1 Now the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to hear him.

Continuing his journey from Galilee to Jerusalem, near the end of his ministry and following his hard teachings on what is required in order for the people to become a disciple of his, many sinners are drawn to Jesus including individuals like tax collectors. Some versions like KJV translate this as publican but the Greek word “telōnēs” actually denotes an individual employed by a publican (an official representative of sorts) who does the grunt work of actually going to individuals and establishments to collect the taxes on the publicans behalf.

You would dislike the man in charge for using your hard earned money but you would really despise the face of the person who turned up at your door trying to collect it. A tax collector was a detestable class of people for many reasons and that is why they are allotted in the same grouping of individuals as sinners.

From the gentile perspective these people took your money and in many cases lined their pockets by claiming you owed more than you did and from the Jewish perspective were both that and were serving the enemy hostile force that had taken over the promised land given to them by God. From the Jewish perspective the tax collector was betraying the commandments, stealing from neighbour, and idolatry because the money they collected was used by gentiles for pagan worship.

2 And the Pharisees and the scribes murmured, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.”

3 So he told them this parable:

Both Pharisees and scribes are legitimate teachers of the law Matthew 23:2 and they are murmuring or more literally “grumbling indignantly” as the word “diagongyzō” is almost always used in this context. The same word is used in Exodus 16:2 “2 And the whole congregation of the people of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness”. And is reminiscent of Numbers 12:1-16 where Aaron and Miriam, Moses’ siblings, murmured against him due to his marriage to a Cushite woman. A perceived injustice at rightful authority in this context because Jesus “received and eats” with people the Pharisees consider to be unclean this indicates the incorrect assumptions about God’s intentions towards his people. It is to them that he directs the parable. He actually tells more than one but the lectionary today skips the first and jumps to the Prodigal Son story.

11 And he said, “There was a man who had two sons;

12 and the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of property that falls to me.’ And he divided his living between them.

The parable introduces a wealthy family of a father and two sons. First of all a little introduction to traditional family structures in the ancient world. The eldest son gets gets a majority of the inheritance typically articulated as a “double portion” he also inherits the patriarchal crown of the families legacy. When the father dies, the eldest son becomes to de-facto leader of the family house. That detail of “when the father dies” is important. In the parable not only is the son that asks for his portion of the inheritance not the eldest but he is asking for something that he is supposed to get when his father dies. He doesn’t realise it but he essentially saying “you’re dead to me” to his own father by doing this. He does not notice because of his preoccupation with his material desires.

13 Not many days later, the younger son gathered all he had and took his journey into a far country, and there he squandered his property in loose living.

14 And when he had spent everything, a great famine arose in that country, and he began to be in want.

To prove by action how much his father is dead to him, he gathers all his inheritance and leaves the house. He wants the inheritance of his family without the family home or obligations, extra insult to injury. On top of all this he then uses all this wealth on “loose living”.

The Greek word for “loose living” is “asōtōs“, it is an adverb meaning recklessly, wastefully, prodigally, dissolutely. In Greek literature it often describes lavish and self-destructive lifestyles, including excessive feasting, drinking, and sexual immorality. Philo, a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher, uses it to describe the wastefulness of foolish individuals who indulge in excess. The term also connotes moral corruption, which may include sexual immorality, drunkenness, or general debauchery. So the worst of behaviours are being pursued with this wealth.

Once he has used up all his wealth, the foreign land he occupies enters into a famine. So he becomes financially destitute in a land that is in itself destitute.

15 So he went and joined himself to one of the citizens of that country, who sent him into his fields to feed swine.

16 And he would gladly have fed on the pods that the swine ate; and no one gave him anything.

He seeks refuge as an indentured servant with one of the citizens in the foreign country. Although it is not said specifically, because of the context the characters of this parable are Jews. The son has gone to a Gentile country. He as a Jew has put himself under bonds of a Gentile landowner, this is a humiliating position to be in but it does not stop there. His job has this indentured servant is to feed pigs, an unclean animal from Jewish purity beliefs. He has reached such a low point in his life that he hungers even for the food of the unclean animals.

17 But when he came to himself he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have bread enough and to spare, but I perish here with hunger!

18 I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you;

19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me as one of your hired servants.” ’

Becoming aware of his incredibly low situation, he comes to his senses and realises that even the servants of his father back home are not left wanting, if he is going to be a servant he might as well go back there where he can at least be fed fully. In order to do this he realises he must make amends with his father first so he runs through his mind the confession that he will bring to his father. He has sinned against him and by extension, against God because in order to sin against his father he had to dishonour him, breaking one of the commandments and his other behaviours have broken other Jewish Laws. He says to himself that he will tell his father he is willing to come back as a hired servant as he is not worthy to be his son.

