The Disciplined Order of Christ

            In the last essay we studied Luke 8:40-56, which included two intertwined stories: the raising of Jairus’ daughter from death and the healing of a hemorrhaging woman.  In this essay we are studying 9:1-27.  There are several significant incidents recorded in these verses.  The first, found in 9:1-6, is the initial mission Jesus gave to the Twelve. 

            Jesus gathered the Twelve and assigned them a mission that he expected them to carry out without his being personally present.  In doing so, he gave them power, which means he equipped them with the ability to execute the assigned tasks.  Jesus also gave them authority, which means that they had the right to exercise the power.  Then Jesus mentioned three aspects of the expected ministry.  They were to take authority over demons; they were to heal diseases; and they were to proclaim the Kingdom of God.  In other words he sent them out to do what he had been doing.  Mark, in his parallel, tells us that Jesus sent the Twelve out two by two (Mk. 6:7).  This mission of the Twelve was a limited one in the sense that it was limited to Galilee, and it was limited to a fairly short period of time. 

            Next, Jesus gave instructions about how to go about the ministry.  The key instruction was that they take no provisions for the road.  They were not to take a staff to aid their walking, probably because it was a brief journey.  They were not to take a bag to carry things in, because none would be needed.  They were to take no bread, because they were to depend on the hospitality of the people for their food.  They were to take no money, again because they were to depend on the hospitality of those ministered to.  And finally, they were not to take a change of clothes.  Again, that would not be necessary.  The idea was that God would provide through the people to whom they ministered. 

            Jesus, being a realist, then gave the Twelve instructions about how to handle either acceptance or rejection by the communities to which they would go.  When a particular household offered them hospitality, they were to accept it and stay there until they completed the ministry in that community (v. 4).  The implication is that they were not to look around for better quarters.  They were to be content with what was offered. 

            In cases where no one in a town offered hospitality, they were to shake the dust from their feet as they left the town (v. 5).  Shaking dust from one’s feet was a powerful symbol in that culture.  It was an established custom in Judaism, but with a different purpose than what we see here.  Jews, when they visited a Gentile territory, which of course was ceremonially unclean, would symbolically shake the dust from their feet upon leaving that territory so that they did not defile the Holy Land when they returned. 

            In this case Jesus was using the same act with Jewish people.  It was to symbolize the fact that a town of Jews, by refusing hospitality to the disciples, indicated that they had rejected the “good news” of the Kingdom of God.  Therefore the shaking off of the dust symbolized that those people were not part of the true Israel.  Finally verse six tells us that the Twelve followed Jesus’ instructions and had a successful tour. 

            In verses 7-9 we find a brief account of the perplexity of Herod Antipas when he heard about what was going on.  The Herod mentioned here was Herod Antipas, who ruled over Galilee and Perea. He was the son of Herod the Great.  Herod heard speculations about who Jesus may have been.  Three are mentioned.  First, he had heard that Jesus was John the Baptist raised from the dead.  As we see here, Herod himself had ordered the death of the Baptist.  Matthew, in his parallel, attributes the statement to Herod himself, which suggests that Herod believed that was the case. 

            Second, Herod heard that Jesus was Elijah who had appeared.  In Jewish tradition, Elijah was to make an appearance at the end of the age to be a herald of the end.  And that would explain why some thought Jesus was Elijah.  But you may recall that Jesus said that John the Baptist had fulfilled that Elijah forerunner role (Mt. 11:13-14). 

            Third, Herod heard that Jesus was one of the prophets, meaning one of the Old Testament prophets, come back to life.  Obviously, there was a lot of wild speculation going on.  And Herod was perplexed by it all.  As a result, moved probably by curiosity, Herod expressed a desire to meet with Jesus. 

            Next, in 9:10-17, we find the famous story of the feeding of the 5,000.  This is the only miracle by Jesus that is recorded in all four Gospels (Mt. 14:13-21; Mk. 6:30-44; Jn. 6:1-14).  It occurred at the height of Jesus’ Galilean ministry, shortly after the Twelve reported back from their two by two ministry.  Notice that Luke refers to the Twelve as “apostles.”  The Twelve no longer were simply disciples of Jesus.  They now were apostles of Jesus. 

            When they reported back, Jesus took them to the vicinity of Bethsaida a more isolated area presumably so that Jesus could debrief them on the mission, and as Mark tells us, so that the entire group could get some rest (Mk. 6:31).  But the crowds soon discovered where they were and arrived on the scene.  Jesus welcomed them and began to preach to them about the kingdom of God and to heal their sick (vv. 10-11). 

