The story

After the selection of the Twelve to be sent on mission to the Jews, Jesus chooses Seventy-two disciples, representing the known nations on earth, to be sent also on mission, because the harvest is so great that additional workers are needed, especially for the cities. But the condition of the missionary is not easy, because he is like a lamb in the midst of wolves, i.e. he will be defenseless against violent attacks from the enemies of the gospel. Jesus presents his instructions for the missionary, first of all on how to travel, which should be like a poor man, without money, without provisions and without shoes, and without greeting anyone, so as not to lose time, because the mission is urgent.

Then the instructions concern what to do when being hosted in a house, which is the main place of the Christian life. As the good news is a gift, so the first action is to offer the messianic peace which is the Holy Spirit, which can be accepted or refused. And if this gift is accepted, in return the missionary must fully accept the hospitality of his host, without question and with the assurance that it is well deserved.

Then follow the instructions for the mission to the city, similar to those for the house, except that healings are added, signs of the reign of God. As in the case of a house, a city can refuse the gospel message: in this case, one must leave the city, and by the gesture of wiping the dust of the city off one's feet, indicate that one no longer has a relationship with it. In spite of this refusal, the evangelical mission will continue, but the cities that have refused this mission may suffer a worse fate than Sodom, which was judged by fire. This is the time to mention cities like Chorazin and Bethsaida that have no excuse for having refused the mission, for if the pagan cities of Tyre and Sidon had witnessed all the healings, they would have changed their minds long ago. The same is true of Capernaum, the first place of Jesus' mission, which is now destined for Sheol. In conclusion, the position towards the missionary is a mirror of the position towards God.

Returning from their mission, the Seventy-two rejoice at their power in the face of disease, the symbol of evil in the world. Jesus sees this as a sign that the source of evil, Satan, will soon be defeated. Then he tells them that the source of their success is that they have been delegated the ability to overcome evil, but that their joy should not come from that ability, but to have received the revelation of the mystery of the kingdom.

The vocabulary

The vocabulary varies between Mark's, the Q document and Luke's own.

In v. 1 we note words from the Lucan vocabulary: "after these things" (meta tauta), "Lord" (kyrios) which he uses more than the others, "designate" (anadeiknymi) which he uses for the choice of Mathias in Acts and for the choice of the Seventy-Two, the adjective "others" which he uses often, the verb "to send" (apostello) to make the Seventy-Two into "envoys" or "apostles", the noun "face" (prosopon), the noun "city" (polis), reflecting the fact that Luke's world is urban, "place" (topos), which in Luke's mind probably refers to Macedonia and Achaia, "coming" (erchomai), which allows him to emphasize that through the missionary, it is God's visit that occurs.

In vv. 2 and 3, it is mainly the vocabulary of document Q that appears: harvest (therismos), worker (ergatēs), lamb ( arēn), wolf (lykos) that Luke introduces with an expression of his own: he said in the direction of them (legō pros).

In vv. 4 and 5, we have a mixture of the vocabulary of Mark, the document Q and Luke. From Mark, he borrows the bag or satchel for the food (pēra) that the missionary must not have for the journey, and the fact that he enters (eiserchomai) in a house (oikia). From document Q, he takes up the mention of shoes (hypodēma) that must be discarded for the road, the expression "if any perchance" (eis hēn dʼan). Luc sews together Mark and the document Q with his vocabulary: "to carry" (bastazō), purse (balantion), not to greet (aspazomai) person (mēdeis) on the road (hodos), offer peace (eirēnē).

In vv. 6 and 7, Luke takes up a text from document Q with its expressions "sons of peace" (huios eirēnēs), "rest" (epanapauō), "return" (anakamptō), "worthy" (axios), "worker" (ergatēs), "salary" (misthos), and from another ancient tradition, if not from document Q "move" (metabainō ) and "from house to house" (ex oikias eis oikia) to which he adds Mark's idea of "remaining" (menō) in this house, and complete with its vocabulary on "eat" (esthiō) and "drink" (pinō).

The Vs. 8 and 9 are a composition of Luke with his vocabulary: "city" (polis), "enter" (eiserchomai), "eat" (esthiō ;), "drink" (pinō), "present" (paratithēmi), "cure" (therapeu& #333;), "approach" (engizō).

In vv. 10 to 12 Luke merges what he receives from Mark with a text from the document Q. From Mark he takes up the idea of "receiving" (dechomai) the missionary and removing is under the "feet" (pous). From document Q, he takes up all of his vocabulary: "going out" (exerchomai), "main street" (plateia), "dust" (koniortos), "stick" (kollaō), "wipe" (apomassō), "I tell you" (egō hymin), "Sodom" (Sodoma), "those days" (tē hēmera ekeinē), "tolerable" (anektos), "that town" (tē polei ekeinē). To bring these two traditions together, he composes a short introduction around the verb "to enter" (eiserchomai), and inserts a paragraph with "however" (plēn), "know" (ginōskō), "approach" (engizō), "kingdom of God" (basileia tou theou).

The Vs. 13 to 15 represent text from document Q: "misfortune" (yeah), "Chorazin" (Chorazin), "Bethsaida" (Bēthsaida), "Tyr" (Tyros), "Sidon" (Sidōn), "to happen" (ginomai), "act of power" (dynamis), "for a long time" (palai), "bag" (sakkos), " ashes" (spodos), "to sit" (kathēmai), "to change one's mind" (metanoeō ), "however" (plēn), "tolerable" (anektos), "judgment" (krisis).

The v. 16 represents another text from document Q: "listen" (akouō), "reject" (atheteō), "send" (apostellō).

The Vs. 17 to 20 are largely a composition by Luke with probably some fairly old elements. Typical Lucan words include: "Seventy-Two", (hebdomēkonta dyo), "return" (hypostrephō), "joy" (chara), "lord" (kyrios), "demon" (daimonion), "submit" (hypotassō), "name" (onoma), "observe" (theōreō), "tread" (pateō ;), "above" (epanō), "to harm" (adikeō), "however" (plēn), "to rejoice" (fleshō), "spirit" (pneuma). It is possible that it borrows from an ancient tradition the vocabulary of "Satan" (satanas), "lightning" (astrapē), "fall" (piptō), "serpent" (ophis), "scorpion" (skorpios), "enemy" (echthros), "your names written in heaven" (ta onomata hymōn engegraptai en toi ouranois). But a few expressions are copied from the Marcan tradition such as "to give authority" (didōmi tēn exousian).

Structure and composition

This pericope has three parts: the selection and sending of the Seventy-Two with the instructions for the mission (1-16), their return from the mission (17) and Jesus' reaction (18-20). The missionary instructions cover two locations, the house (5-7) and the city (8-15). And for each location, the instructions address two situations, acceptance and rejection. By the setting of each of these instructions, it is clear that the focus is on the city, not the house.

To compose this account, Luke reuses elements of the sending of the Twelve in Mark to which he adds a number of texts from the Q document. In the section on missionary instructions, Luke inserts at the beginning a long introduction (2-3) from two texts of the Q document, a justification for this new mission after that of the Twelve because of the abundance of the mission (2), and the hostile conditions of this mission (3). Then, after the instructions on how to travel (4), there are those for the mission to the house (5-7) where Luke takes up Mark's tradition and enriches it with what the Q document offers him. For the mission in the city (8-15), Luke has only the Q document, and this one presents only a negative view. So, in order to respect a certain balance between acceptance and rejection of the mission, Luke has to compose a text (8-9) on the instructions for a city that opens itself to the mission where he takes up part of what he said about the mission to the house (8: eat and drink what is offered) to which he adds what is a summary of Jesus' ministry (9: healings, sign of the kingdom). Then come the instructions on the refusal of the mission to a city where, after having integrated some elements of the refusal of a house in Mark (10 : leave and remove from his feet the traces of the place), he adds what a first text of the Q document offers (11-12 : go out, go to the public square, remove the dust from the shoes), to which he joins another text (13-15) from the Q document belonging to a completely different context (curses addressed to Chorazin, Bethsaida, Capernaum), but which he sees fit to include in his instructions, at the risk of having a heterogeneous passage that is poorly structured with the context (we are no longer addressing the Twelve, but cities). Finally, to conclude Jesus' instructions (16), Luke finds a text from the Q document which makes the missionary's word the very word of God.

In order to keep the unity of place and time, Luke makes sure that, so soon after Jesus' speech, the Seventy-two already return from their mission (17). This mission report is a composition of Luke's where we find his language: return, joy, Lord, demons, submission.

The pericope ends with Jesus' reaction to the report of the Seventy-Two. This reaction of Jesus is largely a composition of Luke's, in which he incorporates elements that seem very old around Satan falling from heaven, authority over snakes and scorpions, or the names inscribed in the heavens. Jesus' reaction includes three moments: a teaching on the significance of the healings performed during the mission of the Seventy-Two, which is an anticipation of the definitive disappearance of evil represented by the fall of Satan (18); a reminder that the healings do not come from personal power, but from the delegation of the risen Jesus (19); and finally, a call to recognize that the true gift received is that of the revelation of the mystery of God and his kingdom (20).

Intention of the author

Why did Luke compose this pericope, where after the sending of the Twelve, he presents a second missionary sending, Seventy-two disciples, which he alone does? Let us remember that the evangelist addresses Christians of Greek culture, a large part of whom are of pagan origin, in a territory evangelized by Paul in which cities such as Thessalonica, Philippi, Athens, Corinth and Ephesus stand out, and the gospel itself was perhaps composed in Corinth. The Twelve, Jews, were sent by Jesus to the Jewish towns and villages. During the time of the Church, especially after the death of the apostles, a new generation of missionaries evangelized the cities of the Greco-Roman world, including Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, Silas. For Luke, these new missionaries are no different from the Twelve, and basically their sending by the Church is a sending by the risen Jesus, in the same way that the historical Jesus sent the Twelve apostles. His intention is all the more clear because in his account of the Seventy-Two, he refers to Jesus with the title Lord, an allusion to the risen Jesus. This is another way for Luke to achieve the goal he set at the beginning of his gospel and which he shares with a certain Theophilus: "to recognize the soundness of the teachings you have received" (Lk 1:4). With 10:1-20, it is above all a question of the validity of missionary practices in the Greco-Roman church of the 80s. Everything that was done then can basically be traced back to the historical Jesus and be covered by his authority. Thus, even if the setting is no longer the Palestine of Jesus' time, there is no real difference.

This seems to be Luke's intention. To achieve this, he transforms the Twelve into the Seventy-Two, which in biblical antiquity constitutes the whole of the nations of the world. And these Seventy-Two are sent above all to the cities, the places where the Christian communities in the Greco-Roman world were born. Moreover, to justify this second sending, Luke evokes the abundance of the harvest. Many of the features of the mission to the city come from what is revealed of Paul's mission in Acts, in particular the hospitality received, the healings performed, and the attacks on opponents. The inclusion in Jesus' speech of curses directed at Chorazin, Bethsaida and Carphanaum is not innocent, since they concern Jewish cities that witnessed the healings, a way of reinforcing Luke's message to his Greek audience of the 80s: having known the historical Jesus and his healings does not provide any advantage for believing. Similarly, the mention of Tyre and Sidon, pagan cities that would have been converted if they had witnessed Jesus' healings, allows Luke's audience to identify with them. By ending Jesus' discourse with the true source of the disciple's joy, Luke intends to remind the missionaries of his time of the true perspective they should have, not that of any authority in the community, but that of being among those little ones to whom the mystery of the kingdom has been revealed.

