Mark 5:4, 19-20; Luke 8:29, 39

Luke 8:26-39 was the Gospel reading on the Worship Anew program for the Second Sunday of Pentecost last year (22 June).  I was following along in the Latin Vulgate and noticed a characteristic in verse 29 that (probably just coincidentally) matches the meaning.

praecipiebat enim spiritui inmundo ut exiret ab homine multis enim temporibus arripiebat illum et vinciebatur catenis et conpedibus custoditus et ruptis vinculis agebatur a daemonio in deserta

In the ESV, this is:

For he [Jesus] had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man.  (For many a time it had seized him.  He was kept under guard and bound with chains and shackles, but he would break the bonds and be driven by the demon into the desert.)

The phrase "catenis et conpedibus custoditus" ("with chains and with shackles held in custody") exhibits consonance in Latin.  That the successive words begin and end with the same sound lends a sense of stasis, illustrating the man's (temporary) immobility.

The account in Mark (5:1-20) exhibits the same feature (in verse 4), but the phrase is shorter (merely "conpedibus et catenis" - "with shackles and with chains"):

quoniam saepe conpedibus et catenis vinctus disrupisset catenas et conpedes comminuisset et nemo poterat eum domare

for he had often been bound with shackles and chains, but he wrenched the chains apart, and he broke the shackles in pieces.  No one had the strength to subdue him.  [ESV]

---&---

I also noticed a sort of syllogism in Luke 8:39:  "'Return to your home, and declare how much God has done for you.'  And he went away, proclaiming throughout the whole city how much Jesus had done for him."  The similarity between "'how much God has done for you'" and "how much Jesus had done for him" implies that Jesus is God.  By recounting the event in this way, the man's statement also becomes a testimony to his faith in Jesus' divinity.

This, too, is in the Mark 5 account:  "19 And he did not permit him [to go with Jesus] but said to him, 'Go home to your friends and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you.'  20 And he went away and began to proclaim in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him, and everyone marveled."

Luke 15:11-32

Luke 15:1-3, 11-32 (the Parable of the Prodigal Son) was the reading for the Concordia University Wisconsin chapel service on 1 April:

I'm not sure if these are very significant, but I noticed some parallels between this parable and the account of Cain and Abel in Genesis 4.  The most obvious is that each story is about two brothers who have contrasting qualities.  Also in both, the elder brother becomes angry with the younger brother, who - in the older brother's view, at least - receives preferential treatment (Abel's sacrifices are accepted by God, but Cain's aren't; the prodigal son is honored by a party upon his return, but his older brother never received even a young goat), and each younger brother deals with livestock of a sort:  Abel kept sheep, and the prodigal son fed pigs.

Luke 6:17

When I watched the Concordia University Wisconsin chapel service from 18 February, I found the same feature that I'd noticed in the reading from Luke 5 the previous week.

The reading for this service was Luke 6:17-26.  I was following along in the Vulgate, where verse 17 is:

Et descendens cum illis stetit in loco campestri et turba discipulorum eius et multitudo copiosa plebis ab omni Iudaea et Hierusalem et maritimae Tyri et Sidonis

In the ESV, this is:

And he [Jesus] came down with them and stood on a level place, with a great crowd of his disciples and a great multitude of people from all Judea and Jerusalem and the seacoast of Tyre and Sidon

In the Latin, the phrase "multitudo copiosa" (translated as "a great multitude" in the ESV) is redundant (something like "an abundant multitude"), but this redundancy lends a greater sense of the large number of people.

Again like Luke 5:6, the phrase alliterates in Greek (πλῆθος πολὺ), and the repetition involved also suggests a great quantity.  Here's the full verse:

καὶ καταβὰς μετ᾽ αὐτῶν ἔστη ἐπὶ τόπου πεδινοῦ. καὶ ὄχλος πολὺς μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ πλῆθος πολὺ τοῦ λαοῦ ἀπὸ πάσης τῆς Ἰουδαίας καὶ Ἱερουσαλὴμ καὶ τῆς παραλίου Τύρου καὶ Σειδῶνος

Luke 5:6

A few months ago, I watched the Concordia University Wisconsin chapel service from 11 February:

The reading was Luke 5:1-11, and while following along in the Vulgate, I noticed a small feature in verse 6:

et cum hoc fecissent concluserunt piscium multitudinem copiosam rumpebatur autem rete eorum

In the ESV, this is:

And when they had done this, they enclosed a large number of fish, and their nets were breaking.