            The day quickly passed; and when evening came, the disciples suggested to Jesus that he dismiss the crowd so that they could go into the surrounding villages to find food and lodging.  Instead, Jesus told the disciples to feed them.  But they had only five loaves and two fish, a ridiculously small amount of food in the face of a crowd of 5,000 men, plus any women and children who were present.  And they certainly could not afford to buy food for that many people.  Mark’s account indicates that it would have cost 200 denarii, more than six months wages for a laborer (Mk. 6:37).  Notice that the disciples quickly shared these realities with Jesus (vv. 12-13). 

            Then came the miracle.  Jesus ordered the disciples to have he people sit down in groups of fifty.  Then he took the loaves and fish, gave thanks for them, broke them, and gave them to the disciples to distribute to the crowd.  Amazingly, the food somehow multiplied, and everyone had plenty to eat with twelve baskets of food left over. 

            Notice that the emphasis is on the abundance of provision.  The fact that there were twelve baskets of food left over indicates that everyone’s hunger was satisfied, and none of the Father’s abundance was wasted.  The miracle itself is not described.  That is, nothing is said about how the food was multiplied.  Rather the emphasis is totally on the result of the miracle. 

            Notice also that nothing is said about the crowd’s reaction.  This was a lesson for the disciples, not for the crowds.  Herod had asked, “Who is this guy?”  And the disciples still were asking the same question, as they did at the stilling of the storm in chapter eight, “Who then is this, that he commands even the wind and the water and they obey him” (8:25)?  Now Jesus is showing them who he is.  And then we see in the next segment (9:18-20) that Luke records, the so-called “Confession of Peter.” 

            In these brief verses we see the answer to the question about who Jesus is.  Matthew and Mark give the geographical location of the event, namely, at Caesarea Philippi.  Luke tells us that it took place on an occasion when Jesus was at prayer.  As you can see, Luke places the account immediately following the feeding of the 5,000 and Herod’s confusion about who Jesus was.  Therefore he wanted to answer the question about who Jesus was at this point. 

            Jesus asks the disciples what they had heard from the crowds about the question.  They answer that they had heard the exact same things that Herod had heard, namely, that Jesus was John the Baptist come back to life, that he was Elijah, or that he was an ancient prophet back from the dead (9:7-8).  Then Jesus asked what they thought; and Peter, answering for all of them, declares that he is the Messiah, the Christ.  Matthew adds, “the Son of the living God.”  “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 

            Notice that Luke leaves out of his Gospel everything in Mark 6:45-8:26 (Mt. 14:22-16:12).  This is sometimes referred to as Luke’s “Great Omission.”  The issue is debated, but most scholars believe the reason for the omission lies in Luke’s purpose.  That is, he intentionally omitted the material.  However, scholars can only guess what his purpose in omitting the material was, so the discussion doesn’t go very far.

            Jesus’ response to Peter’s declaration in 9;21-22 is what often is called “the first passion prediction.”  This is the first of three occasions when Jesus plainly tells the disciples that he must go to Jerusalem (Mt. 16:21), suffer, be rejected, die, and rise again.  Notice that Jesus first tells them to be silent about the revelation that he is the Messiah.  The reason for that was the fact that Jewish public generally thought the Messiah was to be a human, earthly king like David, and Jesus was not that.  So he didn’t want to be identified as the Messiah. 

            Luke has another small omission here.  He doesn’t report the exchange between Peter and Jesus that is found in Matthew and Mark.  They tell us that Peter rebuked Jesus for saying he had to go to Jerusalem to suffer and die.  But Jesus rebuked Peter back by calling him Satan: “Get behind me, Satan!” 

            Next, in 9:23-27, Jesus gave the disciples some conditions for discipleship.  These instructions were for all disciples, not just the Twelve.  Indeed Mark says that Jesus called the crowd to hear them (Mk. 8:34).  Notice that there are three conditions.  First, we must deny ourselves.  Second, we must take up our cross.  The metaphor of the cross was powerful and well understood in Jesus’ day.  And it means the same for us as it did for first-century disciples.  We must be willing to die for Jesus.  And third, we must follow him.  That is, we must go where he goes and do what he does. 

            The following sayings provide some details.  Those who are not willing to die, who wish to save their lives, will lose them.  But those who lose their lives for Jesus’ sake will save them.  Those who are ashamed of Jesus in this life will find Jesus ashamed of them when he returns in glory. 

            Verse 27 was a promise to the people listening to Jesus that day that any among them who fulfilled the three conditions of discipleship would experience the kingdom of God before they died.

            In the last essay we studied Luke 8:16-39, which included several units of material.  Now we are ready to take up Luke 8:40-56, which contains the combined stories of the raising of Jairus’ daughter from death and the healing of a hemorrhaging woman.  Verses 40-42 set up the situation.  After Jesus returned to the Jewish side of the lake, the people warmly greeted him, and a man named Jairus, a leader of a synagogue, approached Jesus.  Jairus was a significant person in his community.  But Jairus knelt at Jesus’ feet and begged him to come to help Jairus’ dying only daughter, a twelve-year-old.  And Jesus went with him. 