The expression meta tauta is formed from the preposition meta (with, after) and the demonstrative pronoun houtos (that) in the accusative neuter plural, the accusative being required by meta. It means literally: after these things, and it is usually translated by: after that, after what. In the Gospels-Acts, the expression appears only in Luke and John: Mt = 0; Mk = 0; Lk = 5; Jn = 7; Acts = 4; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. Note that the expression also appears in Mk 16:12, but this section is an appendix to Mark's gospel, written by a scribe who was inspired by Luke's gospel, and absent from the two most important codices, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus.

Why stop at this expression? It bears the signature of Luke's typical vocabulary, and at the same time gives us an example of the kinship between Luke and John that we find throughout their respective gospels. It is possible that the two evangelists lived in a fairly close environment, even though they are totally independent and did not know each other.

What do we mean by "these things"? The "things" may refer to specific events in time, such as a healing or speech of Jesus, or those surrounding his death and appearances to the disciples, or events that are part of the history of Israel; then the phrase "after these things" intends to situate the reader in time in a sequence of events. For example, "After these things (healing of a paralyzed man) Jesus went out and noticed a publican named Levi sitting at the customs office, and he said to him, 'Follow me.'" (Lk 5, 27).

But sometimes "things" do not refer to events, but to actions in order to establish a sequence and an order of priority; for example, "Will he not, on the contrary, say to his servant, 'Prepare me something to eat, and gird yourself to serve me, until I have eaten and drunk; after these things you will eat and drink in your turn'?" (Lk 17:8).

Here, in v. 1, the "things" refer to the event where Jesus, while on the road, receives requests to become disciples, to which Jesus responds by making demands. Thus, "after these things" is intended not only to situate the reader in time in a sequence of events, but also to establish a link between Jesus' response to the demands of discipleship and the sending out of the 72 disciples with all its recommendations.

Anedeixen is the verb anadeiknymi in the aorist active indicative, 3rd person singular. It is formed by the preposition ana (describing a movement from bottom to top) and the verb deiknymi (to show, to indicate), and means: to indicate in broad daylight, and thus to designate, with a flavor of promotion. In the whole New Testament, it appears only in Luke: Mt = 0; Mk = 0; Lk = 1; Jn = 0; Acts = 1; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0.

In the Bible as a whole, this verb is used above all to indicate the choice and investiture of persons for a position of authority: judges, wise men, a king, a military leader, a strategist. On a few rare occasions, it means: to manifest, to make visible, to allow to see (cf. 2 Macc 2:8). In all cases, even if the subject of the action is often a human being, it is assumed that the true subject of the action is God himself.

The two occurrences in Luke concern first the choice of a replacement for Judas to form the group of twelve (Acts 1:24) and then here, in v. 1, the choice of missionaries. For Luke, no one can decide on his own to be a missionary. Therefore, it is Jesus alone who makes this choice and assigns a mission to the person chosen.

Kyrios is the masculine nominative singular of kyrios, the word being in the nominative because it plays the role of subject of the verb "to appoint". In classical Greek, the word means "he who is master of, who has authority", i.e. the master, the master of the house, the legal representative, the guardian (see our Glossary). In a hierarchical society, it is therefore a generic term to describe the relationship of a superior to a subordinate: a superior exercises lordship over the subordinate.

It is the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, that popularized this term to designate God: indeed, as in the Jewish world the proper name of Yahweh is unpronounceable and is replaced by אֲדֹנָי (Adonai), to express his role as master of the universe, then the authors of the Septuagint chose to translate Adonai by kyrios (lord).

It will be understood that the term kyrios is extremely frequent in the New Testament, and more particularly in the Gospel-Acts : Mt = 80; Mk = 18; Lk = 104; Jn = 52; Acts = 107. As we can see, Luke uses it the most; speaking to a Greek culture, it became a vehicle well adapted to his environment. On the other hand, Mark uses it much less often as he writes for the community in Rome.

The word itself has a great flexibility in that it covers everything that exercises authority and demands respect and honor.

1. Prolonging the Septuagint, the evangelists intend to designate God by the title of kyrios when they do not want to pronounce his name. For example:
   • Mt 4: 7: "Jesus said to him, "Again it is written, 'Do not put the Lord (kyrios) your God to the test.'"

2. But the Christian communities had the audacity very early on to give Jesus the title that was reserved for God. In this sense, there is something ambiguous for evangelists to present characters who address Jesus by giving him the title of Lord before Easter when he was made "Lord". In fact, kyrious can also have the meaning of "sir"; but for the believer who listens to the gospel account, kyrious refers to the Lord of glory. And it is surprising for an evangelist like Luke to sometimes replace the word "Jesus" with "Lord" in his narrative. For example:
   • Mt 8: 25: "And they went and woke him up, saying, 'Lord (kyrios), save us! We are perishing!'"
   • Lk 7: 13: "When the Lord (kyrios) saw her, he had compassion for her and said to her, 'Do not weep'"

3. In reference to humans, the gospels regularly use kyrios to designate the owner of an estate over which he exercises lordship and for which servants work. It is a character that recurs regularly in the parables. For example:
   • Mt 20: 8: "When evening came, the master (kyrios) of the vineyard said to his manager, 'Call the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and then going to the first.'"

4. There is also the reference to the Septuagint version of Psalm 110:1, a psalm that has been given a messianic significance. While the Hebrew says, "Yahweh said unto my Lord (Adonai), sit at my right hand," the Septuagint translated: "The Lord (kyrios) said to my Lord (kyrios), sit at my right hand. " Thus, kyrios also refers to the Messiah. Example (Jesus asked a question about the messiah as the son of David):
   • Lk 20: 44: "David thus calls him Lord (kyrios); so how can he be his son?"

5. Finally, because of the flexibility of the word, it is used in other circumstances, such as the master-disciple relationship, or as a title of honour when addressing an individual, or as an adjective in the expression "to be master of". For example:
   • Jn 12: 21: "They came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and said to him, 'Sir (kyrios), we wish to see Jesus.'"
   • Acts 16: 30: "Then he brought them (Paul and Silas) outside and said, 'Sirs (kyrios), what must I do to be saved?'"

We can make this table about the occurrence and meaning of kyrios (later additions to the gospel of Mark have been excluded from this table).

	Matthew	Mark	Luke	John	Acts	Total
God	18	8	37	4	45	112
Jesus	26	3	40	44	53	168
Owner	31	2	24	3	2	62
Others	5	3	3	1	7	19
Total	80	18	104	52	107	361

Let's make a few points:

1. In the Gospels, it is in John that kyrios is most used to designate Jesus, especially with respect to the instances where it refers to God; "whoever sees me sees the Father", he tells us, because we are in a high theology.

2. The abundance of occurrences of kyrios to designate Jesus in Acts can easily be explained: we are in a post-paschal context where the risen Jesus is Christ and Lord.

3. Luke offers us an astonishing number of occurrences of kyrios where it points to God: the evangelist finds it important to emphasize the continuity between the Old and New Testaments, and the characters he presents to us are pious people faithful to the Jewish tradition.

4. Mark does not insist on the title of kyrios for Jesus, because the man of Nazareth is first of all a rabbi or teacher (didaskalos) who has to follow a path that leads to the cross.

5. Finally, Matthew may seem to use kyrios less often to refer to Jesus than John and Luke, however when we take only the references to Jesus or God, we note that in 60% of the cases kyrios refers to Jesus. Moreover, if we concentrate only on the 31 occurrences that are his own (which he does not copy from Mark or Document Q), we get 22 occurrences (more than 70%) designating Jesus as Lord. There is a form of high theology in Matthew.

Let's focus on Luke. Not only does kyrios refer to Jesus 40 times, but of all these occurrences 32 are his own (not a copy of Mark or the Q document). But there is more. A peculiar feature of his gospel is that the term is found 13 times in the narrator's pen to refer to Jesus. For example: "Seeing her, the Lord (kyrios) had compassion on her and said to her, 'Do not weep'" (7: 13). This is a sign that we are around the year 85, that Luke is addressing a believing community, and he speaks of Jesus with respect and deference, using the very term used by believers. The only gospel where the narrator refers to Jesus as "Lord" is John, but much less often: only four times. Here we would have another example of kinship between the two gospel writers' milieu.

Another peculiarity of Luke is the use of the expression: the Lord Jesus (once in the gospel, 16 times in Acts), an expression that was probably used in Greek Christian circles. Among the evangelists, only Luke uses this expression (this expression in Mark 16 belongs to an addition by a scribe who was inspired by the ending of the gospel according to Luke). Otherwise, it is mostly found in the so-called Pauline epistles, often with the addition of the word "Christ".

Here, in v. 1, we observe this peculiarity of Luke where the narrator refers to Jesus as "Lord", the usual expression for referring to Jesus in the Christian community. This is a clue that the scene is set after Easter.

Heterous is the adjective heteros in the accusative plural, the accusative being required because heteros plays the role of a direct object of the verb "to designate". This is a particularly Lucan word: Mt = 10; Mk = 0; Lk = 32; Jn = 1; Acts = 17; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0; of the total of 60 occurrences, 49 come from the pen of Luke. We could also add Mark 16:12, because this section is an addition by a scribe who was inspired by the ending of Luke's gospel. It means: other.

"Other" is an adjective, so it qualifies a noun. Thus, when we go through the Gospels-Acts, we notice that it qualifies a very wide variety of nouns: master, disciple, city, kid, spirit, son, etc. Sometimes it is used as a noun; for example, "Are you the one who is to come or are we to expect another (heteros)?". Usually, the context is clear enough to know what name is implied, i.e. what "other" it is.

But here, in v. 1, "others" is used as a noun: "The Lord appointed others". So, "others" qualifies an implied name? Who exactly? Three answers are possible:

1. Our normal reflex, since this is a missionary sending, is to think that it is about other disciples. But the last time Luke used the word "disciple" was eight verses earlier in Lk 9:54 in reference to James and John. It is hard to see how an author would use the word "others" in reference to what was said eight verses earlier; and even then, it is not disciples in general, but James and John.

2. On the other hand, since the verb of which "others" is the direct object complement is "to designate", and thus introduces us into a context of selection, we could refer to what precedes, i.e. the set 9:57-62 where some want to follow Jesus, and even where Jesus asks someone to follow him, and in this case "others" could qualify those who would like to follow Jesus, or whom he would have invited to follow him. But in this set, Jesus did not choose anyone, and if he did not choose anyone, it is difficult to understand why Luke would now speak of choosing or designating others in addition to those he had already chosen.

3. Since we are dealing with a selection of seventy-two missionaries, the number itself is easily understood in contrast to the Twelve. Now, just earlier, in Lk 9:1-6, we have the scene where Jesus gathers the Twelve and sends them on their mission after having given his recommendations in a vocabulary very similar to what we have for the sending of the seventy-two. It is possible that Luke knew of a tradition of sending out seventy-two disciples that accompanied the sending out of the Twelve, unless he created this duplicate himself. Thus, v. 1 should be read as follows: "The Lord appointed others besides the Twelve, seventy-two".

What to conclude? Our v. 1 belongs to a section (Lk 9:51 - 18:14) where, after following Mark's account to the point where Jesus will soon arrive in Jericho and Jerusalem, Luke inserts a section of eight chapters whose elements are drawn from the Q document and from his own sources. It is thus a compilation of a multitude of sources. However, in such an editing work, many documents are placed in a new context, and thus sometimes lose their original context which previously made it easy to understand who or what they were about. A typical example is Luke's rearrangement of the account of Peter's denial: while Mark presents the scene in three moments, Luke preferred to combine them into one moment, but when he makes the connection with the mockery of the Jews that follows, after Peter has wept bitterly, he simply writes: "The men who guarded him mocked him" (Lk 22:63); grammatically the pronouns "him" that designate the captive person being mocked refer to Peter, who is the subject of the previous sentence, while the reader knows well that it refers to Jesus. Thus, in his reworking, Luke forgot to modify Mark's text by making this connection, a small "oversight". Now we have something similar here in v. 1 with the word "others", which probably originally referred to the Twelve, but lost its original context by being inserted at the beginning of chap. 10; Luke neglected to make the required adjustment. As much as Luke is a Greek author with a very rich vocabulary and a harmonious and refined style showing a great mastery of language, he can sometimes be absent-minded.