The phrase "multitudinem copiosam" is redundant (something like "an abundant multitude"), but this redundancy does heighten the sense of this large amount.

This feature is also present in the Greek:

καὶ τοῦτο ποιήσαντες συνέκλεισαν πλῆθος ἰχθύων πολύ· διερρήσσετο δὲ τὰ δίκτυα αὐτῶν.

Additionally, the words πλῆθος (multitude) and πολύ (much) alliterate.  To a small degree, the repetition in this alliteration contributes to this sense of abundance even further.

Luke 1:28

Months ago, I watched the Concordia University Wisconsin chapel service from 11 December:

The service had a sort of lessons-and-carols format, and one of the readings was Luke 1:26-38.  I was following along in the Latin Vulgate, and in verse 28, I found an-other instance of a feature I've noticed elsewhere:

et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit have gratia plena Dominus tecum benedicta tu in mulieribus

In the ESV, this is:

And he [the angel Gabriel] came to her [Mary] and said, 'Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!'  [some manuscripts add "'Blessed are you among women!'"]

Latin takes the prepositional phrase "cum te" ("with you"), inverts it, and combines the two words into one (tecum).  Consequently, the words for Lord (Dominus) and you (te) are directly next to each other here, lending a slightly greater sense of this accompaniment.

Matthew 6:30, Luke 12:28

A few weeks ago, I finally got back to my practice of reading the whole chapter of any Biblical citations I run across, after having neglected it for months.  In catching up, I read Matthew 6 because of a reference to it in a C.S. Lewis letter (writing to Owen Barfield in September 1945, Lewis alludes to verse 3).  Jesus' comment "'will he not much more clothe you'" (in verse 30) caught my attention, and I realized that it may have a wider scope than I'd originally thought (also the parallel in Luke 12:28).

In its immediate context, the comment refers merely to physical clothing.  I hadn't considered before that what God does for Adam and Eve at the end of Genesis 3 (verse 21:  "And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them") is a specific example of this, probably the epitome.  The phrase "'much more clothe you'" reminded me of 2 Corinthians 5:4, though, which seems to refer to clothing in a different way:  "For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened - not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life."  In light of that context, I think the clothing in Matthew 6:30 and Luke 12:28 can also be viewed more metaphorically, as it is in Isaiah 61:10:  "He has clothed me with the garments of salvation; he has covered me with the robe of righteousness."  God clothes us physically, as He does the lilies of the field, but He also clothes us metaphorically by giving us that salvation and righteousness.

Luke 16:13

Earlier this month, I watched the Concordia University Wisconsin chapel service from 25 September 2019.

The reading was Luke 16:1-15, and I noticed verse 13 in particular:  "'No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.  You cannot serve God and money.'"  This verse is nearly identical to Matthew 6:24 and contains the same feature that I noticed there about a year ago.  There's a chiastic structure to highlight the opposites:

He will hate the one

and love the other, 

or he will be devoted to the one

and despise the other.

As with Matthew 6:24, this structure is also present in the Greek:

Οὐδεὶς οἰκέτης δύναται δυσὶ κυρίοις δουλεύειν· ἢ γὰρ τὸν ἕνα μεισήσει καὶ τὸν ἕτερον ἀγαπήσει, ἢ ἑνὸς ἀνθέξεται καὶ τοῦ ἑτέρου καταφρονήσει. οὐ δύνασθε θεῷ δουλεύειν καὶ μαμωνᾷ.

the Latin Vulgate:

Nemo servus potest duobus dominis servire aut enim unum odiet et alterum diliget aut uni adherebit et alterum contemnet non potestis Deo servire et mamonae

my German New Testament:

Kein Knecht kann zwei Herren dienen; entweder er wird den einen hassen und den andern lieben, oder er wird an dem einen hängen und den andern verachten.  Ihr könnt nicht Gott dienen und dem Mammon.

and my French New Testament:

Nul serviteur ne peut servir deux maîtres.  Car, ou il haïra l'un et aimera l'autre; ou il s'attachera à l'un et méprisera l'autre.  Vous ne pouvez servir Dieu et Mamon.

Luke 14:8, 11

A couple months ago, I read Luke 14 and noticed two features.