20 And he arose and came to his father. But while he was yet at a distance, his father saw him and had compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him.

21 And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’

So he rises from his foreign squalor and returns home to his father but while even at a distance his father, who has been waiting for his return this entire time, looks on him with compassion, runs to him, takes him in his arms and kisses him. He says his rehearsed lines to his father, likely expecting a scolding but at least permission to be a lowly servant in his fathers household.

22 But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet;

23 and bring the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and make merry;

24 for this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to make merry.

The father calls to his servants to bring the best robe, a sign of authority and status and put it on his returned son. He is also to be given a ring, this is likely a family ring of authority like those used by kings to sign off official documents but it could also just be a sign of wealth. The son is shoeless, typical of the poor back then but the father tells his servants to give him shoes. Basically a whole bunch of things that the son does not think he deserves. The father explains that, as the sons behaviour essentially expressed the statement “you’re dead to me father”, the father actually saw the behaviour as the son spiritually killing himself. Now he has returned home he is “alive again, he was lost and is found”. The father sees this as a moment to celebrate not punish.

25 “Now his elder son was in the field; and as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 And he called one of the servants and asked what this meant.

27 And he said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fatted calf, because he has received him safe and sound.’

The elder son, the obedient one who did not leave his father, has been working in his fathers fields and hears the celebrations. He asks the servant what is happening and they tell him the good news that his son has returned to their fathers household. At this point it should be obvious that not only is this parable that of sinners come to repentance but also that of the Old Covenant people and the Gentiles. The Gentiles losing their inheritance at Babel and Abraham, along with his descendants, inheriting the status of the first sons of Yahweh.

28 But he was angry and refused to go in. His father came out and entreated him,

29 but he answered his father, ‘Lo, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command; yet you never gave me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends.

30 But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your living with harlots, you killed for him the fatted calf!’

The elder son who never left the fathers house and responsibilities, instead of rejoicing with his father, is indignant at his brothers return and refuses to join the celebrations. He points out his reasoning being that because he has served his father this whole time and has never received such a celebration he should be angry. This is pointing as we have mentioned toward sinners and the Gentiles. Many Jews despite their scripture saying rather explicitly that the Gentiles will re-join in the Covenant with God, their shallow human “wisdom” perceived this as undeserved. Of course it wasn’t it was their lack of understanding of God’s extreme mercy. A mercy that has always been extending to them but they in their normalising of it started acting like fish not being aware of the water they live in.

31 And he said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours.

32 It was fitting to make merry and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found.’ ”

The Father, just like the Father in Heaven points out that the elder son has always had everything he ever wanted and his current feelings are coming from a place of envy. Negative feelings because someone you don’t like has something. He explains that his younger brother has been dead and lost but now he is alive and has been found. It is in time a moment to rejoice.

If you pay attention to the Luke Chapter 18 up to verse 14 you’ll notice it is one of the rare examples of where Luke places some sayings of Jesus to no particular time. The “anchor” of these sayings are who they are said to. This might seem like a curious thing to point out but when we consider that Luke says at the beginning of his Gospel that he has interviewed all the witnesses to get a timely order of events, his addition of some things that aren’t relegated to particular timeframe add greater weight of authenticity of his Gospel.

A notion known as the “Criterion of Embarrassment” is a historical critical method employed by scholars. This criterion suggests that if an event or saying in the Gospels would have been embarrassing or awkward for the early Christian community, it is less likely to have been invented and more likely to be historically authentic. Typically only addressed to “episodes” here we can use it for Luke’s implication that he doesn’t know when these sayings took place. Simply who they were said to. Since everything else about Luke’s Gospel is timeline focused this is of great importance, if he was lying he would have just said when this happened but he explicitly doesn’t.

9 He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and despised others:

At some point during his ministry Jesus addressed a parable to prideful individuals. Parables are the perfect method of penetrating a persons heart. Like King David in the Old Testament, blind to his own pridefulness, was keenly aware of his own sinful activity when it was veiled in a parable by the Prophet Nathan. Our ability to notice sin in others is a two sided blade when parables are used on us, we just see characters and we easily notice who is being evil or good but then someone points the finger at you saying “You are the bad guy in this story”. Specifically this parable is addressed to those who are consider themselves righteous, that is just before God yet also despise others.

10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.

Two men go to the Temple to pray, this was typical for Jews who lived in the Holy City to pray at the hours made traditional by the Prophet Daniel back in the Exile. One of these individuals is a Pharisee, a legitimate teaching authority of God before the advent of the New Covenant and a tax-collector, a public servant of the foreign Roman empire, not only were tax-collectors likely to abuse their posts, and therefore steal from their fellow Jews but by working for the Romans they were infringing on many covenant Laws. So we are seeing, generally, a man perceived as great by the people (the world) and someone perceived as scum by the people (the world).