Hebdomēkonta dyo designate two numbers: seventy or Septuagint (according to some French-speaking circles) and two, and therefore the number 72. In the whole New Testament, only Luke uses the number hebdomēkonta (seventy): Mt = 0; Mk = 0; Lk = 2; Jn = 0; Acts = 3; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0.

In our section on the establishment of the text at the very beginning, we mentioned that the manuscripts are divided on this number, some showing 70 and others 72, and it is very difficult to determine what the original number was under Luke's pen; in the Greek text proposed by Aland, the number "two" next to "seventy" has been put in brackets. We have also proposed that the number 70 or 72 comes from Genesis 10, which tells how all the nations of the world, after the destruction of all humanity in the flood, were created by the sons of Noah: Shem, Ham and Japheth; even if the account does not give any number, it is enough to count the various nations named. Now, the list of nations varies according to whether we read Gen 10 in the Hebrew version or in the Septuagint version: according to the Hebrew text, Shem begat 27 nations, Ham 11, Japheth 32, which gives us a total of 70; but according to the Greek text, Shem begat 27 nations, Ham 30, and Japheth 15, which gives us a total of 72. But whether it's 70 or 72, it doesn't change the idea that we are looking at the total number of nations in the world, and therefore the Gentile nations, according to Jewish culture.

In the Bible, the number 70 sometimes has a symbolic value. It is the result of the number seven (symbol of fullness) multiplied by the number 10 (symbol of multitude), and refers to various realities.

1. Seventy years is first of all the ideal duration of a human life: "The days of our years are seventy (hebdomēkonta) years; and for the strong, eighty; and beyond that, it is only pain and toil. Then weakness comes to us and softens us" (Ps 89:10)

2. As a corollary, seventy is the duration of the calamity when the catastrophe strikes: "And it shall come to pass on that day that Tyre shall be forsaken for seventy. (hebdomēkonta) years, the time that a man lives, the time that a king lives; and after these seventy (hebdomēkonta) years, Tyre will sing like a courtesan" (Isa 23: 15) (see also Dan 9: 2)

3. Thus, this was the duration of the Babylonian exile: "For this is what the Lord says: When seventy (hebdomēkonta) years shall be on the point of being accomplished at Babylon, I will visit you, and will confirm my words to you, to bring back your people to this place" (Jer 36: 10).

4. In Mt 18: 22 we find the related adverb hebdomēkontakis (seventy times) which is used in a formula to mean an infinite number of times: "Jesus said to him, 'I do not say to you until seven times, but until seventy times seven'"

Here, in v. 1, the number 72 or 70 intends to designate a precise number, that of the number of Gentile nations in the world. So for Luke, in addition to sending the Twelve as missionaries to each of the Jewish tribes, the Lord also sends a missionary to each of the Gentile nations in the world. Of course, this sending has a highly symbolic value, for it will only really take place after Jesus' resurrection. But by the time Luke publishes his gospel around the year 85, the Christian faith has already spread throughout the world. And for Luke, it is the work of the risen Lord Jesus, a sending that was already anticipated in his public life.

Apesteilen is the verb apostellō in the aorist of the active indicative, 3rd person singular. The verb apostellō is formed with the preposition apo (from, far from) and the verb stellō (equip, prepare for a trip), and therefore means: to send to someone, to send to a place, to send on a mission. We can guess that it is very frequent in the gospels-Acts: Mt = 22; Mk = 20; Lk = 26; Jn = 28; Acts = 24. Usually it is a superior who sends a subordinate to accomplish a mission or to do a job: God sends his prophets or his messengers, the angels, Jesus sends his disciples, a master sends his servants.

In the context of a mission, the verb apostellō translates the idea that one does not send oneself. As Paul writes: "And how can we preach without first being sent (apostellō)?" (Rom 10: 15). Thus, sending is not a simple action like sending someone on an errand, it is an official gesture where someone becomes an ambassador or a representative, thus receiving a mission for which he will have to account. In Luke, there are three phases in sending:

1. First God sends the angel Gabriel to Zechariah (Lk 1:19), then to Mary (1:26) to ultimately prepare the coming of Jesus.
2. Then God sends Jesus to bring the good news ("He [God] has sent [apostellō] me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free", Lk 4: 18).
3. And finally, Jesus, in turn, sends the Twelve to the Jews to "proclaim the Kingdom of God and do healings" (Lk 9:2); before going to a region like Samaria, he "sent (apostellō) messengers in front of him. Setting out, they entered a Samaritan village to prepare everything for him" (Lk 9:52); he chose 72 disciples for the Gentile nations, "he sent (apostellō) them two by two before him in every city and place where he himself was to go" (Lk 10:1); again, it is Jesus who chooses Paul ("I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending (apostellō) you to them" (Acts 26: 17).

To complete our analysis of apostellō, let's take a look at the name apostolos (the sent one, the messenger, the apostle), of which Luke is the greatest user, especially in the Acts of the Apostles: Mt = 1; Mk = 2; Lk = 6; Jn = 1; Acts = 28; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. For Luke, apostolos means first the Twelve ("He called his disciples and chose twelve, whom he named apostles. [apostolos])", so that at the last supper he replaces the name "Twelve" of Mark with the name "apostle":

Mark 14	Luke 22
17 And when evening comes, he arrives with the Twelve	14 And when the hour was come, he sat down to table and the apostles with him

But in the Acts of the Apostles, Luke expands the list of Apostles to include Paul and Barnabas: "When the apostles (apostolos) were informed of the matter, Barnabas and Paul tore their clothes and ran to the crowd" (Acts 14: 14). As for Paul, he is not shy about calling himself an "apostle," a title he boasts about at the beginning of his letters. But he adds other names, such as James, the brother of Jesus ("I have not seen another apostle [apostolos], but only James, the Lord's brother", Gal 1:19), and Andronicus and Junias (see Rom 16:7). For him, the distinctive features of the apostle are "perfect constancy, signs, wonders and miracles" (2 Cor 12:12).

Here, in v. 1, it is not a question of the sending out of the Apostles, which Luke restricts to the Twelve, but of the sending out of a new generation of missionaries who will succeed the Apostles (whose mission is mainly restricted to Jerusalem in Acts) and whose territory will cover all the nations.

Dyo is the numeral adjective dyo in the accusative neuter plural, the accusative being required by the preposition ana. Since it is an adjective, the word "person" is implied, and the adjective is used as a noun. It is a frequent word in the gospels: Mt = 40; Mk = 18; Lk = 29; Jn = 13; Acts = 13. It means: two.

Numbers in the Bible can have a symbolic value. What about the number two? Without necessarily always having a symbolic value, this number intends to designate certain particular realities.

1. The word "two" may simply refer to a number of objects or persons, without any particular meaning: two young doves (Lk 2:24), two fish (Lk 9:16), two small boats (Lk 5:2), two lepers (21:2)
2. But it can mean wealth and abundance: Let him who has two tunics share with him who has none (Lk 3:11); do not go on a mission with two tunics (Lk 9:3)
3. He can represent a group or a community: when two or three are gathered, Jesus is in their midst (Mt 18:20); John the Baptist sends two representatives to inquire of Jesus (Lk 7:18); the two disciples at Emmaus represent the group of those who have followed Jesus and are disappointed
4. It can signify binary and opposite objects or realities, so that they force a choice: no one can serve two masters, God and money (Lk 16:13)
5. Two may mean the minimum number for legal testimony: in case of a dispute, at least two witnesses are needed (Mt 18:16); eventually two witnesses are found to testify against Jesus (Mt 26:60)
6. It allows us to contrast two different behaviors or fates: a debtor with a large debt and a debtor with a much smaller debt (Lk 7:41); in the eschatological period, two people sharing the same place might experience different fates (Lk 17:34-35); two men go up to the temple to pray with totally different attitudes (Lk 18:10); a man had two children to whom he asks to go to work in the field, with different results (Mt 21:31)

Here, in v. 1, why are they sent two by two? Even if it is Jesus who sends, the people sent represent the community of believers, and at the time Luke writes his gospel, it is this community that sends. To this meaning is probably juxtaposed another meaning: in the world of testimony to which the sent ones belong, at least two people are needed for the testimony to be valid, one confirming what the other says.

Ana is a preposition that is very rare in the New Testament and in the Gospels-Acts: Mt = 3; Mk = 1; Lk = 3; Jn = 1; Acts = 0; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. It is part of certain expressions, such as ana meson (lit. among middle, i.e. in the middle of), or ana meros (lit. each one his share, i.e. each one his turn). When it is associated with a number, it has a distributive dynamic, as in the expression "to receive a penny each" (see Mt 20:9). The designated object is always in the accusative.

We wanted to focus briefly on this proposition, even though it is rare, because it is part of Luke's vocabulary. Of the three occurrences in his gospel, all three are his own. He even sometimes adds (underlined) the preposition to his Marcan source.

Mark 6: 9	Luke 9: 3
but having been shod with sandals, and not clothed with two coats	And he said toward them, "Take nothing for the road, neither a staff, nor a bag, nor bread, nor money, nor have each (ana) two tunics.

Mark 6: 39	Luke 9: 14b
And Jesus commanded them all to lie down together (lit. in groups) on the green grass.	But Jesus said to his disciples, "Make them lie down by (ana) groups of about fifty."

Here, in v. 1, the preposition associated with the number "two" conveys the idea of distribution: the missionaries are distributed in groups of two, and thus are sent out two by two.

Pro is a proposition that is found 29 times in the Gospels-Acts: Mt = 5; Mk = 1; Lk = 7; Jn = 9; Acts = 7; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. It means literally: before. In the majority of cases, the preposition is situated in a temporal framework, and thus refers to what precedes in time (for example: "And when the eight days for his circumcision were completed, he was called by the name of Jesus, a name indicated by the angel before (pro) he was conceived in the womb (Lk 2: 21; but the preposition is sometimes situated in a spatial framework, and thus serves to designate what is in front of something else (for example: "She recognized Peter's voice and, in her joy, instead of opening the door, she ran inside to announce that Peter was there, before (pro) the door" (Acts 12: 14).

