Luke 15:1–3, 11–3 ESV – Bible Gateway

The Gospel starts with three verses giving context to what Jesus is replying to. The Pharisees and scribes focus only on apparent scandal and do not see Jesus’ mission to come to save sinners. He tells three parables on the common theme of something being lost and then being found, starting with the parables of the “Lost Sheep” and the “Lost Coin” before proceeding on to the parable referenced today.

This is commonly referred to as the Parable of the Prodigal Son, and there has been plenty of homilies and commentaries and why the common title might not be the best. As Brant Pitre references, “whatever you call the parable has an effect on the way you interpret it because it puts a certain emphasis somewhere.”[1] This is true, and what you read can be narrowed by the interpretive lens you use. Others have come up with titles that emphasize the merciful father or the two sons. Brant Pitre proposes “The Parable of the Lost Son” because it is the last of three parables emphasizing this point, and the language of lost is used in the parable itself. I like the both/and approach here in that all of these titles accurately emphasize parts of this complex parable.

First off, looking at the issue of the inheritance, Rev. Pablo T. Gadenz, in his commentary, writes:

An inheritance was typically distributed after death (Num 27:8–11), but it was possible, though not advised, to do so while a person was still alive (Sir 33:20–24). However, the younger son takes the initiative here with his demand: give me my share. For him, the father might as well be dead. Under no obligation and despite the shame incurred, the father nonetheless complies out of respect for the younger son’s free decision. Since the firstborn son would receive a double portion (Deut 21:17), the younger son apparently received a third of the property. The remaining two-thirds is destined for the older son, so the father does not exaggerate when he later says, “Everything I have is yours” (Luke 15:31).[2]

The son was willing to sunder his relationship with his father and go off to a far country and live a life of the flesh. To show no concern for his relationships with his family and to be like the Epicureans, who argued that pleasure was the chief good in life. A version of YOLO, ’You Only Live Once.“ As we would expect, this did not go well for him to live a life of dissipation. When he hits rock bottom, He decides that he will arise and return to the father. The repeating of arise or ”get up“ is ”one of the verbs used for Jesus’ resurrection (18:33; 24:7, 46). Thus, by his repentance, the “dead” son is already coming “to life again” (15:24, 32).”[2] He sees the effects of his sin as exile and that it is leading him into despair. He has descended to live as a beast, even envying the very food he feeds the pigs.

This son’s motive to return to the father is still quite imperfect. He was motivated primarily to place himself in a better position as he realized his previous circumstances were materially better. On his way, he is practicing his speech in how he would be able to reconcile with his father. Still, sin has taught him some humility as he is not just blaming the famine for being brought low. Willing to work as a hired worker without any entitlement.

That he had been in a far-off country was no deterrent to his father, who still saw him when he was a long way off. He allows his son to start his apology but quickly moves into celebration mode. He knows his son is not perfectly contrite, but just like with us, the Father takes any movement towards contrition and will give us the grace to make that deeper. Just as in confession, sorrow for sin, even on the level of the fear of hell, is enough to be forgiven. The father’s reaction seems to be overblown, yet this is the level of mercy with which we are all treated. In the wiping away of sin, we also come to life again.

The father’s gifts have many interpretations, and this is a sampling from the Church Fathers.[3]

(St. Ambrose, Archbishop of Milan, A.D. 374) He rightly returns to himself, because he departed from himself. For he who returns to God restores himself to himself, and he who departs from Christ rejects himself from himself.

(St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, A.D. 396). (de Quæst. Ev. l. ii. q. 33.) Or the best robe is the dignity which Adam lost; the servants who bring it are the preachers of reconciliation.

(ut sup.) Or the ring on the hand is a pledge of the Holy Spirit, because of the participation of grace, which is well signified by the finger.

(St. Ambrose, Archbishop of Milan, A.D. 374). Or the robe is the cloke of wisdom, by which the Apostle covers the nakedness of the body. But he received the best wisdom; for there is one wisdom which knew not the mystery. The ring is the seal of our unfeigned faith, and the impression of truth; concerning which it follows, And put a ring on his hand.

If the parable had ended here, it would have already seemed complete and not as challenging. Jesus then tells of the older son working in the field and hears the celebration. Instead of the joy of seeing his younger brother again, he is filled with envy thinking he was being treated unjustly. He is not willing to acknowledge any relationship with his lost brother. He has followed all the rules and been obedient. Perhaps rather sterile obedience to follow the rules because that was what was expected and not one out of love. Possibly jealousy of the previous lifestyle of his brother.