            In verses 43-48, we get the intertwining of a second story.  As Jesus went on his way to Jairus’ house, a woman who had been hemorrhaging for twelve years came up behind him and touched “the fringe of his clothes.”  Now this condition meant that the woman had been unable to worship in synagogue all that time, because the hemorrhage would have made her ceremonially unclean.  So her condition had serious social consequences. 

            The word translated “fringe” here has been translated as “hem,” “edge” (NIV) “border,” or “tassel.”  The translation as “tassel” refers to the four tassels at the corners of the Jewish outer robe that they wore in obedience to Num. 15:38-40.  The tassels were intended to remind the Jews and others that they were part of the chosen people of God and that they were to obey God’s law.  The Jews wore this garment much like a woman might wear a shawl, with two of the tassels hanging close together down the back.  As we have seen, the woman came up behind Jesus to touch him.  So she easily could have touched a tassel. 

            The woman had spent all of her money on doctors who had not cured her.  Indeed Mark, in his parallel, says that she had endured much under the care of the doctors, which suggests that some of their treatments had not been pleasant.  Mark also tells us that the woman not only had not been cured under their care, but she had gotten worse (Mk. 5:26).  Yet, when she touched the fringe of Jesus’ clothing, she was immediately cured (v. 44). 

            Jesus felt the healing power leave him, and he immediately asked who had touched him.  Peter seemed a bit put out by Jesus’ question.  People were pressing in on Jesus from all sides, and many could have touched him.  But Peter didn’t understand why Jesus had asked the question.  The touching he was referring to was not a casual touching.  It was a touch of strong faith that drew healing power from Jesus.  And he knew it (vv. 45-46). 

            The woman soon realized that Jesus knew it was her.  Perhaps he looked at her in a way that indicated he knew.  At any rate, she came forward trembling, and told her story (v. 47).  Mark tells us she came “in fear and trembling.”  She may have been fearful, because she had acted without permission.  But Jesus responded kindly to her by telling her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; Go in peace.” 

            Some are bothered by the fact that healing power went forth from Jesus without his consciously controlling it?  Some have said that the incident smacks of magic.  No, it was not magic.  And God was in control of the situation.  It was a Holy Spirit response to her faith. 

            At this point Luke returns to the original story about Jairus’ daughter.  The transition is immediate.  In 8:49-50 we see that just as Jesus was speaking his words of encouragement to the healed woman, a messenger arrived from Jairus’ house.  And the news was not good.  The message was, “Your daughter is dead.  Do not trouble the teacher any longer.”  But Jesus did not accept that report.  He said to Jairus, “Do not fear.  Only believe, and she will be saved.”  The word translated “saved” could have been translated “healed,” as in the NIV.  The word for salvation means healing when it is used in a medical context. 

            In verses 51-56 it isn’t absolutely clear whether the mourners who were doing all of the weeping and wailing were outside or inside the house.  But Mark’s parallel makes it clear that they were inside the house.  Thus it appears that it was the room in which the girl was located to which Jesus refused access, except for her parents and the three disciples.  Before going into the room, Jesus told the weeping mourners to stop weeping, because the girl was not dead, but sleeping.  They laughed at him, because they knew she was dead.  The interesting thing here is that for Jesus, the Son of God, to awaken someone from death was as easy as awakening them from normal sleep. 

            You may recall that Jesus had used this same language in respect to Lazarus in John, chapter 11.  In Jn. 11:11 Jesus told the disciples that Lazarus had “fallen asleep” and that he was going to Lazarus to “wake him up.”  They misunderstood Jesus to mean normal sleep, and suggested that it meant he would recover (vv. 12-13).  But Jesus corrected them, by saying that Lazarus was dead (v. 14). 

            In this instance of the dead daughter, Jesus took the girl by the hand and said, “Child, get up.”  And her spirit returned and she got up.  In his inimical practical way, Jesus told the parents to get her something to eat.  Two things clearly indicate that she was genuinely brought back to physical life.  One was the command to get her something to eat that we see here in Luke, and the other we see in Mark who tells us that she began to walk around after getting up. 

            The account closes with a command from Jesus to the parents not to tell anyone what had happened.  This was fairly common in Jesus’ ministry, because he didn’t want extra attention coming his way because of his miracles.  But there was little point in saying that here, because the miracle happened in a rather public way with the family and mourners present at the house; and there would be no silencing them. 

            Turning to application, the first thing we want to notice is that Jesus ministered to all kinds of people, and these two cases illustrate that.  The man was a prominent person in his community, a leader in the synagogue.  He had been blessed by twelve years of joy with his daughter.  The woman was an anonymous person who had unsuccessfully spent all she had on doctors.  And she had experienced twelve-years of misery because of her affliction.  But Jesus met the need of both. 