11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank thee that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.

12 I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I get.’

No one (in this timeframe) except our Lord and our Lady are exempt from Sin. All require repentance regardless of station because even the best of the Jew’s are far from where God wants them to be. St John the Baptist would preach this repentance to all during his ministry but many in the Jewish leadership because of their inherited status and covenant offices perceived themselves as essentially perfect. There idea of praying in the Temple is thanking God that they aren’t sinners, although the thanking is a good idea, the intention behind it is obviously wrong. He thinks he is perfect because he is not an extortioner, unjust, an adulterer or like the tax collector. He even fasts twice a week and gives a tenth of all his money away. We are called to be perfect like our heavenly father is perfect. If you consider these things side by side with what God is, the scale is vastly different. God isn’t just good because he isn’t any of these things, this is like a bare minimum of expectations of a human being from God’s perspective for a human being an even then it is still rather incomplete.

13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’

The tax collector has no rich words, he can’t even look up to heaven. He simply beats his breasts and says “God, be merciful to me a sinner!”. The Old Testament is littered with God’s preference of contrition (humility) over liturgical actions. Liturgical actions without humility are empty. The Pharisee can do all the legal requirements, he can tick all the boxes but does it with no humility, in fact it only puffs him up.

(Psalm 51:16-17)

“For You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it; You take no pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.”

(Deuteronomy 10:16, 30:6)

“Circumcise your hearts, therefore, and do not be stiff-necked any longer.”
“The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love Him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.”

(Joel 2:12-13)

“Even now,” declares the Lord, “return to Me with all your heart, with fasting and weeping and mourning.” Rend your heart and not your garments. Return to the Lord your God, for He is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love.”

(Isaiah 58:5-7)

“Is this the kind of fast I have chosen, only a day for people to humble themselves? Is it only for bowing one’s head like a reed and for lying in sackcloth and ashes? Is that what you call a fast, a day acceptable to the Lord? No, this is the fast I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice…”

Just to name a few.

It does not mean to get rid of liturgical actions, Jesus himself set up the new passover meal which the Church offers as sacrifice every day, he definitely intends for us to have liturgy but liturgy without a contrite spirit is lesser, for ourselves that is. We get what we pour out as Jesus says. The parable highlights in strong contrast for easy understandability for those listening. One of these men is more just.

14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Jesus tells his audience that the tax collector, considered to be the worst of the worst in Jewish society, typically associating them with public sinners like prostitutes went home justified whereas the piously perceived Pharisee did not. The exaltation of an individual must be done by God, not by man. If man exalts himself, God will humble him. If man humbles himself, God will exalt him. This applies to all, not just tax collectors or Pharisees but the contrast helps Jesus’ messaging more obvious and no doubt perked up the ears of those who were Pharisees or supported them. Pharisees were the most dominant religious/political sect in Second Temple Judaism it is rather unlikely some of their number did not hear about this.

According to Luke’s Gospel Jesus has just taught his disciples how to pray the Our Father and has given to them some lessons on how loving God is by using the earthly fatherhood as an example.

14 Now he was casting out a demon that was dumb; when the demon had gone out, the dumb man spoke, and the people marveled.

Jesus is performing one of his many exorcisms, in this case a demon that was dumb. This shouldn’t be confused with the deaf and dumb spirit that possessed a mans son in Matthew 17 or Mark 9, it appears to be another example of an elemental spirit possession. St Paul makes note in his letters of “elemental spirits” which appear in his line-up of evil spirits in the world and it is my personal theory that when possessions occur with lesser or zero intelligence on the side of the possessor, it is one of these “elemental spirits” doing it.

Elemental not in the sense of fire or water but elemental in the sense of simplicity, when they possess people they cause harm but are not capable of speech. Jesus even makes it clear in the context of the boy that these types of spirits don’t belong to the same order of demons that we typically think of, the authority he passed to apostles cannot exorcise these demons, Jesus himself as the Word has the authority obviously but what he extended to the apostles and their successors does not, outside of Jesus’ Will only fasting and prayer can exorcise them.

After exorcising the elemental spirit from the man, he is able to speak again. All those surrounding Jesus are impressed at his ability. Exorcism was not unheard of in Second Temple Judaism, in fact it was something done by those who held binding and loosing authority, it required great preparation, blessed items or relics and the intercession of the patriarchs, prophets and angels. Jesus however, can just “do it” by his will. This is what is most likely causing the amazement.

15 But some of them said, “He casts out demons by Be-elzebul, the prince of demons”;

16 while others, to test him, sought from him a sign from heaven.

