus in this session.

It may well be that we find this an arid passage. It deals with burning questions of the time by means of arguments which a rabbi would find completely convincing but which are not convincing to the modern mind. But out of this very aridity there emerges a great truth for anyone who teaches or who wishes to commend Christianity to his fellows. Jesus used arguments that the people he was arguing with could understand. He talked to them in their own language; he met them on their own ground; and that is precisely why the common people heard him gladly.

It occurred to me that this also is why when God speaks to someone individually it is often in a way that only that person can understand. It might not seem significant to anyone else but that is because God's message is tailored specifically for each person.

The Sadducees' Question, Part I

LUKE 20:27-40
The Sadducees suddenly appear after Jesus has silenced the Sanhedrin. They ask Jesus what seems like a ridiculous question about a woman whose husband dies and is then married in turn to each of his seven brothers as they die one by one. Their question is who the woman will be married to in heaven. William Barclay points out that this question depends on two things. First, it depends on the Mosaic regulations about marriage and, second, it depends on what the Sadducees believe. Really the question only seems silly because we don't know where the Sadducees were coming from. Barclay outlines the differences between the Pharisees and Sadducees so we have a clear frame of reference.

(a) The Pharisees were entirely a religious body. They had no political ambitions and were content with any government which allowed them to carry out the ceremonial law. The Sadducees were few but very wealthy. The priests and the aristocrats were nearly all Sadducees. They were the governing class; and they were largely collaborationist with Rome, being unwilling to risk losing their wealth, their comfort and their place.

(b) the Pharisees accepted the scriptures plus all the thousand detailed regulations and rules of the oral and ceremonial law ... The Sadducees accepted only the written laws of the Old Testament; and in the Old Testament they stressed only the law of Moses and set no store on the prophetic books.

(c) The Pharisees believed in the resurrection from the dead and in angels and spirits. The Sadducees held that there was no resurrection from the dead and that there were no angels or spirits.

(d) the Pharisees believed in fate; and that a man's life was planned and ordered by God. The Sadducees believed in unrestricted free will.

(e) the Pharisees believed in and hoped for the coming of the Messiah; the Sadducees did not. For them the coming of the Messiah would have been a disturbance of their carefully ordered lives.

The Entry of the King

LUKE 19:28-40
In the Gospel of John Bible Study I attended this summer, it was made very clear that Jesus often deliberately provoked confrontation with the Pharisees. Other than a few obvious examples such as driving the moneychangers from the Temple, I never really thought of Jesus in those terms. But time and again Jesus takes it to the Pharisees in ways that they simply cannot ignore.

Here is another such time. Jesus enters Jerusalem on a colt. We so often look at this scene for all the other significance familiar to us, but William Barclay points out just what message this had for the Jews of that time. It was an act of defiance that no one could fail to understand. Even in this moment, however, Jesus was telling everyone something more ... that the Messiah was a king of peace. He gave them chance after chance to get the point but they closed their eyes to it. We must hope that seeing all these examples leaves us with our eyes just a little wider open.

We have to note certain things about this entry into Jerusalem.

(i) It was carefully planned. It was no sudden, impulsive action. Jesus did not leave things until the last moment. He had his arrangement with the owners of the colt. The Lord needs it was a password chosen long ago.

(ii) It was an act of glorious defiance and of superlative courage. By this time there was a price on Jesus' head (John 11:57). It would have been natural that, if he must go into Jerusalem at all, he should have slipped in unseen and hidden away in some secret place in the back streets. But he entered in such a way as to focus the whole lime-light upon himself and to occupy the center of the stage.

(iii) It was a deliberate claim to be king, a deliberate fulfilling of the picture in Zechariah 9:9. But even in this Jesus underlined the kind of kingship which he claimed. The ass in Palestine was not the lowly beast that it is in this country. It was noble. Only in war did kings ride upon a horse; when they came in peace they came upon an ass. So Jesus by this action came as a king of love and peace, and not as the conquering military hero whom the mob expected and awaited.

A Familiar View of Divorce

LUKE 16:14-18
Jesus tells the Pharisees about the unchangeable nature of the law, "it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the law to become invalid." As an example, he then tells them that anyone who divorces their spouse and marries another is committing adultery. The historical perspective on this is especially interesting because I never realized that divorce back then was so easy ... at least for the man ... and that it was endangering family life altogether. Sound familiar? William Barclay explains.