            The most significant thing we learn here is that Jesus has power over both sickness and death.  In the case of the hemorrhaging woman, she tapped into Jesus’ power to heal by means of her faith.  We can do the same.  It is true that we don’t often get the kind of immediate results that the woman got, but we know the healing power of God is available to us. 

            And in the case of the girl, the raising of her from physical death encourages our faith in respect to our promised resurrection in the end time.  Just as Jesus called back the girl’s spirit and brought her back to physical life, he will call back our spirits and reconstitute our bodies for life in the eternal kingdom of the end time.

            In our last essay we studied Luke 8:1-15.  In this essay we are studying Luke 8:16-39, which contains several elements.  In verses 16-18 we find the parable of the Lamp.  Then verses 19-21 tell us who Jesus’ true relatives are.  Following that, in verses 22-25, we find the account of Jesus’ stilling of the storm; and in verses 26-39, we see Jesus’ dramatic healing of a Gerasene demoniac. 

            The audience for the parable of the lamp in 8:16-18 included the crowds, but the teaching was intended for Jesus’ disciples.  The lamp referred to is the common oil lamp of the Middle East.  Therefore the listeners would immediately have grasped the foolishness of hiding one under a jar, or under a bed.  Lamps by definition are not to be hidden.  They are to be placed where they can give light to all who enter the room. 

            So the question we must ask ourselves, as always, is what is the point of the parable in this context?  Verses 17 and 18 tell us.  First, no light is shed at all unless the lamp is lit.  Jesus is telling the disciples to be a lamp.  Back in verses 9-10, which we studied in the last essay, Jesus explained that he revealed the “mysteries” of the kingdom of God to the disciples when he explained the parables to them.  Thus the “secrets” or “mysteries” of the kingdom were what was hidden until Jesus revealed it to the disciples.  Now the disciples were responsible to make it known to the world.  They are to light their lamps and share the good news. 

            Second, notice that this good news about the kingdom is going to be revealed to the world, whether or not they become lamps.  And that’s why Jesus warns them in verse 18 to listen carefully to what he is telling them.  He reminds them of the important spiritual principle, “to those who have, more will be given; and from those who do not have, even what they seem to have will be taken away.” 

            When God blesses us with a revelation of truth, we are responsible to make that truth known to others.  If we fail to do that, and try to use it only to benefit ourselves, we eventually will lose the benefit.  This principle is illustrated by the Parable of the Pounds that we will be studying later in Luke’s Gospel.  It’s found in Luke 19:11-27.  In that parable Jesus tells us about a nobleman who had to go to a far country.  He called ten of his servants to him and gave each of them a sum of money.  In the NRSV the sum is called a pound, and in the NIV it is called a mina.  The amount of money is not particularly important.  What they did with the money is very important. 

            When the nobleman returned, he called the ten to give an accounting of their stewardship.  Jesus reports on three of them.  One had invested the pound and now had ten pounds.  The nobleman rewarded him by giving him authority over ten cities.  The second also had invested and now had five pounds.  He was rewarded with authority over five cities.  The third, however, had not invested the money.  He didn’t even put the money in a bank where it would make interest.  He had 0nly the original pound.  The nobleman commanded that his pound be given to the man who had ten pounds.  And when someone questioned that, Jesus declared, “I tell you, that to everyone who has [meaning proven to be a good steward] will more be given; but from him who has not [meaning has not been a good steward], even what he has will be taken away.” 

            Do you see how that parable illustrates the situation of the disciples?  They have been given, not money, but the “secrets” of the kingdom.  And they now have the responsibility to be good stewards of those “secrets.”  If they prove to be good stewards, they will be rewarded.  But if they prove to be bad stewards, they will lose the privileges that they already have. 

            In 8:19-21 we see who Jesus’ spiritual relatives are.  The scene begins with the arrival of Jesus’ mother and brothers.  But they could not get to him because of the large crowd.  They sent word that they were there and wanted to see him; but when Jesus was told, he made a teaching moment out of the situation by saying, “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.”  By that statement, Jesus clearly indicated that to be part of his spiritual “family” one has to hear and do the word of God. 

            Now then, in 8:22-25 we find the story of Jesus’ stilling a storm.  The connection with what precedes is very weak.  Luke simply changes the subject by saying “One day.”  But Mark says that it was that same day (Mk. 4:35).  So on that day Jesus got into a boat with the disciples and suggested that they go “to the other side of the lake.”  Mark tells us that there were other boats as well (Mk 4:36).  So they set sail, and Jesus, apparently overcome with fatigue, went to sleep. 

            Then a severe storm arose that caused the boat to take on water and put them in danger.  When I was in Israel and visited the Sea of Galilee, it was beautifully calm.  And since it isn’t that large a lake, an observer like myself would never know how violent storms rise rather quickly on the lake.  But they do.  It has something to do with the mountains surrounding the lake.  Sometimes the winds sweep down off the mountains and create huge storms like the one reported on here. 