Matthew and Mark specify the Pharisees and and Scribes as the accusers in their telling of this event but Luke simply says “some of them”, Mark and Matthew were likely trying to highlight the vocal portion of the accusers whereas Luke is being more general, there is no contradiction. Luke then points to another group who are there to test him, they seek a “sign from heaven” this is rather literal. Signs in the sky were used to justify many things and from their perspective, if Jesus really was a big shot he could prove it by showing one.

The first group state do not deny Jesus’ supernatural abilities, it is important to stress that there were frauds and scam artists even back in the first century but that is not what they accuse Jesus of being. They say that he is in fact doing supernatural acts but by the power of “Be-elzebul, the prince of the demons.”

Beelzebub or Be-elzebul is a name derived from a title given to the highest deity of the Philistines, Ba’al. Beel coming from Ba’al which means Lord and zebub/zebul meaning Of Flies. So it means literally “Lord of Flies”. It is hard to tell when exactly it became synonymous with the evil one probably around the first century BC but it is not too hard to see how the Hebrews saw the chief deity of their enemies as the chief evil cosmic force opposing God or at least having some association with each other.

An insight is also being given into the evil cosmic hierarchy according to the Jews, there was a leader of the evil spirits that rebel against God. As above, so below.

17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and a divided household falls.

18 And if Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say that I cast out demons by Be-elzebul.

19 And if I cast out demons by Be-elzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges.

Jesus explains the flaw in their rushed logic. If there is a supernatural war going on in the unseen realm, how on earth could the evil one side against himself? He would just lose quicker. They couldn’t deny what Jesus was doing as supernatural so they reached for an illogical explanation instead of the most obvious one.

Jesus also responds with a different term for Be-elzebul, prince of the demons than his accusers used, without any need to clarify that it is the same individual. Jesus refers to this figure as Satan, as he does elsewhere. This can be confusing for readers who remember this name from the Book of Job or in 1 Samuel or even when Jesus calls Peter one so lets do a quick primer on “Satan”.

The English word Satan comes from the Hebrew “śāṭān,” which means “adversary,” “accuser,” or “opponent.” It is essentially a description of someone’s position in opposition to something else. In the Hebrew Bible, it is used to describe human adversaries. For example, in 1 Samuel 29:4, David is called a satan because he is an adversary to the Philistines.

However, in other contexts, the term describes a celestial being. In Job and Zechariah, we encounter “ha-satan,” or “the satan.” This use of the definite article (“the”) indicates a title or role rather than a personal name. In these instances, ha-satan functions as a kind of divine prosecutor within God’s heavenly court, challenging the righteousness of humans. This figure is distinct from the serpent in the Garden of Eden, the evil one.

When the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek in the Septuagint, all uses of satan were rendered as diabolos (διάβολος), which means “slanderer” or “accuser.” Depending on the context, diabolos could signify either a judicial opponent or a malicious enemy. Importantly, the meaning of satan as an adversary is retained, even as the term begins to shift linguistically and theologically.

By the time of Jesus’ ministry, satan had become a widely recognized term for the cosmic adversary, reflecting the influence of Second Temple literature and evolving Jewish theology. In the Gospels, Jesus refers to satan as a proper noun for the figure who tempts Him in the wilderness (e.g., Matthew 4:1–11, Luke 4:1–13). However, He also uses the term generically, such as when He rebukes Peter in Mark 8:33: “Get behind me, Satan! For you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.”

20 But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

Jesus now turns it back to them, being able to rule out there pathetic accusation of Satan being the origin of his power, it leaves only one. He leaves it open ended though to force them to come to the correct conclusion. Jesus’ language is interesting. He says if the source of his power is from “the finger of God” (which is the only possible answer left) then that it self is also a sign that the Kingdom of God has come upon you. This is the fulfilment stage of salvation that all Jews were waiting for, although they all had wide varying views on what it would entail.

The term “finger of God” is fascinating because Jesus has shown himself to be the “true manna from heaven”, he has re-enacted Moses’ bringing the Law from the mountain in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere it is articulated that his person is the Word and “way”. Now he is saying the source of his power is from the “finger of God”. This is the exact same phrasing used to describe Aaron’s staff that budded and performed miracles in the Exodus. These were the three objects found in the Ark.

21 When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace;

22 but when one stronger than he assails him and overcomes him, he takes away his armor in which he trusted, and divides his spoil.

Now Jesus delivers what appears to some as an unrelated parable and many sceptics assume this to be just “stitched” on to the recorded event for no purpose but it isn’t. Jesus is explaining in natural earthly terms what is happening in his exorcisms. A strong man, fully armed can guard himself and his possessions without issue, until someone stronger than him comes along, overcomes him, strips him of his armour and divides takes away his possessions.