The preposition pro belongs to the Lucan vocabulary, for not only does it appear 14 times in the Gospels-Acts, but of the seven occurrences in his gospel, six are his own. Luke particularly likes the expression pro toutōn (tōn hēmerōn), which is translated: before that (or those days). This is how he adds it to a text from Mark:

Mark 13: 9a	Luke 21, 12
But you, look at yourselves: they will hand you over to the Sanhedrin and to the synagogues, and you will be beaten, and before governors and kings you will appear for my sake	Now, before all this (pro toutōn), they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you to synagogues and prisons, taking you away before kings and governors for my name's sake

Here, in v. 1, pro has first of all a temporal meaning: the envoys precede in time the arrival of Jesus. But there may also be a spatial connotation, for by preceding Jesus on a path that Jesus will also follow later, the envoys are ahead of Jesus in space. In any case, the question arises: why such a missionary sending before Jesus' visit? A few verses earlier (Lk 9:52), Jesus had sent messengers before him (pro prosōpou autou, lit.: before his face) at the Samaritans to "prepare (etoimazō) his coming". This is the same language used to describe the mission of John the Baptist (Lk 7:27; Mk 1:2; Mt 11:10). But paradoxically, Luke never describes the work of these messengers in Samaritan territory (Lk 9:52); on the contrary, in the next verse (v. 53), it is simply said that Jesus was not welcomed, as if everyone had left at the same time. As for the sending of the 72 before the coming of Jesus, we simply learn a little later (v. 17) that the demons were subjected to them. But how does this prepare for the coming of Jesus, especially since he will be on his way until chapter 18 when he reaches Jerusalem? In fact, the sending that precedes the coming of Jesus must probably be understood in the context of the Christian community of the year 85: the mission of the Christian is to open the way of faith by his testimony, and thus to prepare the coming of Jesus; when Luke speaks of the messengers and the 72, he is speaking of us. We can see the importance of the expression pro prosōpou autou (lit. before the face of him), because it emphasizes the believer's role as mediator in the coming of Jesus.

Prosōpou is the noun prosōpon in the genitive neuter singular, the genitive being required by the preposition pro (before). It means: face, aspect, and appears 38 times in the gospel-Acts: Mt = 10; Mk = 3; Lk = 13; Jn = 0; Acts = 12; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. It is a very Lucan word, because of the 38 occurrences in the Gospels-Acts, 25 come from the pen of Luke. And in his gospel, of the 13 occurrences, nine are unique to him. Sometimes he even adds it (underlined) to his Marcan source:

Mark 1: 40	Luke 5: 12
And a leper came to him, begging him and kneeling down, saying, "If you want, you can cleanse me.	And it came to pass, as he was in one of the cities, that there was a man full of leprosy; and when he saw Jesus, falling on the face (prosōpon), he prayed to him saying: "Lord, if you want, you can cleanse me".

As can be noted, Luke has replaced Mark's verb "to kneel" with "to fall on one's face," a gesture of greater humility and reverence.

When we go through the Gospels-Acts, we can observe that the word "face" can have five different meanings.

1. The face can refer to the physical face of the person, that element of his anatomy. For example:
   • Lk 17: 16: And fell down on his face (prosōpon) at his feet, giving him thanks: and he was a Samaritan"

2. But very often face is a euphemism for the whole human person, to signify his presence. In all these cases, it is translated either by personal pronoun, or by "in his presence". For example:
   • Lk 7: 27: "This is he of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before you. (lit.: your face [prosōpon]) to prepare your way before you".
   • Acts 2: 28: "You have made known to me ways of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence. (lit. with your face [prosōpon])"

3. Because face can take on different aspects, the word "face" refers to the appearance or look of a person or thing. For example:
   • Lk 20: 21: "So they asked him, saying, "Teacher, we know that you speak and teach uprightly and that you do not show partiality (lit.: face [prosōpon]), but that you teach the way of God in all truth".
   • Lk 12: 56: "Hypocrites, you know how to discern the face (prosōpon) of earth and heaven; and this time then, how can you not discern it?"

4. As the face is the seat of the eyes, it happens that we speak about face in reference to the look that allows to observe things, or the fact that a reality could be observed. For example:
   • Lk 2: 31: "your salvation which you have prepared in the presence (lit.: face [prosōpon]) of all peoples"

5. Finally, the word "face" is used in reference to the outer dimension of an object, its surface. For example:
   • Lk 21: 35: "like a net; for it will fall on all who dwell on the face (prosōpon) of the whole earth"

Here, in v. 1, the word "face" designates the whole person, his presence, so that the Greek expression pro prosōpou (before face), should be translated "before him" or "before his presence", with the idea that those sent should precede Jesus.

Polin is the feminine accusative singular of the noun polis, the accusative being required by the preposition eis (to, in). It means: city. It is found everywhere in the four evangelists, especially in Luke: Mt = 27; Mk = 8; Lk = 39; Jn = 8; Acts = 43; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. This is a very Lucan word, for of the 125 occurrences of the word in the Gospels-Acts, 82 appear under the pen of Luke. This should not be surprising, for Luke addresses the Christian communities founded by Paul, and these communities were founded in cities such as Corinth. It is significant that he presents us with a parable like that of the mines, where the reward for those who made interest with this money is to receive the responsibility of several cities (see Lk 19:17,19).

What is a city? By our modern standards, a city is a settlement of at least 2,000 people, governed by a mayor and a city council. What was it like in ancient times, and more precisely in Palestine at the time of Jesus? The gospels give us few clues.

Three different entities are named: the smallest being the farm (agros), followed by the village (kōmē), and finally the city (polis).

And wherever he went, into villages (kōmē) or cities (polis) or farms (agros), they laid the sick in the marketplaces, and begged him that they might touch even the fringe of his cloak; and all who touched it were healed. (Mk 6: 56)

If it is easy to distinguish the village from the farm, it is less easy to distinguish the city from the village. For example, Luke, Matthew and John consider Bethsaida as a city, but Mark as a village.

Matthew 11: 20	Luke 9: 10	John 1: 44	Mark 8: 23
Then he began to reproach the cities (polis) (Chorazin, Bethsaida) in which most of his deeds of power had been done, because they did not repent.	On their return the apostles told Jesus all they had done. He took them with him and withdrew privately to a city (polis) called Bethsaida.	Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city (polis) of Andrew and Peter.	He took the blind man by the hand and led him out of the village (kōmē) (Bethsaida); and when he had put saliva on his eyes and laid his hands on him, he asked him, "Can you see anything?"

The same observation can be made about Bethlehem, called a city by Luke 2:4, but a village by John 7:42.

We can guess that the number of inhabitants, without being more precise, was a criterion to distinguish a city from a village. But there is probably mainly the fact that a city was usually fortified to protect itself, and one entered by a door. This is how, in the Old Testament, for example, we speak of the "city gate": Gen 19: 1 (Sodom); Josh 2: 5 (Jericho); Josh 8: 29 (Ai); Judg 9: 35 (Sichem); Judg 16: 2 (Gaza); 2 Kings 23: 8 (Jerusalem); Jdt 8: 3 (Bethulia). In the Gospels, Luke mentions the gate of the city of Nain: "When he was near the gate of the city (of Nain), there was a dead man born, an only son whose mother was a widow; and there was with it a considerable crowd of the city" (7: 12). And we know that the city of Jerusalem was a fortified city.

Which cities were named by the evangelists? i.e. where a specific name is explicitly associated with the word polis. Everyone goes from their own list.

• For Matthew, there are Nazareth (2: 23), Jerusalem (4: 5; 5: 35; 21: 10; 26: 18; 27: 53), Chorazin and Bethsaida (11: 20),
• For Mark, there is Capernaum (1: 33), Jerusalem (11: 19; 14: 16)
• For John, there are Bethsaida (1: 44), Sychar (4: 5), Ephraim (11: 54), Jerusalem (19: 20)
• For Luke, there are Nazareth (1: 26; 2: 4.39), Bethlehem (2: 4), Capernaum (4: 31), Nain (7: 11), Bethsaida (9: 10), Jerusalem (19: 41; 22: 10; 23: 19), Arimathy (23: 51)

The only consensus among all is the city of Jerusalem. Luke has the longest list, but his knowledge of Palestine, where he has probably never set foot, is rather poor, and one can imagine that he could have projected his Greek universe on the geography of Palestine.

As for villages, they are referred to without naming them, with a few rare exceptions: Bethsaida (Mk 8: 23), Bethphage (Mk 11: 2), Emmaus (Lk 24: 13), Bethlehem (Jn 7: 42), Bethany (Jn 11: 1).

In v. 1, Luke presents us with a Jesus who first sends missionaries to the cities, where the public he wants to address is, and where the first Christian communities will be formed in the Greek world; we are in an urban world. However, this statement must be qualified by the following word: topon (place), which we must now analyze.

Topon is the noun topos in the accusative masculine singular, the accusative being required because of the preposition heis (to, in). It means: place, location, and appears 64 times in the Gospels-Acts. It is a very Lucan word, for of its 64 occurrences in the Gospels-Acts, 34 come from the pen of Luke, and in his gospel, of the 17 occurrences 13 are unique to him: Mt = 9; Mk = 10; Lk = 17; Jn = 11; Acts = 17; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0.

The word topos (location, place) can designate in the Gospels-Acts various realities.

1. Its most common use is to refer to a geographical region in general, without any name being mentioned; in this case, topos can be translated as "any region" "any place," although it is sometimes given certain attributes, such as desert, arid, or flat region. For example:
   • Lk 4: 42: "When the day came, he went out and went to a solitary place. (topos). The crowds were looking for him and, having reached him, they wanted to hold him and prevent him from leaving them.
   • Lk 21: 11: here will be great earthquakes, famines and pestilences in various places (lit.: according to places [topos]); there will also be terrible phenomena and great signs from heaven".

2. But sometimes the place is well known or well identified; it is a precise place that can be pointed out. For example:
   • Lk 19: 5: "When Jesus reached the place (topos), he looked up and said to him, "Zacchaeus, come down quickly, for I must stay with you today".
   • Lk 23: 33: "When they came to the place (topos) called the Skull, they crucified him and the criminals, one on the right and the other on the left".

3. It happens that topos does not mean a geographical place, but a space assigned either to an object or to a person; in this case, it is referred to as "place", as the place of an object or a person. For example:
   • Mt 26: 52: "Put your sword back in its place (topos), for all who take the sword shall perish by the sword."
   • Lk 14: 9: "If so, the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, 'Give this person your place (topos). Then, humiliated, you will have to take the least important place (topos)'"

4. Finally, there are rare cases where topos takes on a symbolic value: the place is no longer a physical reality, but designates that symbolic space that allows an action: it is then translated as "possibility" or "opportunity". For example:
   • Acts 25: 16: told them that it is not the Roman custom to hand over anyone before they have faced their accusers and have had an opportunity (lit.: place [topos]) to defend themselves against the charges"

Here, in v. 1, topos is intended to refer to a geographic area in general. Thus, the word "place" in the phrase "any city or town" is probably a way of including places to which the missionaries and Jesus will go, but which are either not cities or constitute a whole region including several cities. Thus, in 1 Thess 1:8 Paul may write: "For from you the word of the Lord has gone forth not only into Macedonia and Achaia, but the news of your faith in God has spread in all places (topos) so that we need not speak of it"; so topos may be taken in this verse as synonymous with Macedonia or Achaia. This is probably how the word "place" should be understood, as it would designate a whole region.

Ēmellen is the verb mellō in the active imperfect tense, 3rd person singular; the subject of the verb is Jesus. It means literally: to be about to (do something), and it appears 69 times in the gospel Acts: Mt = 9; Mk = 2; Lk = 12; Jn = 12; Acts = 34; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. As can be seen, this is a very Lucan verb: of the total of 69 occurrences, 46 come from the pen of Luke. In his gospel, of the 12 occurrences, 11 are unique to him. And he sometimes adds (underlined) this verb to its Marcan source:

Mark 13: 3b-4	Luke 21: 7
Peter and James and John and Andrew asked Jesus separately: "Tell us when it will be, and what sign when it will all end".	Now they asked him, saying, "Master, when will this be, and what sign when it is about to (mellō) happen

What is the meaning of this verb?

1. Note that it is rarely used alone, but usually accompanies another verb to place the action in the near or immediate future. For example:
   • Lk 19: 11: "As the people listened to this, he spoke another parable, because he was near Jerusalem, and they thought that the Kingdom of God was going to (lit.: was about to [mellō]) appear at once".