            The storm obviously had not disturbed Jesus’ sleep.  The disciples who were afraid, woke him up and shouted, “Master, Master, we are perishing.”  And Jesus, now awake, stilled the storm.  Mark tells us that Jesus rebuked the storm, saying, “Peace!  Be still!” (Mk. 4:39).  Now coming back to Luke, the reason the story is told is seen in verse 25.  Jesus asks, “Where is your faith?  Mark, in his parallel, reports that Jesus said, “Why are you afraid?  Have you still no faith?” 

            Jesus apparently thought that the disciples should have been less fearful in the situation.  The point is, when the heart is filled with faith there is no reason to panic during a difficult time.  And the disciples definitely panicked in that situation. 

            Notice that the disciples were amazed at Jesus’ power over the forces of nature.  This apparently was the first time that they saw him work a nature miracle.  And it caused them to ask, “Who then is this who commands even the winds and the water, and they obey him?”  The disciples had not yet clearly or fully grasped that Jesus was God in the flesh.  We are moving in our study of Luke toward the day at Caesarea Philippi when Peter would confess that Jesus is “the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (Mt. 16:16).  But the disciples are not to that point yet. 

            Next, in 8:26-31, comes the account of the healing of the Gerasene demoniac.  Jesus and the disciples were sailing from the Galilean side of the lake to the southeastern side, to the “country of the Gerasenes,” or “Gadarenes,” or “Gergasenes” (v. 26).  Different manuscripts have these different spellings.  The NRSV goes with Gerasenes.  This territory was in the larger area called the Decapolis, a Gentile area.  

            As soon as Jesus stepped ashore, a demoniac approached him.  The demoniac is described in verse 27 as going naked and living in the tombs (v. 27).  Then in verse 29 we are told that authorities in the area had tried to chain and shackle him, but he always broke the bonds and fled into the wilds.  Verse 29 also tells us that Jesus ordered the demon to leave him, and that was why the man fell down before Jesus and shouted, “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God?  I beg you, do not torment me” (v. 28).  Jesus reply to the outburst was to ask the man his name.  He answered “Legion,” because many demons had entered into him (v. 30).  Then they begged him not to send them into “the abyss,” which is a term for the underworld place of imprisonment for demons.

            In verses 32-33 we see the peculiar situation of the destruction of a herd of swine.  The presence of the pigs indicates that this was indeed a mostly Gentile area.  Pigs were unclean animals to Jews, and they did not herd them.  Of course the question arises as to why Jesus allowed the demons to enter the herd of pigs.  The best answer to that question that I have seen is that the deaths of the pigs demonstrated the intention of demons.  They wish to destroy those whom they inhabit.  Human beings can be destroyed without physically killing them; but in the case of the swine, the only way to destroy them was to kill them. 

            The sight of the pigs rushing to their deaths horrified the herdsmen who immediately ran to spread the news (v. 34).  Some of the people came out to see what happened, and found the formerly demon possessed man sitting at the feet of Jesus clothed and in his right mind.  That man was well known throughout the country, and they could not deny that a miracle had taken place.  The text doesn’t say anything about their seeing the bodies of the dead pigs floating in the sea, but I’m sure that was another important part of the experience.  What they saw struck great fear into their hearts (v. 35). And it led the local people to ask Jesus to leave, which he did (v. 37).  The healed man wanted to go with Jesus, but Jesus told him to stay and be a witness among his own people (vv. 38-39). 

            Turning to application, in the first section, verses 16-18, which contained the parable of the lamp, we learned that we must be lamps.  We have been entrusted with the “secrets” of the kingdom, and we have a responsibility to share that revelation with the world.  If we don’t, we may lose our privileges and rewards. 

            In the second little section, verses 19-21, we learned who are the true family members of Jesus. It is those of us who hear the word of God and do it.  So it is extremely important that we know God’s word and commit ourselves to obeying it. 

            In the third section, verses 22-25, in which Jesus calmed the storm, we learned not to panic when times are tough.  Our faith is sufficient to see us through difficult times calmly. 

            Finally, in the fourth section, verses 26-39, we saw the determination of demonic forces to destroy those whom they possess.  And we saw the power of God over such forces.  We also saw once again, in the example of the healed demoniac, our responsibility to bear a witness to what Christ has done for us.

            In the last essay we studied Luke 7:36-50, which is the story about Jesus, a Pharisee, and a sinful woman.  In this essay we are ready to take up chapter eight.  Although we rarely hear anyone speak of verses 1-3, they are quite important because Luke here supplies some very important information. First, he tells us that at some point in his Galilean ministry, Jesus left his base at Capernaum and began an itinerant ministry, traveling from town to town in Galilee and other places, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom.  Commentators generally don’t talk about how that ministry was carried out.  I suspect that they camped out in tents, because the inns of the day were nasty places, and they probably could not have handled such a large group anyway. 