Up until the point of the New Covenant, Satan had a very real ownership of the earth and its inhabitants. Yahweh, through divine condescension only took one portion for himself, Abraham and his descendants after the Tower of Babel incident. The nations were put under the authority of lesser Elohim who would rebel at some point and be thrown down to become what we call demons who served their leading rebel prince, Satan. The Old Covenants did not provide the filial ownership that the New one offers. This is why every baptism is accompanied with an exorcism, because you’re owned by the evil one. But what would happen if someone stronger than him came along, assails him, overcomes him, seizes his good and divides the spoil? That is what Jesus is doing in exorcisms and by extension what his Church does in every baptism.

23 He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.

Jesus now explains the ultimatum of himself here, he isn’t on the side of goodness, he is goodness. He isn’t on the side of unity, he is unity. Anyone who is not with him, is against him and those who don’t gather with him cannot stand together at all, including Satan himself.

Luke has just narrated the pronouncement and conception of John the Baptist. He makes the point of telling the audience that Elizabeth has hid herself for five months. This is the timeline that leads us up to today’s readings, The Annunciation.

26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth,

Luke begins with “In the sixth month” this is not related to the Jewish calendar but in reference to the previous verse, Elizabeth was in her fifth month of pregnancy. “In the sixth month” of Elizabeth’s pregnancy an Angel was sent from God to a city named Nazareth in Galilee. This places the annunciation six months after John’s conception. This is where the tradition of John and Jesus having a six month age gap comes from.

The Archangel Gabriel is the angel that God sends. Gabriel is one of the seven Archangels, of whom only four have names that we know but apocryphal Jewish texts do claim to know the name of the others. There is significant meaning to Gabriel being the messenger in this passage as it was Gabriel who delivered the timeline of the weeks of years that would lead to the Messiah to the Prophet Daniel and here he is, announcing the Messiah.

God sends Gabriel to Nazareth which was likely a small agricultural village during Jesus’ time, with an estimated population of 300-500 people. It was situated in the hills of Lower Galilee, near Sepphoris, a larger and wealthier city. Although Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, the Talmud, or Josephus, archaeological digs have uncovered houses, storage caves, and agricultural tools from the 1st century, confirming it was a rural settlement. They also found the remains of a first century Synagogue there, further reinforcing the New Testaments claims despite sceptical critics of Nazareth’s historicity.

Some scholars suggest the name Nazareth may be linked to the Hebrew word netzer (branch), pointing to messianic prophecies like Isaiah 11:1: “A shoot shall come out from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots.” Speculators posit that it got its name by descendants of David leaving Bethlehem and setting up a new home for themselves, thus receiving the name “Nazareth” as they were a branch of David’s line. This would explain why two descendants of David, Joseph and Mary, were living there.

27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.

Gabriel is sent specifically to Mary, a virgin who is betrothed to a man named Joseph. Mary was a very popular name at the time, at least its original Hebrew version was. “Miriam” was the name of Moses’ sister and thus resonated with the Hebrew people. Scholars estimate that approximately 20-25% of Jewish women in this era bore the name Mary or its variants.

Mary was “betrothed” to Joseph which although a foreign concept to modern ears, was very common at the time. Marriage to them was a multistage process that included a formal agreement first (betrothal) then the consummation of the marriage later but it was all considered a part of the marriage itself.

I am going to be drawing a lot from Father Christiaan Kappas for the following sections as he has devoted so much work to it, I really recommend watching his Pints with Aquinas episode as he goes into a very long deep dive into all things Mary, especially as it relates to these verses.

Pints Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wzjAEHyizk&t=9042s

Joseph is explicitly identified as “of the house of David,” which confirms Jesus’ legal claim to the Davidic throne. Catholic scholar and theologian Fr. Christiaan Kappas emphasizes that this lineage fulfills Old Testament Messianic prophecies, such as 2 Samuel 7 and Isaiah 11:1, establishing Jesus as the prophesied eternal king.

28 And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!”

“Hail, Full of Grace”: The Greek word kecharitomene indicates Mary’s unique state of grace, a perfect and completed action signifying her Immaculate Conception. Fr. Kappas connects this greeting to Mary’s singular role in salvation history as the Mother of God and affirms its theological importance as a title rather than a mere acknowledgment of favor (explored further in Catholic traditions).

It is important to note that Gabriel is addressing Mary as “Full of Grace” in the sense of a title, he is not describing her from an outside perspective but saying that this is who she is in her very being.

29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be.

Her reaction reflects humility and a deep awareness of divine mysteries, unlike Zechariah’s doubt earlier in Luke. Very rarely do we get narrative lines in the Gospels illustrating this type of mystical contemplation, people have many thoughts but they do not consider the greeting of an angel. Typically such interactions spawn fear and awe but Mary “considers in her mind” what it means.

30 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.

The angel reassures her, indicating that her favor with God stems from her grace-filled state, not personal merit.

31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.

32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David,

33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.”