2. When it does not accompany any verb and is used absolutely, it often implies the verb "to arrive", i.e. what is about to arrive. For example:
   • Mt 3: 7: "When he saw many Pharisees and Sadducees coming to be baptized, he said to them, "You brood of vipers, who suggested that you escape the coming (lit. that is about to happen [mellō]) wrath?'"

3. When mellō has a human being as the subject, it intends to indicate what he or she intends to do. For example:
   • Jn 7: 35: "The Jews said to one another, "Where does this man intend (lit. is about to [mellō]) to go, that we cannot find him? Does he intend (lit. is he about [mellō]) to go where our people live scattered among the Greeks, and teach the Greeks?"

4. As mellō expresses what is about to happen with a high degree of probability and certainty, it is often translated by the verb should, as in the expression "should happen", or simply by a future tense. For example:
   • Lk 21: 36: "Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that will (mellō) happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man."

5. Finally, it happens that mellō belongs to certain established expressions, such as ti mellō (lit.: why be on the verge of?) where the verb is not accompanied by any other verb, but is intended to describe someone who might be about to act, but remains in that state without acting; the expression is usually translated as "why delay?" or "why hesitate?" For example:
   • Acts 22: 16: "And now what are you waiting for (lit.: are you about to [mellō])? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name."

Here, in v. 1, using the verb mellō, Luke seems to give it a triple meaning. First of all, according to the usual meaning of the word, Jesus is about to go in the near future to every city and region where he sends his missionaries. But at the same time, the verb expresses an intention or plan of Jesus, so that the sentence could be translated: "every city and region where he himself intended to go," as most English-speaking Bibles have done. Finally, as we said, mellō expresses with a high degree of certainty what is to happen. And since Jesus' intention is to do God's will, and Luke tells us in 9:51 that Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem, mellō expresses not only what Jesus intends to do, but what he must do, and so we could translate, as most French-speaking Bibles have done, "every city and region where he himself was to go".

Erchesthai is the verb erchomai in the present infinitive, middle form; the middle form conveys the idea of a reflexive verb, i.e. Jesus himself goes somewhere; the infinitive is ordered by the fact that this verb follows another verb, mellō (to be about to). The word means: to come. As one can imagine, this is an extremely frequent verb; in fact, after legō (to say) and eimi (to be), erchomai is the most frequent verb in the Gospels-Acts: Mt = 114; Mk = 85; Lk = 101; Jn = 157; Acts = 50; 1Jn = 4; 2Jn = 2; 3Jn = 2. As can be seen, it is in the Johannine tradition that it appears most often, reflecting the limited vocabulary of the evangelist who sticks to the basic words.

Even if Luke is not the one who uses most frequently erchomai, This verb is indeed part of his vocabulary. Of the 101 occurrences in his gospel, 56 are unique to him. And he even adds it (underlined) to his Marcan source.

Mark 1: 4	Luke 3: 3
There was John the Baptizer in the desert, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins	And he (John) came (erchomai) throughout the land around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins

Mark 5: 37	Luke 8: 51
And he let no one accompany him except Peter and James and John the brother of James.	Now, having come (erchomai) at home, he did not let anyone enter with him except Peter and John and James and the child's father and mother.

Mark 13: 2	Luke 21: 6
And Jesus said to him: "Do you see these great constructions? Not one stone will be left standing that will not be destroyed."	He said: "What you are looking at, days will come (erchomai) where no stone will be left upon stone that will not be destroyed".

What we want to emphasize is that Luke makes a distinction between two verbs that seem synonymous, erchomai (to come) et poreuō (to go) when it comes to Jesus. Indeed, the verb "to come" (erchomai) reflects the idea of a mission, a response to God's plan or will or call.

• Lk 5: 32: "I have not come (erchomai) to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
• Lk 7: 20: "When the men came to Jesus, they said, "John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, 'Are you the one who is to come (erchomai) or should we expect someone else?'"

Luke also uses the verb "to come" to express the faith of the believer: "As for everyone who comes (erchomai) to me, and hears my words and puts them into practice, I will show you what they are like, Lk 6: 47. This verb is also used to describe the mission of John the Baptist: "For John the Baptist came (erchomai) neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, 'He has a demon'" 7: 33.

On the other hand, when it is simply a matter of translating the idea of getting from point A to point B, Luc prefers to use the verb poreuō (to go, to leave).

• Lk 4: 42: "At daybreak, Jesus went out (poreuō) to a solitary place. The people were looking for him and when they came to where he was, they tried to keep him from leaving (poreuō) them"
• Lk 7: 11: "Soon afterward, Jesus went (poreuō) to a town called Nain, and his disciples and a large crowd went along with him."

Here, in v. 1, Luke writes: "and he sent them two by two... where he himself was about to come (erchomai)". The verb "to come" reinforces the idea of a mission, of a response to God's call. And from the point of view of the believer and the Christian community, the coming of Jesus describes the visit of God, i.e. their baptism and their reception of Jesus in faith. We can therefore deplore certain translations of our bibles which gloss over this distinction between erchomai and poreuō, and therefore translate v. 1 by: "where he himself had to go". We are not faced with a simple displacement, but with a mission.

Elegen is the verb legō in the active imperfect indicative, 3rd person singular. It means: to say. It is the verb most used in the Gospels-Acts: Mt = 505; Mk = 290; Lk = 531; Jn = 480; Acts = 234; 1Jn = 5; 2Jn = 2; 3Jn = 0, that is a total of 2,047 occurrences. Luke, more than all the others, uses it. One might be surprised at the number of occurrences. But this is due to the way the dialogue was presented in antiquity. Today, when we want to indicate that we are referrng to the words of an interlocutor, we use quotation marks (e.g. " "), or in a novel we use long lines (e.g. - ) followed by the content of the dialogue. But this punctuation did not exist in New Testament times (words were written without spaces to use as little papyrus or leather as possible). So the simple way to tell the reader that what follows is the content of the dialogue is to write: saying. For example:

• Lk 3: 16: "John responded by saying (legō) to all, "I baptize you with water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire'"

Today, we would have simply written: "John answered everyone, 'I baptize...'".

Here, in v. 2 the verb is in the past continuous tense, so it expresses a continuous action. What does this mean? When Luke uses the past continuous tense to express the action of "saying" of Jesus, it is usually a teaching, therefore a word that is called to last in time. For example:

• Lk 3: 11: "But having answered he was saying (legō), 'Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same'"

This is also the case for the teaching on the parable of the new and the old (5:36), on the fact that the son of man is master of the Sabbath (6:5), on the beatitudes (6:30), on the need to carry one's cross in order to follow him (9:23), on the signs of the times (12: 54), on the parable of the barren fig tree (13:6), on the kingdom of God (13:18), on the choice of the last place (14:7), on the invitation of the poor to his table (14:12), on the parable of the clever manager (16:1), on the eschatological times (21:10); All these stories are introduced by the formula: "Jesus was saying".

This is the case here in v. 2 where Luke's Jesus offers a teaching on mission. This teaching that immediately follows is taken from the Q document, a teaching that Matthew also copies in another context. But whereas Matthew introduces this teaching in Mt 9:37 with "he said", Luke has chosen the past continuous tense: "he was saying", to emphasize that it is a teaching that continues in time.

Pros is a preposition that literally means: toward. It is very frequent in the Gospels-Acts: Mt = 42; Mk = 65; Lk = 166; Jn = 102; Acts = 133; 1Jn = 8; 2Jn = 3; 3Jn = 1. As can be seen, Luke is the largest user of this word with 299 occurrences out of the total 520, or 58% of the cases.

Let us clarify its meaning. In the majority of cases (515 occurrences out of 520) in the Gospels-Acts, pros requires a direct object complement (accusative): for it describes an action with a movement towards a person or something. It is translated by prepositions like "to" or "toward". The most common example is when it accompanies the verb "to say" (legō). This may be surprising, since in everyday language the person being addressed is an indirect object complement: "to say to someone". But in Greek the preposition pros is very often used with the accusative, because the verb "to say" describes a movement where the word starts from the person who speaks and goes to the person who is addressed. For example:

• Lk 1: 18: "Zechariah said to (lit.: toward [pros]) the angel: 'How can I be sure of this? I am an old man and my wife is well along in years'"

In the Gospels-Acts, Luke is the greatest user of the expression legō + pros (say to) with the accusative: Mt = 1; M k = 4; L k = 89; Jn=19; Acts = 26; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0, that is, 125 occurrences out of the total of 139, i.e. 90%. Here we have an example of Luke's style. We would have even more instances in the same line if we added to the record the verbs "to answer" (apokrinomai) and "to speak" (laleō).

The preposition pros with the accusative, which expresses the direction of a movement, is sometimes translated by the preposition "toward", especially with a verb like "to send". For instance:

• Lk 7: 3: "When he heard about Jesus, he sent toward (pros) him some of the elders of the Jews, to beg him to come and save his slave".

It is also sometimes translated by the preposition "for" which is used to indicate to whom an action is addressed, or simply by the expression: "to the address of". For example:

• Lk 12: 41: "Peter then said, 'Lord, is it for (lit. toward [pros]) us that your saying this parable, or for (lit. en toward [pros]) everyone?'"
• Lk 14: 7: "He then said a parable for (lit. toward [pros]) the guests, noticing how they chose the first couches; he was saying for (lit. toward [pros]) them"

Finally, it happens that the preposition pros with the accusative is used to introduce the purpose or motive of an action, and in this case we have the construction pros + article (accusative) + verb (infinitive). For example:

• Lk 18: 1: "And he was telling them a parable about (lit. toward [pros]) it is necessary (infinitive) to pray and not give up"

In the Gospels-Acts, we find four cases where pros requires the dative, i.e. an indirect object complement. In these cases, the preposition intends to express proximity to an object. For example,

• Lk 19: 37: "When he came near (lit. toward [pros]) (the place) where the road goes down the Mount of Olives, the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for all the miracles they had seen" (see also Mk 5: 11; Jn 18: 16; 20: 12)

Finally, we have a single case where pros requires the genitive, i.e. a noun complement. In this case, the preposition intends to express the intention of an action.

• Acts 27: 34: "Now I urge you to take some food, for it is for (lit. toward [pros]) your own salvation. Not one of you will lose a single hair from his head.'"

Here, in v. 2, we have an expression typical of the style of Luke with legō + pros + accusative (to say to): it is a word that comes from the mouth of Jesus to reach those who are sent on mission.

Men is a particle that occurs frequently throughout the New Testament, especially in the Acts of the Apostles: Mt = 20; Mk = 6; Lk = 10; Jn = 8; Acts = 48; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0.

This particle has three main meanings.

1. First of all, it is intended to express a reality of which one is sure and which may even seem obvious. It can be translated as: certainly, of course, indeed, really, surely. For example:
   • Mt 13: 32: "It is indeed (men) the smallest of all seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds come and perch in its branches"

2. But very often, it is coupled with another Greek particle de and intends to express either an opposition between two objects or two realities, or a series of objects or realities. It can then be translated as: on the one hand (men), on the other hand (de). For instance:
   • Jn 7: 12: Among the crowds there was widespread whispering about him. On the one hand (men), they were saying: 'He is a good man'. On the other hand (de) they were saying: 'No, he deceives the people'"

3. Finally, after an affirmation, this particle is used to emphasize the conclusion. In this case, it is always followed by the conjunction oun (therefore). It can be translated as "So". For instance:
   • Jn 19: 24: "They said to one another, 'Let's not tear it. Let's decide by lot who will get it. This happened that the scripture might be fulfilled that said, 'They divided my clothes among them, and cast lots for my garment.' So (men), this is therefore (oun) what the soldiers did."