            Second, Luke informs us that the Twelve and a band of women accompanied him.  The women all had been delivered from demons or healed in some other way.  Obviously, this apparent camping arrangement was very unusual for first-century Jewish society; and I am certain that the fact that mixed company was involved would have generated a lot of criticism and gossip.  Three of the women are mentioned by name: Mary Magdalene [Magdala was a town on the west side of the Sea of Galilee, about three miles from Tiberias.], who had been delivered from seven devils, Joanna, the wife of Herod’s steward, Chuza, and Susanna, who is not further identified. 

            Finally, third, Luke tells us that the women had the financial resources to support the ministry and did so.  This also would have been unusual.  Supplying food for such a large group would have been fairly expensive, but apparently, these women did that. 

            Next we find the famous parable of the sower.  Before we discuss it, let me give you a brief overview of what parables are.  Jesus’ parables represent one of the most characteristic elements in his teaching style, especially as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels.  Most people, when they think of the meaning of the term “parable,” think of stories such as the parables of the Prodigal son (Lk 15:11-32) or the Good Samaritan (Lk. 10:29-37).  They are correct, but the concept of parable is much more complex than that. 

            The term “parable” itself comes from two, little Greek words, para and ballo.  para is a preposition meaning “beside;” and ballo is a verb that means “to throw,” or “cast.”  Thus “parable” means literally “to throw beside” and suggests the idea of comparison.  That is, two things are thrown beside one another for purposes of comparison. 

            There are two basic types of parables.  First, there are the narrative or story type parables.  They are fully developed stories that normally make a single point.  The parable of the Good Samaritan would be a typical example.

            A second variety of parable is the simple parable, or similitude.  Simple parables do not involve an extended narrative.  And they are introduced by a formula of comparison, e.g., “the kingdom of heaven is like . . . .”  Like the narrative parables, they normally make a single point. 

            As you can see, verses 4-8 contain the so-called parable of the sower.  Then the parable is followed, in verses 9-10, by a statement about the function of parables.  And that is followed, in verses 11-15, by an allegorical interpretation of the parable of the sower. 

            Notice in verses 11-15 that Jesus gives each type of soil in the parable (hard, rocky, thorny, and fertile) a symbolic meaning representing differing responses on the part of persons who hear the Word of God.  Thus it is obvious that Jesus interpreted the parable allegorically.  Any time symbolic meanings that are not part of the text itself (in this case the parable itself) are assigned by its interpreter, that interpreter is doing allegorical interpretation. 

            The fact that Jesus used allegory is not a problem.  He did that with a couple of other of his parables as well (the parable of the Wheat and Tares (Mt. 13:24-30), and the parable of the Royal wedding, Mt. 22:1-14).  However a problem did develop in the church when the church for many centuries assumed that all parables should be interpreted allegorically.

            For example, the church father, Augustine, interpreted the parable of the Good Samaritan as an allegory on the plan of salvation, as did other Church leaders before and after him.  This was typical of parable interpretation until the nineteenth century. 

            Augustine identified the man who was traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho as Adam.  He said that Jerusalem represents “the place of heavenly peace” and Jericho our sinful human life.  Augustine declared that the robbers who attacked the man and left him for dead represent the devil and his angels, and the Good Samaritan the Lord Jesus.  The inn represents the church and the innkeeper the Apostle Paul.  The two pence are the two love commandments: love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself.  And he continued on and on, giving symbolic meanings for every detail. 

            The truth is, Jesus told that story not as an allegory on the plan of salvation, but to make a particular point.  He told the parable in answer to a question by a lawyer who had stood up in a meeting and asked Jesus who it is one should consider a neighbor.  Jesus’ point in telling the story was to make it clear that one should consider anyone who is in need to be his neighbor; and to help a person in need is to act as a neighbor towards him.  That was the point of the story.  Turning the parable into an allegory on the plan of salvation leads us away form the actual point of the story that Jesus was making.

            Obviously, the only limit to allegorical interpretation is the limit of one’s imagination.  And for many years interpreters, using their imaginations, gave allegorical interpretations to parables that Jesus told to make a single point.  What the church failed to realize was that Jesus’ allegorical interpretation of the parable of the sower and a couple of others, were exceptions to the rule rather than the rule.  The rule for parable use (and Jesus did not originate their use by the way) was to make a single point; and that is generally the case with the parables of Jesus. 

            All right, turning now to the parable of the sower, I am not going to rehearse the well-known parable itself in verses 4-8.  In verses 9-10 we see what Jesus had to say about his reason for speaking in parables.  The disciples ask Jesus the meaning of what they have just heard.  And Jesus replies, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God; but to others I speak in parables, so that ‘looking they may not perceive, and listening they may not understand.’” 