Gabriel describes five aspects of Jesus: His greatness, divine sonship, Davidic kingship, eternal reign, and connection to the “house of Jacob.” These characteristics affirm both His divinity and His role as the fulfillment of Jewish Messianic hopes. Fr. Kappas notes the interplay between divine promises in 2 Samuel 7 (David’s eternal throne) and Daniel 7:13-14 (the Son of Man receiving an everlasting kingdom)​

34 And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?”

A more accurate translation of Mary’s words to the Angel would be “How shall this be, since I do not know man?”

The Greek verb ginōskō (translated as “know”) is used in a euphemistic sense for marital or sexual relations. The present tense in this context suggests an ongoing state or intention, rather than a temporary situation. If Mary were anticipating a normal marital relationship with Joseph, the question would be unnecessary.

Betrothed women in first-century Judea were typically expected to enter into a normal marital union, including having children. Mary’s question implies she did not expect to have a typical marital relationship, supporting the interpretation of a prior commitment to virginity.

Many Church Fathers, including St. Augustine, interpreted this as evidence of Mary’s vow of virginity. Augustine wrote that Mary’s question demonstrated her understanding of the angel’s announcement as a call to motherhood that would not involve ordinary human relations, affirming her unique role as the Mother of God (De Sancta Virginitate, Chapter 4). This view is also held by St Jerome and St Thomas.

35 And the angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.

Gabriel’s response highlights the miraculous nature of Jesus’ conception through the Holy Spirit, with language echoing the divine presence in the Tabernacle (Exodus 40:35). The spirit of God is descending and overshadowing Mary, The Greek word episkiazo means “to overshadow” or “to envelop by a cloud” and carries connotations of divine glory and presence. The term episkiazo directly connects to the Shekinah, the visible presence of God represented by a cloud or radiant light in the Old Testament.

The Holy Spirit descending upon Mary and overshadowing her is the fulfilment of the Prophet Jeremiah’s words recorded in 2 Maccabees. “He declared that the place shall remain unknown until God gathers His people together again and shows His mercy. Then the Lord will disclose these things, and the glory of the Lord and the cloud will appear…” (2 Maccabees 2:7-8).

The combination of the Tabernacle language and this prophecy make it clear that Mary is the New Ark but in a sense that she is much greater than the original which would never be made again.

36 And behold, your kinswoman Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren.

37 For with God nothing will be impossible.”

Elizabeth’s miraculous pregnancy serves as confirmation of God’s power and the unfolding of His divine plan. The assurance that “nothing will be impossible with God” ties this narrative to broader biblical themes of trust in divine providence (Genesis 18:14).

38 And Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.

Mary’s acceptance of God’s will, expressed in her “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord,” exemplifies perfect faith and obedience. Fr. Kappas underscores this as a pivotal moment in salvation history, showcasing Mary’s cooperation with divine grace and her integral role in the Incarnation.

When Mary says, “Let it be to me according to your word”, she is fully cooperating with God’s salvific plan. This full, free, and deliberate consent can be seen as her cooperation in God’s work of bringing about redemption for humanity.

The concept of Mary as Co-Redemptrix (a title meaning “helper in the redemption”) is based on her voluntary and active participation in God’s redemptive plan through her consent. According to Catholic theology, Mary’s role as Co-Redemptrix is not to suggest that she is equal to God or performs redemption apart from Christ, but rather that her fiat contributed to the redemptive plan by allowing Jesus to be born and begin His redemptive mission.

Early Church Fathers like St. Irenaeus saw Mary’s role in salvation history as critical. St. Irenaeus emphasized her obedience to God as the reversal of Eve’s disobedience, connecting her “yes” with humanity’s redemption.

CCC 494:

“The ‘yes’ of Mary opened the door for the Savior to come into the world and to fulfill the plan of redemption.”

1 There were some present at that very time who told him of the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.

Individuals other than the disciples are present and inform Jesus of some current news about men who are from Galilee who had been killed and their blood mixed in with the temple sacrifices by Pilate. Considering the importance of blood in both its substance and usage to the Hebrews (Leviticus 17:11 “For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life.”) this is both a horrific insult as well as sacrilegious and it is inferred by Jesus response in later verses, that these messengers of the news perceive it to be as a divine punishment for sins that they themselves are free of.

2 And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered thus?

3 I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.

Jesus rhetorically asks “do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who dwelt in Jerusalem?”. An indication that those who lived in Jerusalem saw themselves as above those of Galilee where Hebrews dwelt with gentiles and maybe this is why they saw them as worse sinners. Jesus then goes on to say if the people of Jerusalem do not repent they will also pay the same price.