The particle men is part of the vocabulary of Luke. This can easily be seen in the Acts of the Apostles with 48 occurrences. But even if in his gospel Luke uses it only 10 times, of this total seven are from Luke's pen. There is even one case where he adds it (underlined) to a verse he copies from Mark.

Mark 15	Luke 23
27 And with him they crucify two robbers, one (robber) out of the right, and one (robber) out of the left of him.	33b they crucified him and the wrong doers, one on the one hand [men] out of the right, one on the other hand [de] out of the left.

But here, in v. 2, the particle comes from what Luke copies from the Q document, for the same phrase with this particle is also found in Mt 9:37. It serves to emphasize that, indeed, everyone can see that the harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few.

Therismos is the noun therismos in the nominative masculine singular, the nominative designating this word as the subject of the verb "to be". It means: harvest, and is not very frequent in the New Testament. In fact, apart from one occurrence in Revelation, it appears only in the Gospels: Mt = 6; Mk = 1; Lk = 3; Jn = 2; Acts = 0; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0.

The harvest refers to Palestinian agriculture. Barley is harvested at the beginning of April, while wheat is harvested seven weeks later, at the end of May or the beginning of June. In both cases, the first sheaves were to be offered to the sanctuary and were the occasion for a celebration, first the feast of the First Sheaf on the occasion of Passover, and then that of the Harvest or Pentecost (50 days later) or of Weeks.

When we look at the occurrences of the word "harvest" in the Old Testament, we notice that it is used to refer to two realities:

1. It is used to mark out time, and thus allows to situate in time an event, i.e. at the time of the barley harvest, or at the time of the wheat harvest. For example:
   • Judg 15: 1: "Later on, at the time of wheat harvest (therismos) Samson took a young goat and went to visit his wife. He said, 'I'm going to my wife's room.' But her father would not let him go in."

2. The harvest is a wealth, the proud possession of a farmer. Thus, to symbolize a destructive activity, we will speak of the destruction of the harvest. For example:
   • Jer 5: 17: "hey will devour your harvest (therismos) and food, devour your sons and daughters; they will devour your flocks and herds, devour your vines and fig trees. With the sword they will destroy the fortified cities in which you trust."

With the New Testament, the atmosphere changes. Because the harvest often appears in an eschatological context, that of the end of time and the final judgment as we see in Matthew: "the enemy who sows it is the Devil; the harvest (therismos) is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels" (Mt 13:39). This atmosphere is also found in Revelation where an angel asks the son of man to throw his sharp sickle on the earth because the harvest of the earth is ripe (Rev 14: 15).

In such a context, the focus is on the activities of the harvester. Thus, the sheaves of wheat are cut with the sickle (Mk 4:29), then the winnowing shovel is used to separate the wheat from the husk, before the wheat is gathered and the husk is thrown into the fire (see Lk 3:17; Mt 13:30). This activity provides a striking image to refer to the final judgment.

But how do we interpret this word attributed to Jesus about the harvest and the need for workers? What does the harvest refer to? The context of the phrase is that of the sending out on mission, and so we can assume that the harvest is about the people who are the object of the mission. Unfortunately, Luke gives us few clues as to the meaning of the phrase; he simply copies the Q document here. And Matthew, who also copies the phrase, uses it as an introduction to the sending of the Twelve. We are thus left with John and his account of the Samaritan woman

Let's read again Jn 4: 35-39:

Don't you have a saying, 'It's still four months until harvest'? I tell you, open your eyes and look at the fields! They are ripe for harvest. Even now the one who reaps draws a wage and harvests a crop for eternal life, so that the sower and the reaper may be glad together. Thus the saying 'One sows and another reaps' is true. I sent you to reap what you have not worked for. Others have done the hard work, and you have reaped the benefits of their labor.' Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman's testimony, 'He told me everything I ever did.'

This text of John identifies the harvest with the Samaritans who became believers, and the reaper with the disciples sent on a mission. The harvest is presented as the work of God probably through the prophets and the action of Jesus himself, which leads people to believe. What is the role of the reaper now? "He gathers (synagei) fruit for eternal life", writes the evangelist. The verb synagō, which gave us the word "synagogue", translated here as "to gather up" first designates the fact of gathering up the harvest (see Lk 3: 17 "to gather up the wheat "; 12: 17 "gather my harvest"; Jn 15: 6 "gather the dry branches"), but it also designates the action of gathering people to form a community, as John clearly writes: "but still in order to gather (synagō) into unity the scattered children of God" (11: 52). This is the role of the harvester. If the context of picking up the harvest is generally situated in an eschatological context in the NT, in John this eschatology is already in the present: now is the time of the harvest.

It is likely that the author of the Q document had a similar understanding of the image of the harvest and the reaper. The harvest is God's work in the heart of the person, and the reaper is the missionary who must complete this work with his or her winnowing shovel and the identification of what is to be harvested. For his part, Luke will allude to the work of the missionaries when they return from their mission and will speak of their work of healing those to whom they have been sent and who have agreed to receive them, a way of identifying the wheat to be harvested and the transforming power of faith.

Polys is the adjective polys in the nominative singular masculine and agrees with the noun therismos (harvest). It means: many, numerous, plentiful, and it is very frequent in all the evangelists: Mt = 51; Mk = 59; Lk = 51; Jn = 36; Acts = 46; 1Jn = 2; 2Jn = 2; 3Jn = 1.

The contexts in which it appears can be grouped into three categories.

1. In most cases, the word means a large quantity of objects that can be counted. For example:
   • Mt 4: 25: "Large (polys) crowds from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan followed him"
   • Mk 1: 34: "and Jesus healed many (polys) who had various diseases. He also drove out many (polys) demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was"

2. But it happens that the word designates a large quantity, but without it being a discrete entity, that we can count one by one. It then means that we are in front of a large quantity of an object or that it is abundant or immense. For example:
   • Mt 25: 19: "After a long (polys) time, the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them"
   • Mk 4: 5: "Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much (polys) soil, and it sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow"

3. Finally, there are cases where it is no longer a question of any quantity, but of the intensity and quality of an object. For example:
   • Mt 27: 19: "While Pilate was sitting on the judge's seat, his wife sent him this message: 'Don't have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a lot (polys) today in a dream because of him'"
   • Mk 9: 12: "Jesus replied, 'To be sure, Elijah does come first, and restores all things. Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much (polys) and be rejected?'"

Polys belongs to the Lucan vocabulary and is found regularly both in his gospel and in the Acts of the Apostles. In his gospel, even if this adjective appears in what he copies from Mark or from the Q document, three quarters of the time it comes from his own pen. But here, in v. 2, the adjective comes from the Q document.

What does a "many" or "abundant" harvest mean? First of all, note that the adjective belongs to the first category identified earlier, that of a large quantity of objects that can be counted. The gospels use it regularly to describe the "large" crowds that follow Jesus. But it is impossible to imagine a precise number behind this word. Because in fact, the number is relative to the context. For example, when Luke writes: "Nevertheless many (polys) of those who heard the word embraced the faith, and the number of the faithful, counting only the men , was about 5,000" (Acts 4:4), the "many" relates to those who have heard the word. How many has heard the word? We do not know. And of these, how many have embraced the faith? We do not know. All that is known is that their addition contributed to reaching the number of 5,000 faithful. Here, in v. 2 polys (many) is relative to oligos (few) which follows. All of this simply means that comparing the harvest and the reapers, there are more people in the harvest group than in the reaper group, however small their number.

Ergateis is the noun ergatēs in the nominative masculine plural, because it plays the role of subject of the implied verb: to be. It is an infrequent word in the whole Bible, especially in the Gospels-Acts: Mt = 6; Mk = 0; Lk = 3; Jn = 0; Acts = 1; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. It refers to a salaried worker. This word is very well described by Matthew with the parable of the workers of the eleventh hour when a landowner hires workers for his vineyard and agrees on a wage of one denarius for the day. Sirach 40:18 contrasts this with the self-sufficient man, i.e. one who does not depend on another for his wages. Note also that the worker is also distinguished from the craftsman, technitēs in Greek, who is in fact self-employed.

It is surprising to see the term "laborer" suddenly appear when we have just spoken of the harvest. We would have expected the term "reaper" (theristēs) as seen in Mt 13:30: "Let both grow together until the harvest; and at the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers (theristēs): 'First gather the chaff and bind it in bundles to be burned; as for the wheat, gather it into my granary.'" At the very least, we could have been talking about a farmer (geōrgos). Why talk about a salaried worker?

A first explanation could be the fact that we have just left the symbolism of the harvest to refer to the deep reality of life: it is God who is the farmer, the sole owner of the harvest that are the people who have opened themselves to the gospel word, and that the harvest is mediated by humans, not by the owner himself; to have used the word "reaper" in this context would perhaps have been a source of confusion about his identity (yet the epistle of James [5:4] does not shy away from using the term "reaper" in reference to the workers who do the harvest). But the most likely explanation would come from the fact that the term "laborer" designated in the first Christian communities those who exercised certain responsibilities, such as that of being a missionary in the service of the gospel word or in the service of the community. Let's take a closer look.

In the first letter to Timothy, we can read that elders or presbyters presided over the Christian community:

Elders who preside well deserve double honor (or double pay), especially those who labor in the ministry of the word and in teaching. For the Scripture says, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treads out the grain, and again, The laborer (ergatēs) deserves its salary (Tim 5: 17-18)

Thus, it was considered normal that the ministry of the gospel word and teaching should be remunerated, based on Deuteronomy 25:4 ("You shall not muzzle the ox when he treads out the wheat"), i.e. it is necessary to provide for the needs of those who work hard. In his letters, Paul introduced the subject of remuneration of the apostles who were sent to preach the gospel by referring to a word of Jesus:

Do you not know that those who serve in worship are fed by the temple, that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded those who preach the Gospel to live by the Gospel (1 Cor 9:13-14)

Paul probably echoes a word that Matthew also echoes in his instructions to the missionaries, "Take neither sackcloth for the road, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor staff: for the laborer (ergatēs) deserves his food". (Mt 10: 10), as well as Luke: "Stay in that house there, eating and drinking what they have; for the laborer (ergatēs) deserves its wages. Do not go from house to house" (Lk 10:7). In 2 Tim 2:15, Paul's co-worker is called a "laborer" for his evangelistic work: "Strive to present yourself to God as a tried man, a laborer (ergatēs) who has nothing to be ashamed of, a faithful dispenser of the word of truth". Unfortunately, it seems that some took advantage of this situation of being paid to destroy Paul's work: "For these are false apostles, deceiving laborers (ergatēs), who disguise themselves as apostles of Christ" (2 Cor 11:13); these were probably primarily conservative Jewish Christians who wanted circumcision for all (Phil 3:2: "Beware of dogs! Beware of evil laborers (ergatēs)! Those mutilators of the flesh)".

Thus, the laborer in the harvest service is both the missionary on the road proclaiming the gospel, and the presbyter or elder in his pastoral role of completing the Christian education of the community members and maintaining unity. He is an employee, whose needs are met by those he serves.

Oligoi is the adjective oligos in the masculine plural nominative, and plays the role of attribute of "laborers". It is found only 26 times in the Gospels-Acts: Mt = 6; Mk = 4; Lk = 6; Jn = 0; Acts = 10; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. It basically means: small, and when it is the attribute of certain realities like space and time, it is translated as: few.