I think it may be significant that the passive voice is used in verse 8:  "When you are invited by someone to a wedding feast..." [ESV].  It's also a passive in the Greek (ὅταν κληθῇς ὑπό τινος εἰς γάμους), the Latin Vulgate ("cum invitatus fueris ad nuptias..."), and my German and French New Testaments ("Wenn du von jemandem zur Hochzeit geladen bist..." "Lorsque tu seras invité par quelqu'un à des noces...").  To some degree, this matches the mindset that Jesus advocates:  the man in the parable shouldn't take a seat of honor for himself, but he may accept a higher seat if one is given to him.  There's a connection between the passive voice, where the subject is acted upon, and this humble acceptance.

The other thing I noticed is that, like Matthew 23:12, verse 11 contains a chiasm illustrating an inversion:  "'For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.'"  This is also in the Greek (ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ὑψῶν ἑαυτὸν ταπεινωθήσεται, καὶ ὁ ταπεινῶν ἑαυτὸν ὑψωθήσεται), the Latin Vulgate ("Quia omnis qui se exaltat humiliabitur et qui se humiliat exaltabitur"), and my German and French New Testaments ("Denn wer sich selbst erhöht, der soll erniedrigt werden; und wer sich selbst erniedrigt, der soll erhöht werden" "Car quiconque s'élève sera abaissé, et quiconque s'abaisse sera élevé").

Last First/First Last

Last month, I tried to watch the Concordia University Wisconsin chapel service from 25 September 2017 (the audio cuts out about two thirds of the way through).  The reading, which was Matthew 20:1-16, is intact, though, and I had a small realization about verse 16:  "'So the last will be first, and the first last.'"  There's a chiastic structure here, and it illustrates that inversion.

The same feature is present elsewhere:  Matthew 19:30 ("'But many who are first will be last, and the last first.'"), Mark 10:31 ("'But many who are first will be last, and the last first.'"), and Luke 13:30 ("'And behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last.'").

Luke 14:9

Last week, the Gospel reading was from Luke 14, and I noticed some interesting translation differences in verse 9, specifically in the clause "δὸς τούτῳ τόπον."  I was following along in my French New Testament, where this is translated "Cède la place à cette personne-là."  In the ESV, it's translated as "Give your place to this person," and in the NIV, "Give this man your seat."  The ESV and NIV both supply a possessive adjective ("your place" and "your seat") that's not present in the original Greek or my French translation.  In the NKJV, this clause is rendered as "Give place to this man," which I think is the best of these three English translations.

As the context makes clear, the man who is askt to give up this seat doesn't have a valid claim to it, so the possessive adjective your doesn't truly apply.

Luke 15:11-32 (The Prodigal Son)

The Gospel reading last week was Luke 15:1-3, 11-32, the parable of the prodigal son.  While watching Worship Anew, I realized that the father acts the same way toward both of his sons.  There's a sort of parallelism between "while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him" (verse 20) and "His father came out and entreated him" (verse 28).  Clearly, the father cares for both of his sons, and while the situations are different, he goes out to each of them and shows his compassion.

Luke 6:20-26

On Worship Anew last week, the Gospel reading was Luke 6:17-26.  In verses 20-26, Jesus presents some contrasts:  "Blessed are you who are poor" (verse 20) but "woe to you who are rich" (verse 24), "blessed are you who are hungry now" (21) but "woe to you who are full now" (25), "blessed are you who weep now" (21) but "woe to you who laugh now" (25), and "blessed are you when people hate you" (22) but "woe to you when all people speak well of you" (26).

I was following along in my French New Testament, and I noticed that in that particular translation, these opposites have a sharper contrast because the French words for "blessed" ("heureux") and "woe" ("malheur") come from the same root.

Luke 18:9-14

When I read a few chapters of Luke a couple months ago, I noticed some contrasts in Luke 18:9-14, the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector.  There's an obvious contrast in what these two men are saying as they pray, but I noticed that this contrast is also shown in how they speak.

The Pharisee's prayer:

God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.  I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.

The tax collector's prayer:

God, be merciful to me, a sinner.

In each clause of the Pharisee's prayer, the subject is "I."  He uses it five times.  In the tax collector's prayer, the personal pronoun is used only once and then in the dative case ("to me").  Even in the language, then, it's illustrated that the Pharisee thinks primarily of himself while the tax collector has humility.