The father reassures that everything he has is also his. The parable ends, and we are left wondering about the elder son’s reaction to this. This ties it back to how Jesus was replying to the Pharisees and scribes with the themed parables. How to view this was left to the original audience and for us. It was meant as a challenge when we are also small-hearted and can only see someone’s previous sins. When we are proud of the rules, we keep and have a similar merciless attitude towards others.

At what level do we adopt the father’s generosity?

From John Bergsma’s commentary:

Living in the “new creation” of Christ means operating by the father’s “logic” of love, forgiveness, and familial communion, both in our relationship to God and our relationships with others, both with those who seek reconciliation with us (the younger son) and with those who do not want reconciliation (the older son).[4]

This parable on a meta-level involves a history of the Tribes of Israel where the younger son is the northern kingdom which had split off and quickly started to worship other gods. “The “older son” is Judah, (the oldest patriarch not cursed by his father Jacob), the head of the southern kingdom of Judah, which to external appearances was more faithful to the LORD and still lived in the land of Judea, surrounding Jerusalem and the Temple (the “house of the Father”). [4]” The Church Fathers would go on to interpret the younger son as the gentiles, and the oldest as Israel—an interpretive scheme fitting other parables Jesus taught.

To leave off is paragraph 1439 from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The process of conversion and repentance was described by Jesus in the parable of the prodigal son, the center of which is the merciful father: the fascination of illusory freedom, the abandonment of the father’s house; the extreme misery in which the son finds himself after squandering his fortune; his deep humiliation at finding himself obliged to feed swine, and still worse, at wanting to feed on the husks the pigs ate; his reflection on all he has lost; his repentance and decision to declare himself guilty before his father; the journey back; the father’s generous welcome; the father’s joy—all these are characteristic of the process of conversion. The beautiful robe, the ring, and the festive banquet are symbols of that new life—pure, worthy, and joyful—of anyone who returns to God and to the bosom of his family, which is the Church. Only the heart of Christ who knows the depths of his Father’s love could reveal to us the abyss of his mercy in so simple and beautiful a way.

References

• Photo by Ben White on Unsplash
• Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Edition
• The Gospel of Luke, Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture, Rev. Pablo T. Gadenz
• The Word of the Lord: Reflections on the Sunday Mass Readings for Year C – John Bergsma
• Catholic Productions, Commentaries by Brant Pitre
• Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels, Collected out of the Works of the Fathers, Volume 3: St. Luke – Verbum

---

1. Catholic Productions, Brant Pitre  ↩
2. The Gospel of Luke, Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture, Rev. Pablo T. Gadenz  ↩
3. Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels, Collected out of the Works of the Fathers: St. Luke  ↩
4. The Word of the Lord: Reflections on the Sunday Mass Readings for Year C, John Bergsma  ↩

Luke 9:28b–36 ESV – The Transfiguration – Bible Gateway

This passage references that this event occurred eight days after the previous course in Luke with Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Messiah and Jesus going on to say “Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.” In Matthew and Mark, the parallel passage indicates six days. This discrepancy is something some Church Fathers reconcile, but what is important here is how the promise about some of them seeing the kingdom of God is unlocked. Peter, John, and James did see this revealed in the Transfiguration. Each of the Synoptic Gospels provides this time cue to help us to connect the dots.

Luke provides us with some extra details not found in the parallel passages. For example, Jesus went up to the mountain to pray. We see this detail provided in the Gospels to emphasize the importance of what is happening. That Jesus always prays first before such events. In Luke, we see this also before The Sermon on the Mount.

As Jesus is praying his whole appearance changes and he is talking with Moses and Elijah. Luke also gives us a detail about what they were talking about. Specifically, they were talking about Jesus’ exodus and what he was going to accomplish. Just from this information, we don’t know if the two men were “in on his” plan before or if Jesus had just told them. I like the idea of his previously sharing his plan with them and what would be accomplished. Just how excited they would be in this regard.

Another important aspect is Jesus the new Moses and the new exodus. The original exodus starts in Egypt and ends in Jerusalem. The new exodus starts in Jerusalem and as Brant Pitre notes “His exodus is his passion, death, resurrection and ascension into the heavenly Promised Land.”[1]

In regards to Moses and Elijah’s appearance, I have typically read that the two men represent the “Law and the Prophets.” There might be a lot more going on than just this typology. In the Cathechism paragraph [# 2853](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2853.htm), it alludes to the fact that of all the people in the Old Testament, Moses and Eli’jah both went up Mt. Sinai and experienced theophanies with a desire to see the face of God, but they couldn’t do it.

We have two trios, Jesus, Moses, and Elijah along with Peter, John, and James. So why were these Apostles singled out to see this? We have seen taken along in other cases such as the raising of Jairus’s daughter. St. John Damascene has some interesting speculation to prevent Judas from seeing the glory of God, that he might have been provoked to greater wickedness.