            The word translated “secrets” literally means “mysteries.”  And when the word “mystery” is used in the New Testament, it always refers to some “secret” of God’s plan that he is only now revealing.  So Jesus is saying that he was revealing God’s plan to the disciples.  “But to others I speak in parables, so that ‘looking they may not perceive, and listening they may not understand.’” 

            You may recognize that the last part of that statement is based on Isaiah 6:9-10.  It isn’t a quotation, but it gives that basic content.  This statement by Jesus has puzzled some, because it seems as if Jesus is saying that he intentionally did not want the people to understand his words.  Mark’s parallel makes the same impression.  But if you turn to Matthew’s parallel, you will see something different. 

            Matthew’s parallel is in Mt. 13:10-15.  Please turn to it.  Matthew has two major differences.  The first is seen in verse 12.  Neither Mark nor Luke has that saying at this point.  They include it, but later on (LK. 8:18). 

            The second major difference, and this is the more important one, is located in the next verse, verse 13: “The reason I speak to them in parables is that ‘seeing they do not perceive and hearing they do not listen, nor do they understand.’”  Clearly Matthew’s account is not saying the same thing that Luke’s and Mark’s seem to be saying.  Matthew is reporting that Jesus taught in parables, as a result of the unbelief of the people.  Luke and Mark seem to be reporting that Jesus taught in parables for the purpose of keeping his salvation from the people. 

            Some liberal scholars believe that Mark and Luke meant that Jesus intended exactly what we see on the surface, and what they say contradicts what Matthew says.  Other scholars (Joachim Jeremias and evangelicals) suggest that Mark and Luke meant the same thing that Matthew clearly says.  That is, they harmonize the two accounts.  I am not going into all of that, because it involves a lot of Greek and so on; but it can legitimately be done. 

            In summary, I would say that Jesus, when teaching with parables, used two different methods with two different groups.  First, with the unbelieving multitudes, there was partial disclosure of God’s revelation in the parables, with a possibility of their understanding.  That is, if they really wanted to understand, and paid attention, they could “get it.”  Or at last they could make further inquiry.  The parable of the sower is itself an excellent example.  It explains how different people respond differently to God’s “seed” as it is scattered.

            Second, when Jesus explained the parables to his disciples, there was full disclosure of God’s revelation.  But interestingly, there was only partial understanding.  The disciples didn’t always “get it,” even with the explanations. 

            Verses 11-15 give Jesus’ allegorical interpretation of the parable of the sower.  The seed symbolizes the Word of God that is scattered on various people.  And the four kinds of soil (hard, rocky, thorny, and fertile) symbolize the receptivity of those on whom the Word of God falls.  Thus Jesus gave allegorical meanings to the story.  Again, I am not going to work through the types of soil, because the parable is so familiar. 

            The obvious application is that those of us who are like the good soil will be fruitful in whatever ministry God calls us to do.

            In the last essay we studied Luke 7:18-35, a section featuring Jesus and John the Baptist.  In this essay we study Luke 7:36-50, which is a story about Jesus’ forgiveness of a sinful woman.  The story begins when a Pharisee invites Jesus to dinner, an invitation he accepted (v. 36).  Jesus cared about, and was interested in, all people, regardless of their social status.  He was willing to eat with Pharisees, tax collectors, and sinners alike.  People in the upper ranges of Jewish society criticized Jesus for his obvious lack of discrimination in dining companions; but some, like this Pharisee, were friendly to him. 

            However the friendly Pharisee thought Jesus went over the line when an unexpected person arrived on the scene.  But first, let me set the scene.  The guests would have been reclining on divans around the table.  I’m sure you have seen pictures of the Last Supper that show Jesus and his disciples reclining around the table.  The arrangement would have been similar here.  It meant that the guests’ feet extended back behind them, as opposed to under the table, as in our culture. 

            Then “a woman of the city” who is described as “a sinner” came in.  She was carrying “an alabaster jar of ointment,” or perfume.  She may have been a prostitute.  And the perfume may have been purchased with the money earned from her sinful lifestyle.  However, there is no way to know with certainty (v. 37). 

            Now you may be wondering, “How did she get in there?”  If it were a Greek style house, and that’s a big if, then the dining room would have had an open side facing a central courtyard that would have been accessible from outside the house.  But apart from that, I don’t know how she would have gotten into the house.  But she did. 

            The woman came up behind Jesus.  Her original intention may have been to anoint his head with the perfume.  That would have been a rather typical means of honoring someone.  But it appears that she was overcome with emotion.  She began to weep copiously, and the tears fell on Jesus’ feet.  That evidently embarrassed her; and having no other means of drying off his feet, she undid her hair and dried them with her hair. 