4 Or those eighteen upon whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who dwelt in Jerusalem?

5 I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.”

Jesus gives another example of an event of 18 who died when the tower at Siloam fell on them in Jerusalem, asking if they would apply the same logic before they can answer he provides the same conclusion as the last, if you do not repent you will perish the same way. Important to note Siloam was the location of a healing pool also known as the lower pool mentioned in Isaiah 22:9 and John 9:1-11, a place of historical and holy importance because of its deliverance of healing from God.

We could posit that the individuals killed by the tower are even more holy (by the audiences perspective) or at least people associated with holiness and now Jesus’ message of repentance is more solid, taking examples of people considered not holy and those considered very holy both suffer if they do not repent because they neither are reaching God’s standard.

6 And he told this parable: “A man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came seeking fruit on it and found none.

7 And he said to the vinedresser, ‘Lo, these three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and I find none. Cut it down; why should it use up the ground?’

8 And he answered him, ‘Let it alone, sir, this year also, till I dig about it and put on manure.

9 And if it bears fruit next year, well and good; but if not, you can cut it down.’ ”

Jesus continues with what seems like an unrelated parable about a vineyard where a master comes to the vinedresser asking him for fruit but the vineyard has not produced any so the vinedresser asks for more time to produce it and if it does not then the master can cut it down. This vineyard imagery goes back to the prophet Isaiah in Isaiah 5 where there is also a mention of a tower over the vineyard. The people of Israel is the vineyard and the beloved in Isaiah or the master in Jesus’ parable is God who seeks to reap the fruits of what he has sown. “The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.” Psalm 51:17 repentance is the fruit of sacrifice that God seeks from his vineyard and if these fruits are not offered those fruitless fig trees (the people) they will be cut down or cut out of God’s family.

The use of three years in the parable may be of significance also as Jesus’ ministry will also last three years. This would place God the Father as the Master and the vinedresser as God the Son with the fruits being the apostles of which there would be one fruitless tree in the harvest, Judas, who commits suicide and is cut out of the garden. The general purpose of the passage is for Jesus to realign the perspectives of the Jews speaking to him who are still in the line of thinking that bad things only occur to bad people and also the bad things that happen have a much worse ending than initially perceived because they are separated from God without repentance

1 Now the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to hear him.

Continuing his journey from Galilee to Jerusalem, near the end of his ministry and following his hard teachings on what is required in order for the people to become a disciple of his, many sinners are drawn to Jesus including individuals like tax collectors. Some versions like KJV translate this as publican but the Greek word “telōnēs” actually denotes an individual employed by a publican (an official representative of sorts) who does the grunt work of actually going to individuals and establishments to collect the taxes on the publicans behalf.

You would dislike the man in charge for using your hard earned money but you would really despise the face of the person who turned up at your door trying to collect it. A tax collector was a detestable class of people for many reasons and that is why they are allotted in the same grouping of individuals as sinners.

From the gentile perspective these people took your money and in many cases lined their pockets by claiming you owed more than you did and from the Jewish perspective were both that and were serving the enemy hostile force that had taken over the promised land given to them by God. From the Jewish perspective the tax collector was betraying the commandments, stealing from neighbour, and idolatry because the money they collected was used by gentiles for pagan worship.

2 And the Pharisees and the scribes murmured, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.”

3 So he told them this parable:

Both Pharisees and scribes are legitimate teachers of the law Matthew 23:2 and they are murmuring or more literally “grumbling indignantly” as the word “diagongyzō” is almost always used in this context. The same word is used in Exodus 16:2 “2 And the whole congregation of the people of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness”. And is reminiscent of Numbers 12:1-16 where Aaron and Miriam, Moses’ siblings, murmured against him due to his marriage to a Cushite woman. A perceived injustice at rightful authority in this context because Jesus “received and eats” with people the Pharisees consider to be unclean this indicates the incorrect assumptions about God’s intentions towards his people. It is to them that he directs the parable. He actually tells more than one but the lectionary today skips the first and jumps to the Prodigal Son story.

11 And he said, “There was a man who had two sons;

12 and the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of property that falls to me.’ And he divided his living between them.

The parable introduces a wealthy family of a father and two sons. First of all a little introduction to traditional family structures in the ancient world. The eldest son gets gets a majority of the inheritance typically articulated as a “double portion” he also inherits the patriarchal crown of the families legacy. When the father dies, the eldest son becomes to de-facto leader of the family house. That detail of “when the father dies” is important. In the parable not only is the son that asks for his portion of the inheritance not the eldest but he is asking for something that he is supposed to get when his father dies. He doesn’t realise it but he essentially saying “you’re dead to me” to his own father by doing this. He does not notice because of his preoccupation with his material desires.

13 Not many days later, the younger son gathered all he had and took his journey into a far country, and there he squandered his property in loose living.

14 And when he had spent everything, a great famine arose in that country, and he began to be in want.

To prove by action how much his father is dead to him, he gathers all his inheritance and leaves the house. He wants the inheritance of his family without the family home or obligations, extra insult to injury. On top of all this he then uses all this wealth on “loose living”.