When we go through the Gospels-Acts, we observe that it sometimes refers to the number of people (few who find their way to life, few chosen or saved people, few cripples who are healed), to the size of the fish (small), to the intensity of emotions (little love, little excitement, little discussion or tumult), to a measure of space-time (to go forward or away a little, a little time), to a measure of action (to rest a little, to be faithful in a few things, to put off a little debt, not a little work).

It is a thoroughly Lucan word. First of all, there are 10 occurrences in Acts, and of the six occurrences in his gospel, five are from his pen, the only exception being our v. 2 copied from the Q document.

What does this "small" number of laborers mean? First of all, in our analysis of the adjective "many" in the case of the harvest, we said that the text does not refer to any precise number, but only compares the size of the harvest with the number of laborers. The same is true of "little": no specific number is referred to, but simply that the number of laborers is less than the needs of the harvest. Thus, the emphasis is on the overabundance of the harvest, the work of God's creative force, which human action struggles to keep up with. Recall that the number 72 in v. 1 represents all the nations of the earth, and gives an idea of the harvest. Faced with such a challenge, the contingent of laborers in the gospel is insufficient. This is what the author of the Q document seems to be saying and what Luke takes up.

Deēthēte is the verb deomai in the passive aorist imperative, 2nd person plural. Its root is the verb deō, which, in the active voice, means: to bind, to need, to have to, and in the passive voice as here, means: to ask, to pray, to beg. There are only 22 occurrences of deomai (passive voice) throughout the New Testament, and in the Gospels-Acts it appears only under the pen of Luke, with the exception of this occurrence in the Q document about the harvest which both Matthew and Luke copy: Mt = 1; Mk = 0; Lk = 8; Jn = 0; Acts = 7; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0.

Deomai is therefore a completely Lucan verb. In his gospel, all the occurrences are his own, except for our verse which is a copy of the Q document. It is significant to note that Luke sometimes adds (underlined) deomai to its marcan source.

Mark 5	Luke 8
7 and crying out with a loud voice, he said, "What do you want from me, Jesus, son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me"... 18 And as he got into the boat, the man who had been possessed by demons implored him to be with him.	28 And when he saw Jesus and cried out, he fell down beside him and said with a loud voice, "What do you want from me, Son of the Most High? I beg (deomai) you, don't torture me!... 38 The man from whom the demons had gone out was begging (deomai) to go with him.

Mark 9	Luke 9
18b and I told your disciples to drive him out, and they did not have the strength	40 and I begged (deomai) your disciples to drive it out, and they did not have the strength

The verb deomai appears especially in two contexts: first there is the context of an insistent request, even of a supplication, of someone who asks for example for a cure. And when the request is addressed to God, the verb is then translated as: to pray. Note that in Greek the usual verb for "to pray" is proseuchomai. What distinction can be made between proseuchomai and deomai in relation to prayer? Proseuchomai refers to the spiritual and religious action of praying in general. For example: "And the whole multitude of the people was praying (proseuchomai), outside, at the hour of incense" (Lk 1: 10). On the other hand, deomai refers to a specific request addressed through prayer, i.e. a prayer of request or supplication: "but I have prayed (deomai) for you, lest your faith fail. Thou then, when thou returnest, strengthen thy brethren." (Lk 22:32)

What then is the meaning of the phrase: "Pray the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers"? The phrase is quite incongruous when put into the mouth of Jesus, for he is saying: "Paray the Lord of the harvest, who I am, to send out laborers...". Let us not forget that in v. 1 the word "Lord" referred to Jesus, and there is no reason to think that here in v. 2 the word refers to someone else. How can Jesus ask himself to send laborers? Doesn't he himself know that laborers must be sent, without being reminded? To understand this sentence, we must place ourselves in the context in which the Q document may have been composed, perhaps in the 50s or 60s.

The first Christians were aware that only God could transform hearts so that they would accept the word of the Gospel, and therefore that the harvest was his work; he was the owner of the harvest. He has delegated to certain chosen people, called apostles or "envoys", the responsibility of reaping this harvest. The first Christian communities expressed the fact that this sending is not a human initiative by laying hands on those they sent on mission: "Then, after fasting and praying, they laid hands on them and left them to their mission" (Acts 13:3). Thus, the author of the Q document, who is familiar with church culture, is certainly not asking his audience to pray for the risen Christ to "wake up" and do his job of sending people on mission. It is much more an exhortation to the members of the community to be open to the importance of going outside the community and being ready for mission, and to the Christian community to support the sending of missionaries. Thus, "pray to the Lord" is basically a request to the members and leaders of the Christian community.

Oun is a very frequent particle in the whole New Testament, and in particular in the Gospels-Acts: Mt = 56; Mk = 6; Lk = 33; Jn = 200; Acts = 61. It is very often translated by: therefore, consequently; it then expresses the link with what precedes to specify the consequence of an action or a fact. As we can see, John uses this particle the most, so much so that it appears on average every five verses; it is an echo of his style built on a rather limited vocabulary where the same words come back again and again like a melody.

In Luke, even if the number of occurrences cannot compete with John or Matthew, this particle is nevertheless part of his vocabulary. For not only does it appear 61 times in Acts, but in his gospel, among the total of 33 occurrences, 25 come from his pen. And he even takes the liberty of adding it several times to his Marcan source. Here are some examples where we have highlighted the addition of oun.

Mark 4	Luke 8
24 Consider carefully what you hear	18 Therfore (oun) consider carefully how you listen.

Mark 4	Luke 13
30 Again he said, 'What shall we say the kingdom of God is like'	18 He therefore (oun) said: "What is the kingdom of God like?"

Mark 9	Luke 14
50 Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again?	34 Good, therefore (oun), [is] the salt; but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again?

Mark 12	Luke 20
8-9a So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard. What will the owner of the vineyard do?	15 And they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. What therefore (oun) will the owner of the vineyard do to them?

Mark 12	Luke 20
20 There were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children.	29 There were therefore (oun) seven brothers. The first one married a woman and died childless.

Here, in v. 2, the particle oun comes from the Q document. In fact, in Luke's gospel, five occurrences come from the Q document, giving us a clue that the term was also part of this author's vocabulary.

What role does this particle play in the meaning of the sentence? It has just been said that the harvest is plentiful, and the laborers few. Adding the conjunction "therefore" (oun) to the following sentence expresses the consequences of this situation, or rather what it requires: to send more laborers into the harvest. So we have the explanation why we need to send more missionaries: the abundance of the harvest which is the work of God.

Hopōs is either an interrogative adverb or a conjunction. As an interrogative adverb, it means: how. We have only one example in the gospels.

• Lk 24: 20: "How (hopōs) the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him"

As a conjunction, it plays two roles. It can introduce a final subordinate clause, and then it means: so that, in order to, so that. For example:

• Mt 26: 59: Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, so that (hopōs) to put him to death"
• Lk 16: 26: "And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that (hopōs) they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence"

Hopōs can also introduce a subordinate clause with request verbs, and so introduce the content of the request, and it is usually translated as: that. For example:

• Mt 8: 34: "And, behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus: and when they saw him, they besought him that (hopōs) he would depart out of their coasts.
• Lk 7: 3: "And when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the elders of the Jews, beseeching him that (hopōs), he would come and heal his servant"

In the Gospels-Acts, the use of hopōs is concentrated in Matthew and Luke, which are responsible for 38 occurrences out of a total of 40: Mt = 17; Mk = 1; Lk = 7; Jn = 1; Acts = 14; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. In the Gospel of Luke, of the total of 7 occurrences, six are his own, the only exception being our v. 2 which is a copy of the Q document.

What role does hopōs in the sentence? It introduces a final subordinate proposition, and then it means: so that, for the purpose of; thus, the purpose of the prayer is to have more laborers to the harvest.

Ekbalō is the verb ekballō in the aorist subjunctive active in the 3rd person singular, the subjunctive being required because the verb expresses a wish or desire, rather than a reality. The verb is formed by the preposition ek (out of) and the verb ballō (to throw), and therefore means: to expel or drive out, to throw out or bring out, to extract or obtain. It is quite frequent in the Gospels-Acts: Mt = 28; Mk = 18; Lk = 18; Jn = 3; Acts = 5; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 1.

When we go through the Gospels-Acts, we can group together the various uses of ekballō into three categories.

1. The most widespread use (almost 50% of the cases) concerns exorcisms where demons are expelled. For example:
   • Mk 1: 39: "And he preached in their synagogues throughout all Galilee, casting out (ekballō) demons"
   • Lk 13: 32: "And he said unto them, Go, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out (ekballō) demons and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected"

2. With a meaning close to the expulsion of demons, the verb ekballō is also used to express rejection of people or things considered bad. For example:
   • Mk 11: 15: "And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out (ekballō) them that sold and bought in the temple"
   • Lk 6: 22: "Blessed are you, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out (ekballō) your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake"

3. The verb ekballō also translates the idea of extracting or getting something. For example:
   • Jn 10: 4: "When he brings out (ekballō) those who are his, he walks before them and the sheep follow him, because they know his voice"
   • Lk 10: 35a: And the day after when he departed, he took out (ekballō) two pence, and gave them to the host"

Note that of the 18 occurrences of ekballō in Luke, nine come from the Q document, five from the Marcan source, four are from his own pen. In the majority of cases, the verb means either to cast out demons or to cast out an evil reality. The only two exceptions appear here in v. 2 and in 10:35 with the account of the good Samaritan who "takes out" two denarii from his purse.

What is the meaning of ekballō here in v. 2? Note that the verb intends to describe an action that is expected of God, and one would have expected a sentence like: that he "sends" laborers to his harvest. Why use a verb that literally means: throw out? From where should one be thrown out? Other Gospel passages can help us understand what it is about. First of all this passage from the parable of the good shepherd: "When he has brought out (ekballō) those who are his, he walks before them and sheep follow him, because they know his voice. (Jn 10:4). In this parable, the good shepherd leads the sheep "out" of the pen, in a way he "expels" the sheep from the pen. In other words, he takes them out of the comfortable environment of the enclosure, i.e. of the community. We find the same idea in Mk 1:12: "And immediately the Spirit drove (ekball) Jesus into the desert"; the Spirit pushes Jesus out of the comfort of his family environment and his daily life for his retirement in the desert and to prepare him for his mission. All this illuminates our v. 2. The prayer addressed to the Lord asks Christians to be taken out of the comfort of the community to go on a mission: it is in a way a request for expulsion from the community for a good cause. This is what is requested by document Q and which Luke endorses.

Hypagete is the verb hypagō in the active present imperative, 2nd person plural. It is found almost exclusively in the four gospels, especially in John: Mt = 19; Mk = 15; Lk = 5; Jn = 32; Acts = 0; 1Jn = 1; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. It means to go from point A to point B, and is therefore usually translated as: to go. Its meaning is very close to the verb poreuō, which has more the meaning: to be on the way. While Luke uses the verb hypagō five times in his gospel, he uses 52 times the verb poreuō, in the image of his Christian vision which is for him a long journey.

Here, in v. 3, Luke repeats a phrase from the Q document ("Behold, I send you as ...") that is also found in Mt 10:16a. But the verb "go" (hypagete) is absent from Matthew, and so we can ask ourselves: did Matthew remove this verb from the Q document, or it was absent from the Q document and Luke added it. As the verb hypagō appears regularly in Matthew, it would be hard to understand why he would have cut it out of the Q document, if it were there. It is therefore more likely that Luke took the initiative to add this verb. Why did he do this?

One possible answer comes from the context. While Matthew placed the sentence from the Q document in the middle of the recommendations regarding missionary behavior, Luke places this sentence at the moment when Jesus responds to the specific situation of the lack of missionaries, and therefore must send people on mission. So Christians must be told: get out of the comfortable environment of the Christian community, and dare to face the mission. Therefore, the imperative "go" is a way of demanding that believers leave the community to go and meet the people who are waiting for the good news. This seems to be Luke's intention in inserting this verb.