            I believe that act best showed how emotional she was.  Jewish women, even prostitutes, did not let their hair down in public.  That just wasn’t done.  But this woman was so emotional she didn’t hesitate to let her hair down to dry Jesus’ feet.  Then she began to kiss his feet and to anoint them with the perfume. 

            You can imagine the shock of the people sitting around the table.  First, the woman crashed the party.  She was uninvited.  Second, she broke Jewish convention by letting her hair down in public.  Third, she humiliated herself by kissing Jesus’ feet.  And fourth, she anointed his feet with her perfume, an act that was not normal.  But just as stunning was the fact that Jesus obviously was permitting all of this.  He made no objection to her expressions of love.  I believe everyone there was stunned. 

            In verse 39 we see that the host Pharisee did not say anything out loud, but he had plenty to say to himself.  He thought, “If Jesus were a real prophet, he would have known how much of a sinner this woman was.”  The implication was that a real prophet would have known that she was a great sinner and would not have allowed such an unclean woman to touch him. 

            But Jesus knew more than the Pharisee realized.  He even knew what the Pharisee was thinking, as the parable Jesus tells the Pharisee indicates.  As you see, the parable, found in verses 40-43 perfectly fits the situation of the woman and the Pharisee.  It is about a creditor who was owed very different amounts by two debtors.  One debtor owed him 500 denarii, a huge amount.  That was equivalent to more than a year and four months pay for a laborer in that culture.  The other debtor owed 50 denarii, the equivalent of less than two months pay.  Therefore the smaller debt was significant, but nowhere near as significant as the larger debt.  Unfortunately, neither debtor was able to repay his debt.  So the creditor, in a fantastic act of compassion forgave both debts. 

            Then Jesus asked Simon, the Pharisee, “Which of them will love him more?”  And the Pharisee rightly answered, “I suppose the one for whom he cancelled the greater debt.”  You will notice that the Pharisee’s response was a bit tepid.  The Pharisee may have answered cautiously, because he saw where Jesus was going with parable. 

            Then Jesus brought Simon’s attention back to the woman and spoke to him once again, this time with a scathing rebuke.  Notice that Jesus draws three contrasts between Simon’s lack of actions as Jesus’ host and the woman’s actions in the situation. 

            First, a good host in that culture always provided water for the washing of guests’ feet.  Simon had not done that.  But the woman washed Jesus’ feet with her tears and dried them with her hair (v. 44). 

            Second, it was the custom to offer a kiss of peace to a guest upon arrival at one’s home, but Simon had not done that.  Yet the woman had kissed Jesus’ feet again and again (v. 45). 

            Third, it was customary, if one had a special guest whom one wanted to honor, to anoint that guest ‘s head with oil when they arrived.  Simon had not treated Jesus as a special guest by doing that; but the woman anointed Jesus’ feet with expensive perfume (v. 46). 

            Then came the kicker.  Jesus told Simon, “Therefore I tell you, her sins, which were many, have been forgiven; hence she has shown great love.  But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little” (v. 47).

            Jesus’ point was clear.  In Jesus’ parable, the amounts of debt that the two debtors had incurred represented the sins of the woman and the Pharisee respectively.  She indeed had a great debt of sin.  And his debt of sin was minor in comparison.  But her sins were forgiven (v. 48), and as a result, she loves much.  Jesus doesn’t say whether or not the Pharisee’s sins were forgiven.  But in any case, he loves little.  It may be that the Pharisee had no idea how great his sin debt was.  But the result is the same.  He loves little in comparison to the woman whom he despised. 

            Now I believe it is important not to misunderstand something here.  Parables are like analogies. They break down when pressed too far.  Jesus was not saying that one has to be a gross sinner in order to have much love for him.  Every sinner, no matter how big or small his or her forgiven sin debt is, enters into a love relationship with Jesus, and experiences great love for Jesus.  This parable was aimed at this particular Pharisee, and applied to him in a direct way.  Simon saw the sinfulness of the woman, but he didn’t see his own sinfulness.  Because he was blind to his sinfulness, he loved little.  The story ends in verses 49-50 with the astonishment of the dinner guests at Jesus’ ability to forgive sins; and Jesus’ declaration to the woman that her faith had saved her. 

            Turning to application, the first lesson we should take from this story is that we do not want to make the mistake of the Pharisee and fail to see our own sinfulness.  That is very scary.  Some people shut themselves off from God’s forgiveness, because of spiritual blindness. 

            Second, like the woman, we must confess and repent of our sins.  Whatever our sin debt may be, we are sinners who need to repent and receive forgiveness.  With that transaction, we enter into the love relationship with Jesus that I mentioned earlier, and we love him much.  Praise the Lord! 

            And third, we must not forget that Jesus is the forgiving Savior.  Remember, the woman’s tears and kisses did not save her.  She was saved by her faith (v. 50).