There's also a contrast in the length of these prayers.  The tax collector's prayer is short and to the point, while the Pharisee (to borrow a description from Matthew 6:7) seems to "think that [he] will be heard for [his] many words."

Luke 16:22

Last month, after finding a citation to Luke 14:23 in a book of C.S. Lewis' letters, I read some chapters of Luke.  When I got to the account of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16, I noticed a detail in verse 22:  "The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side.  The rich man also died and was buried."

This may be obvious, but I hadn't realized before that this verse is the very point where the situations of these two men change.  Lazarus' situation improves, but the rich man's worsens.  Throughout the account, there's a contrast between the two men, and the parallel structure in this verse highlights it:  after death, Lazarus goes up ("carried by the angels to Abraham's side"), but the rich man goes down ("buried").

Matthew 4:20, 22; Luke 5:11

A couple weeks ago (the Third Sunday after Epiphany), one of the readings was Matthew 4:12-25.  Part of this (verses 18-22, Jesus' calling the first disciples) is paralleled in Mark 1:16-20, and - after looking up the Greek text - I discovered that what I wrote about two of the verses from Mark 1 is applicable to this too.

Matthew 4:20:  οἱ δὲ εὐθέως ἀφέντες τὰ δίκτυα ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ.

"Immediately they [Simon and Andrew] left their nets and followed him [Jesus]."

Matthew 4:22:  οἱ δὲ εὐθέως ἀφέντες τὸ πλοῖον καὶ τὸν πατέρα αὐτῶν ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ.

"Immediately they [James and John] left the boat and their father and followed him [Jesus]."

In both verses, the participle ἀφέντες (leaving) is translated as a finite verb (left) in all of the translations I referenced.  As with Mark 1:18, 20, I would argue that it should be translated as a participle because this leaves only a single verb in each verse and that verb is the most significant:  following Jesus.

The account in Luke (5:1-11) has not only ἀφέντες but also καταγαγόντες and - aside from my French translation, which keeps καταγαγόντες as a participle ("ayant ramené") - all of the translations I lookt at translated these as finite verbs too.

Luke 5:11:  καὶ καταγαγόντες τὰ πλοῖα ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν, ἀφέντες πάντα ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ.

"And when they had brought their boats to land, they left everything and followed him."

With just ἠκολούθησαν as a finite verb and the participles as participles, the focus is kept on following Jesus:  "And having brought their boats to shore and leaving everything, they followed him."

Luke 16:19-31 (The Rich Man and Lazarus)

One of the readings for the Feast of St. Michael and All Angels last month was Luke 16:19-31.  That's not the reading from the lectionary, but it's an appropriate text because after Lazarus died, he "was carried by the angels to Abraham's side."

This reading reminded me of the song "Dives and Lazarus" (drawn from this text), which I wrote about here.  After writing that, I kept thinking about the Biblical text, and I realized that while the song provides a fitting name for the rich man, it's significant that he's not named in the text.

In John 10, Jesus says that the Good Shepherd "calls his own sheep by name" and that "I know my own and my own know me," and in Matthew 10, He says, "So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven."  Because of his faith, Lazarus' name is known; because of his lack of faith, the rich man's name isn't.

Luke 24:5

I had to do a bit of research for this, but now I'm finally getting around to writing about something I noticed in the Gospel reading for Easter, Luke 24:1-12.

In addition to attending church services pretty regularly, I watch Worship Anew every week, during which I follow along with the readings (but in German).  While watching the Easter program of Worship Anew, I noticed something about Luke 24:5, specifically:  "Was sucht ihr den Lebenden bei den Toten?" ("Why do you seek the living among the dead?").  In both German and English, there's a participle (Lebenden, living) acting as a substantive (the living [one]).  I think it's significant that this is a participle, not just a regular adjective.  A participle is defined as a verbal adjective, and since it's "part verb" (so to speak), it has something of the action qualities of a verb.  This contrasts with the static nature of "den Toten" ("the dead"), which is merely an adjective (and also used as a substantive).  Even in just the parts of speech, then, there's a picture of the resurrection.

I lookt up the original Greek in the STEP Bible from Tyndale House, which I recently learned about via the Daily Dose of Greek.  Although my knowledge of Greek is still insufficient, I think living is a participle there too:  "τι ζητειτε τον ζωντα μετα των νεκρων;"