But He took with Him three, that in the mouths of two or three witnesses every word should be established. He took Peter, indeed, because He wished to shew him that the witness he had borne to Him was confirmed by the witness of the Father, and that he was as it were to preside over the whole Church. He took with Him James, who was to be the first of all the disciples to die for Christ; but He took John as the clearest singer of the sacred doctrine, that having seen the glory of the Son, which submits not to time, he might sound forth, In the beginning was the Word. (John 1:1) [2]

This is such an important event, and yet Luke gives us the detail that while all this was happening they were heavy with sleep. At the Garden of Gethsemane, we see another instance of this behavior. It is an interesting question as to whether their sleep was natural, or like the passage in the First Reading where a deep sleep falls upon Abram before the covenant was made.

One thus wonders whether the three apostles’ sleep is a taste of death (see Luke 9:27), so that, becoming fully awake and seeing his glory, they have a taste of their future share in his resurrection. [3]

Still, the important detail is that they were fully awake when they witnessed the Transfiguration.

Peter Kreeft notes:

St. Peter, said about it years later when he wrote his second epistle: “We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that unique declaration came to him from the majestic glory, ‘This is my Son, my beloved, with whom I am well pleased.’ We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven while we were with him on the holy mountain” (2 Pet. 1:16–18).[4]

Peter’s reaction seems typical for him, that is, mouth engaging first before thinking this through. Yet he clearly sees this in connection with exodus and the later Feast of Booths in celebration of arriving in the promised land. His mistake, it seems to me, is equating Jesus with Moses and Elijah and not thinking through the implications of what he and the other two apostles witnessed. He and the others finally fall silent when they witness the theophany with the Holy Spirit present and God the Father saying “This is my Son, my beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” The Apostles will keep their silence and not talk about this or tell others “anything of what they had seen.” In the face of mystery, that should also be our reaction and to do as Mary did, that she “treasured up all these things, pondering them in her heart.” (Luke 3:19)

Sources

• The Gospel of Luke, Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture, Rev. Pablo T. Gadenz
• Navarre, Saint Luke’s Gospel (2005)
• Peter Kreeft, Food for the Soul: Reflections on the Mass Readings Year C
• Catholic Productions, Commentaries by Brant Pitre
• Jimmy Akin’s Studies on Mark (3 vols.) – Verbum
• Photo by Ben White on Unsplash>

---

1. Catholic Productions, Brant Pitre  ↩
2. Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels, Collected out of the Works of the Fathers: St. Luke  ↩
3. The Gospel of Luke, Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture, Rev. Pablo T. Gadenz  ↩
4. Peter Kreeft, Food for the Soul: Reflections on the Mass Readings Year C  ↩

Luke 4:1–11 ESV – The Temptation of Jesus – And Jesus, – Bible Gateway

This passage in Luke is just so rich in meaning and parallels it is difficult to limit it to some quick observations. Just the first line relates to Jesus being baptized by John and that the Holy Spirit descended and now Jesus is filled and led by the Holy Spirit is filled with mystery.

The first Sunday in Lent always uses a reading dealing with an account of Jesus’s temptations in the desert. Since it is year C, we are using Luke’s account. In scripture, we see the significance of the number “40” as it relates to a period of purification, testing, and also of preparation. We see this first used as it related to Noah and we especially see this in the Exodus account. In Exodus, the Israelites start their journey by passing through the Red Sea before entering the wilderness. St. Paul in 1 Corinthians (10:1–4) describes this event as them being baptized into Moses. An allusion that was also picked up by the Church Fathers. Jesus is baptized and then also enters into the desert.

Jesus spend these 40 days fasting from all food and at the end, Luke says “he was hungry.” This seems like such an understatement while also pointing to the humanity of Jesus. He is then presented with a series of temptations from the devil.

Jimmy Akin notes:

The Greek verb used here (peirazō) means not only tempt but also test. The devil can be seen as testing Jesus—putting pressure on Jesus to see whether it is possible to get him to give in to sin. [1]

As he also notes this could be a test by the devil to find out if Jesus is actually the Son of God or that this is just done out of sheer spite, without actual hope of corrupting him.

In Luke’s account, the order of the three temptations is different than that of Matthew. In Mark, it is only mentioned briefly that Jesus was tempted by Satan. Brant Pitre writes that “we don’t exactly know which order they happened in but you can make a strong case—is that in Luke’s account, he’s highlighting the order that corresponds to the order of Adam’s fall.”[2] In Luke, “Jesus’ genealogy is presented, going back to Adam. Like Adam, Jesus is tempted by the devil. Unlike Adam, Jesus is victorious over temptation, thus revealing that he is the one who can save humanity from sin.”[3]

In 1 John 2:16, we see a formulation of three dominant temptations. “For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life.”