As an illustration of law that would never pass away Jesus took the law of chastity. This very definite statement of Jesus must be read against the contemporary background of Jewish life. The Jew glorified fidelity and chastity ... A Jew must surrender his life rather than commit idolatry, murder or adultery.

But the tragedy was that at this time the marriage bond was on the way to being destroyed. In the eyes of Jewish law a woman was a thing. She could divorce her husband only if he became a leper or an apostate or if he ravished a virgin ...

The matter turned on the interpretation of the phrase some indecency [the qualifier in Mosaic law that allowed a man to divorce his wife] in the Mosaic regulation. The school of Shammai said that meant adultery and adultery alone. The school of Hillel said it could mean "if she spoiled a dish of food; if she spun in the street; if she talked to a strange man"... Human nature being what it is, it was the school of Hillel which prevailed, so that, in the time of Jesus things were so bad that women were refusing to marry at all and family life was in danger.

The Prodigal Son

LUKE 15:11-32
The parable of the Prodigal Son is probably one of the best known stories in the world. It is easy to see why. Every time I read it I get some new insight, usually about myself. In one short story we get the point of view of the repentant sinner, the self righteous man who scorns the sinner and, most of all to my mind, the loving father who understands each all too well and loves them anyway ... God, the Father. Here are some of William Barclay's insights that enriched the meaning further for me.

THE YOUNGER SON
He came home; and, according to the best Greek text, his father never gave him the chance to ask to be a servant. He broke in before that. The robe stands for honor; the ring for authority, for if a man gave to another his signet ring it was the same as giving him the power of attorney; the shoes for a son as opposed to a slave, for children of the family were shod and slaves were not.

THE FATHER
This is not from Barclay as far as I know but from something I read and for which I can't remember the source. No man of dignity ever ran anywhere, certainly not an important man like the father in this parable. This father, however, not only was watching and waiting for his son but actually ran to him, abandoning all dignity in his joy. To me this is one of the greatest moments in the Gospels, picturing God's overwhelming eagerness to bring us home again.

THE OLDER SON
He stands for the self-righteous Pharisees who would rather see a sinner destroyed than saved. Certain things stand out about him.

(i)His attitude shows that his years of obedience to his father had been years of grim duty and not of loving service.

(ii)His attitude is one of utter lack of sympathy. He refers to the prodigal, not as my brother but as your son. ...

(iii)He had a peculiarly nasty mind. There is no mention of harlots until he mentions them. He, no doubt, suspected his brother of the sins he himself would have liked to commit.

The Lost Coin

LUKE 15:8-10
Jesus follows up the parable about the lost sheep with one comparing God's joy at recovering a lost sinner to that of a woman who has recovered a lost silver coin. William Barclay describes the environment and urgency of the woman's search.

The coin in question in this parable was a silver drachma ... It would not be difficult to lose a coin in a Palestinian peasant's house and it might take a long search to find it. The window was not much more than about 18 inches across. The floor was beaten earth covered with dried reeds and rushes; and to look for a coin on a floor like that was very much like looking for a needle in a haystack ...

There are two reasons why the woman may have been eager to find the coin.

(i) It may have been a matter of sheer necessity. It was more than a whole day's wage for a working man in Palestine. These people lived always on the edge of things and very little stood between them and real hunger. This woman may well have searched with intensity because, if she did not find, the family would not eat.

(ii)there may have been a much more romantic reason. The mark of a married woman was a head-dress made of ten silver coins linked together by a silver chain. For years maybe a girl would scrape and save to amass her ten coins, for the headdress was almost the equivalent of her wedding ring. When she had it, it was so inalienably hers that it could not even be taken from her for debt. It may well be that it was one of these coins that the woman had lost, and so she searched for it as any woman would search if she lost her marriage ring.

This parable illustrates the sinner lost through no fault of his own such as those who are unknowingly led astray by others. When we are lost and innocent of blame, we are still lost nonetheless. The road to God can be a hard and long one no matter what the reason. I love the fact that He is anxiously urging us toward him just as the woman is frantically searching for her coin. We never make that journey alone. In fact, in such circumstances, we are just like the silver coin ... not knowing that we even are lost until He picks us up.