The Greek word for “loose living” is “asōtōs“, it is an adverb meaning recklessly, wastefully, prodigally, dissolutely. In Greek literature it often describes lavish and self-destructive lifestyles, including excessive feasting, drinking, and sexual immorality. Philo, a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher, uses it to describe the wastefulness of foolish individuals who indulge in excess. The term also connotes moral corruption, which may include sexual immorality, drunkenness, or general debauchery. So the worst of behaviours are being pursued with this wealth.

Once he has used up all his wealth, the foreign land he occupies enters into a famine. So he becomes financially destitute in a land that is in itself destitute.

15 So he went and joined himself to one of the citizens of that country, who sent him into his fields to feed swine.

16 And he would gladly have fed on the pods that the swine ate; and no one gave him anything.

He seeks refuge as an indentured servant with one of the citizens in the foreign country. Although it is not said specifically, because of the context the characters of this parable are Jews. The son has gone to a Gentile country. He as a Jew has put himself under bonds of a Gentile landowner, this is a humiliating position to be in but it does not stop there. His job has this indentured servant is to feed pigs, an unclean animal from Jewish purity beliefs. He has reached such a low point in his life that he hungers even for the food of the unclean animals.

17 But when he came to himself he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have bread enough and to spare, but I perish here with hunger!

18 I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you;

19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me as one of your hired servants.” ’

Becoming aware of his incredibly low situation, he comes to his senses and realises that even the servants of his father back home are not left wanting, if he is going to be a servant he might as well go back there where he can at least be fed fully. In order to do this he realises he must make amends with his father first so he runs through his mind the confession that he will bring to his father. He has sinned against him and by extension, against God because in order to sin against his father he had to dishonour him, breaking one of the commandments and his other behaviours have broken other Jewish Laws. He says to himself that he will tell his father he is willing to come back as a hired servant as he is not worthy to be his son.

20 And he arose and came to his father. But while he was yet at a distance, his father saw him and had compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him.

21 And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’

So he rises from his foreign squalor and returns home to his father but while even at a distance his father, who has been waiting for his return this entire time, looks on him with compassion, runs to him, takes him in his arms and kisses him. He says his rehearsed lines to his father, likely expecting a scolding but at least permission to be a lowly servant in his fathers household.

22 But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet;

23 and bring the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and make merry;

24 for this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to make merry.

The father calls to his servants to bring the best robe, a sign of authority and status and put it on his returned son. He is also to be given a ring, this is likely a family ring of authority like those used by kings to sign off official documents but it could also just be a sign of wealth. The son is shoeless, typical of the poor back then but the father tells his servants to give him shoes. Basically a whole bunch of things that the son does not think he deserves. The father explains that, as the sons behaviour essentially expressed the statement “you’re dead to me father”, the father actually saw the behaviour as the son spiritually killing himself. Now he has returned home he is “alive again, he was lost and is found”. The father sees this as a moment to celebrate not punish.

25 “Now his elder son was in the field; and as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 And he called one of the servants and asked what this meant.

27 And he said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fatted calf, because he has received him safe and sound.’

The elder son, the obedient one who did not leave his father, has been working in his fathers fields and hears the celebrations. He asks the servant what is happening and they tell him the good news that his son has returned to their fathers household. At this point it should be obvious that not only is this parable that of sinners come to repentance but also that of the Old Covenant people and the Gentiles. The Gentiles losing their inheritance at Babel and Abraham, along with his descendants, inheriting the status of the first sons of Yahweh.

28 But he was angry and refused to go in. His father came out and entreated him,

29 but he answered his father, ‘Lo, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command; yet you never gave me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends.

30 But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your living with harlots, you killed for him the fatted calf!’

The elder son who never left the fathers house and responsibilities, instead of rejoicing with his father, is indignant at his brothers return and refuses to join the celebrations. He points out his reasoning being that because he has served his father this whole time and has never received such a celebration he should be angry. This is pointing as we have mentioned toward sinners and the Gentiles. Many Jews despite their scripture saying rather explicitly that the Gentiles will re-join in the Covenant with God, their shallow human “wisdom” perceived this as undeserved. Of course it wasn’t it was their lack of understanding of God’s extreme mercy. A mercy that has always been extending to them but they in their normalising of it started acting like fish not being aware of the water they live in.

31 And he said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours.

32 It was fitting to make merry and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found.’ ”

The Father, just like the Father in Heaven points out that the elder son has always had everything he ever wanted and his current feelings are coming from a place of envy. Negative feelings because someone you don’t like has something. He explains that his younger brother has been dead and lost but now he is alive and has been found. It is in time a moment to rejoice.