We can see this plainly in Genesis 3:6:

6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.

Brant Pitre’s summary of the Threefold Concupiscent states:

It’s basically the universal, human, experience of a disordered desire for pleasure (the pleasure of the flesh, that’s the lust of the flesh), whether it be sexual pleasure or the pleasure of food and drink. Number 2, a disordered desire for possessions, that’s the lust of the eyes. We see something that doesn’t belong to us and we want to possess it, like Eve saw the fruit and wanted to possess it, even though it didn’t belong to her. And the third one is pride or vanity. It’s a disordered love of self to the exclusion of the love of God, and that’s what happens to Adam and Eve. It was desirable to make one wise like God. In other words, they want the wisdom of God, they want to be wise like God, by breaking God’s commandment (which is irrational, but it’s what drives them). So they choose three things that are actually good. The fruit is good, food’s good; possessions are good, God gives Adam and Eve the whole word; and even the desire to be like God is a good thing, to be wise is a good thing. But in this case, they want good things but in a bad way.[2]

The devil’s first question seems to be a test of Jesus if he will serve his own needs or those of others? In the second question, the devil assumes what Jesus would later call the Prince of the World. That he has authority over the kingdoms and thus control over their ultimate destination. That if only Jesus would bow down to him, he would release his grip on the world and give control to him. Jesus again answers him again with scripture in that it is only God we should worship and serve.

Peter Kreeft offers what he calls an original and unusual interpretation of the second temptation.

If you do things your way, only some of your beloved children will be saved and I will keep some of them forever in hell. But if you do things my way—if you bow down to me and my will—I will release all those souls from hell and you will get what you most want: to save everybody, all these children you so dearly love. And that—universal salvation—would be the very best thing that could possibly happen, the greatest good in the world. So that was a real temptation to Christ. But the means to that end would be the worst sin, idolatry, worshiping a false God instead of the true God. So this is a temptation to let the good end justify an evil means, to be a moral relativist, a utilitarian, a pragmatist.[4]

The third time the devil decides to quote scripture himself and uses part of Psalm 91 as a proof text. A test of pride to see who Jesus is. That if he is really the Son of God why go through this slow reveal and get right to it and show his power. Possibly hoping that Jesus might have a “Don’t you know who I am?” moment. The fallen angels, who are beings of pure intellect, fell through the only sin they could seem to commit—pride. To place oneself always before others. Jesus’ humility was something he could not grasp.

Philippians 2:8: And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Ironically the devil quotes from a Psalm that was used in Jesus’ time for exorcisms and he leaves out a subsequent verse.

You will tread on the lion and the adder; the young lion and the serpent you will trample underfoot.

This is a good reminder that when someone throws a proof text at you, to read for context.

To summarize this section of Luke we can look at Paragraph 539 of the Catechism:

The evangelists indicate the salvific meaning of this mysterious event: Jesus is the new Adam who remained faithful just where the first Adam had given in to temptation. Jesus fulfills Israel’s vocation perfectly: in contrast to those who had once provoked God during forty years in the desert, Christ reveals himself as God’s Servant, totally obedient to the divine will. In this, Jesus is the devil’s conqueror: he “binds the strong man” to take back his plunder. Jesus’ victory over the tempter in the desert anticipates victory at the Passion, the supreme act of obedience of his filial love for the Father.[5]

And then Paragraph 540:

Jesus’ temptation reveals the way in which the Son of God is Messiah, contrary to the way Satan proposes to him and the way men wish to attribute to him. This is why Christ vanquished the Tempter for us: “For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sinning.” By the solemn forty days of Lent the Church unites herself each year to the mystery of Jesus in the desert.[5]

Sources

• The Gospel of Luke, Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture, Rev. Pablo T. Gadenz
• Peter Kreeft, Food for the Soul: Reflections on the Mass Readings Year C
• Catholic Productions, Commentaries by Brant Pitre
• Jimmy Akin’s Studies on Mark (3 vols.) – Verbum
• Photo by Ben White on Unsplash

---

1. Jimmy Akin. (2014). Mark, A Commentary  ↩
2. Catholic Productions, Brant Pitre  ↩
3. The Gospel of Luke, Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture, Rev. Pablo T. Gadenz  ↩
4. Peter Kreeft, Food for the Soul: Reflections on the Mass Readings Year C  ↩
5. Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed). United States Catholic Conference.  ↩