Idou is a demonstrative particle formed from the verb horaō (to see, to look) in the middle aorist imperative, 2nd person singular. It is intended to attract attention and is usually translated as: behold; it is the equivalent of the expression: "Listen". This procedure is used a lot by Luke, Matthew and the Q document: Mt = 62; Mk = 7; Lk = 57; Jn = 4; Acts = 23; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. It is the equivalent of the Hebrew hinnê (look, see, if) which is intended to draw attention to a specific point or event.

Luke willingly resorts to this demonstrative particle. Of the total of 57 occurrences in his gospel, 47 come from his pen. But here, in v. 3, Luke merely repeats a word that was in the Q document. Moreover, six occurrences of idou in his gospel are a copy of the Q document, which tells us that the author of this source liked to use this word.

The presence of idou in v. 3 intends to draw the listener's attention to the following, i.e. the difficulty of the missionary's environment.

Arnas is the noun arēn in the accusative masculine plural, the accusative being required because the word is in apposition to "you", which is a direct object complement of the verb "to send". This name means "lamb". Its presence here is its only presence in the entire New Testament: Mt = 0; Mk = 0; Lk = 1; Jn = 0; Acts = 0; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. Otherwise, he appears 34 times in the Septuagint.

Talking about lamb refers to a pastoral culture where the lamb was part of everyday life, as one can imagine in the Galilee and throughout Palestine. One can therefore be surprised that it is not mentioned more often in the Gospels. But let's not forget that the gospels were written and published in urban settings. Be that as it may, the animal appears under several names in Greek. In addition to the term arēn there is also the term: arnion (Mt = 0; Mk = 0; Lk = 0; Jn = 1; Acts = 0; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0) found in John, and the term amnos: Mt = 0; Mk=0; Lk = 0; Jn=2; Acts = 1; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. We can also mention the term amnas which only appears in the Septuagint when it translates the book of Numbers. Finally, there is the generic term probaton which usually designates the ewe, but may occasionally include lambs.

This diversity of Greek terms also reflects the diversity found in the Hebrew world. The most frequent term for lamb is: kebeś, with 107 occurrences. Another term is keśeb, whose last two consonants have been reversed compared to the previous term (a case of dyslexia?) which still appears 13 times. There is also kar, which can refer to the pack on the animal or the pasture, but is also used a few times to refer to the lamb. In a few rare cases, ṭāle or ṭĕlāʾ is used (inversion of the vowels of the previous term), or to ʾimmar (only in the book of Esdras). Additionally, some generic terms are used to implicitly refer to lambs such as śe (small stock unit) or ṣʾōn (herd of small livestock).

All this indicates that we are not in a technical universe with very specialized terms. The lamb appears in the OT in three main contexts: that of the shepherd who feeds his flock, that of the kitchen where it is designated among the foods that can be eaten and whose slaughter follows certain rules, as at Passover, and finally that of the offering and the holocaust in the temple of Jerusalem, either in the context of the two daily offerings or that of the purification or forgiveness of sins.

In the New Testament, can we detect nuances between these four terms: arēn, arnion, amnios, and even probation? An interesting case is provided by John 21, 15 where Jesus said to Peter, after the latter had assured him that he loved him above all things: "Feed my lambs (arnion)" . After Peter's answer to the second question, Jesus says: "Shepherd my sheep (probaton)". Finally, after Peter's answer to the third question, Jesus says, "Feed my sheep (probaton)". One would look in vain for a difference in meaning between "lambs" in the first answer and "ewes" in the other two answers. At the end of his analysis, R. E. Brown (Gospel according to John) must conclude that the different terms to designate the lamb or the ewe have no more meanings than the three terms to designate the fish : prosphagion, ichthys, opsarion. Let us recognize nevertheless that one can hardly call "lamb" an old sheep.

However, the context in which these different terms appear in the NT is still revealing. Let's start with amnion. This passage from Isaiah 53:7 influenced his understanding of the death of Jesus: "And he, because of his misfortune, does not open his mouth; he was led as a ewe (Gr. probaton, Hebr. śe = unit of a small flock) to the slaughterhouse, and as a lamb (Gr. amnos, Hebr. rāḥēl = sheep) before the shearer, he is mute; so he does not open his mouth". So, amnos was identified with Jesus and his sacrificial death. From then on, we find in the mouth of John the Baptist this word with regard to Jesus: "Behold the lamb (amnos) of God, who takes away the sin of the world" (Jn 1:29; see also 1:36). Acts 8:32 also refers to this passage from Isaiah. The first letter of Peter also evokes this term: "but by precious blood, as of a lamb (amnos) blameless and spotless, Christ" (1 Pet 1: 19).

The term arnion, a diminutive of arēn, belongs to a more apocalyptic context, as seen in the book of Revelations with 29 occurrences. In the apocalyptic writing that is 1 Enoch we speak of white lambs which designate the sect to which the author belongs, white and clear-sighted lambs which call their brothers at conversion (see 1 Enoch, 90: 6). These lambs will emerge victorious in their fight against evil in the world. It is the same image that appears in another apocalyptic writing, The Testament of Joseph (19: 8). In the book of Revelation, Christ represented in the form of the lamb appears on a throne before which one prostrates oneself, and which leads his people towards the sources of life, but destroys the Beast and the forces of evil at the final judgment.

Finally, there is the term arēn, which we have here in v. 3, the only example in the entire NT from the Q document copied by Luke (In copying this passage from Q documents, Matthew replaced "lamb" with sheep [probaton], preferring without doubt the usual term for the beast, than the rare term arēn). In the OT this word is first associated with the pastoral setting as seen in the story of Jacob tending Laban's flock of lambs (arēn) and goats. The book of the prophet Isaiah introduces us to the flocks of lambs in their pasture, a flock that God takes care of personally. In particular, two passages (Isa 11: 6 and Isa 65: 25) describe a scene where the wolf and the lamb eat together, symbol of a peaceful world in perfect harmony. Indeed, the wolf has the reputation of attacking defenseless lambs. It is the same image of a defenseless being being slaughtered in Jeremiah (51: 5). For the prophet Micah ("Then the remnant of Jacob will be among the nations, among many peoples, like a lion among the beasts of the forest, like a lion cub among the flocks of sheep; let him pass by, he will crush and tears, and no one can deliver from it" 5: 8), the lamb represents the helpless animal that can easily be crushed and torn.

So when the author of the Q document presents the missionary as a lamb in the midst of wolves, he is presenting him as a defenseless being who can easily be crushed. Why is he defenseless? Luke does not give us a clue, because he simply took this sentence from that great binder of loose leaves that is the Q document; Matthew also copies this sentence and inserts it in another context (Mt 10:16), a sentence that is followed by the phrase: "Be wise as serpents and candid as doves". It is possible that in the Q document this second sentence accompanied the first and Luke dropped it, keeping only the first. In any case, if Matthew is right in his interpretation of the situation of the lamb, we can conclude that the missionary's work takes place in an extremely hostile environment where he will be the object of violent attacks from which it will be difficult to protect himself. Saint Paul gives us an echo of this:

Are they ministers of Christ? I am talking like a madman - I am a better one: with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless floggings, and often near death. Five times I have received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I received a stoning. Three times I was shipwrecked; for a night and a day I was adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from bandits, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers and sisters; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, hungry and thirsty, often without food, cold and naked (2 Cor 11: 23-27)

In the mouth of Jesus, v. 3 intends to prepare the missionary for what awaits him, so as not to be surprised and to be ready to face it.

Mesō is the adjective mesos in the neuter singular dative, the dative being controlled by the preposition en (in, into). But in this sentence, mesos plays the role of a neutral noun, and it means: middle. This word appears 58 times in the NT, and more particularly 42 times in the Gospels-Acts: Mt = 7; Mk = 5; Lk = 14; Jn = 6; Acts = 10; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0.

Even if mesos is an adjective, and should therefore be the attribute of a word, this is rarely the case. This rare case can be seen in Jn 19:18: "they crucified two others with him, (one) here and (one) there, and Jesus in the middle" while mesos is the attribute of Jesus. But usually, mesos plays the role of a noun. And in many cases, we don't even specify which environment we are talking about; for example, we simply say that someone was placed "in the middle" without further precision (the expression is introduced by the preposition heis [to, in] if there is movement, or the preposition en [in, into] if there is no movement), or one moves someone "from the middle" without further precision (the expression is introduced by the preposition ek [out of]). Of course, in all these cases, when we place someone "in the middle" or move him or her "from the middle" we imply: "in the middle" of this place or of this location, or "from the middle" of this group.

• Jn 8: 3: "The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand in the midst (mesos) of all of them"
• Thess 2: 7: "For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, but only until the one who now restrains it is removed from the midst (mesos) [of us]"

When we look at the cases where we specify the environment we are talking about, we see different groups.

1. Most often, mesos refers to a group of people in whose midst an event takes place.
   • Mk 9: 36: "Then he took a little child and put it in the midst (mesos) of them; and taking it in his arms, he said to them"

2. When it is not about people, it is rather about a territory or a geographical space, like a region, a field, the sea.
   • Mk 7: 31: "Then he returned from the region of Tyre, and went by way of Sidon towards the Sea of Galilee, in the midst (mesos) of the region of the Decapolis"

3. In a few cases, mesos refers to time as the middle of the night or the middle of the day, often translated as "midnight" or "noon".
   • Mt 25: 6: "But in the midst (mesos) of the night there was a shout, 'Look! Here is the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.'"

4. Mesos can also refer to objects, but this situation appears only in the book of the Revelation: we speak then of the middle of the candelabras or the throne
   • Rev 4: 6: "and in the midst (mesos) of the throne there is something like a sea of glass, like crystal. Around the throne, and on each side of the throne, are four living creatures, full of eyes in front and behind"

5. Finally, let's mention that mesos can also refer to a group of animals, but the only case in the NT comes from the Q document copied by Matthew and Luke, and concerns wolves.
   • Mt 10: 16: "See, I am sending you out like sheep into the midst (mesos) of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves"

In Luke, as the statistics show, mesos appears more often in his two works than in the other evangelists. And in his gospel, of the 14 occurrences, 12 are his own, and he sometimes adds it (underlined) to his Marcan source.

Mark 1	Luke 4
25-26 Then he threatened him, saying, "Silence! And come out of him." And the unclean spirit, shaking him and shouting a great cry, came out of him.	35 But Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Be silent, and come out of him!" When the demon had thrown him down in the midst of them, he came out of him

Mark 4	Luke 8
7 And some fell in thorns, and the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit.	7 Some fell in the midst of thorns, and the thorns grew with it and choked it.

So, mesos does belong in his vocabulary. However, here in v. 3, Luke simply copies the Q document. And this source means that the missionary appears as a lamb in the midst of a pack of wolves. Who are these wolves? This is what we must now analyze.

Lykōn is the masculine noun lykos an the genitive plural, the genitive is controlled by the fact that the word plays the role of a noun complement of mesos (in the midst of). It means: wolf, and is very rare in the whole Bible, and in particular in the Gospels-Acts: Mt = 2; Mk = 0; Lk = 1; Jn = 2; Acts = 1; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0.

When we speak of a wolf, we obviously first refer to the animal. But this animal has a symbolic value in the Old Testament. This symbolism is built on what we know about the wolf: it is a ferocious predator. This is the image that Genesis presents to us when it writes: "Benjamin, wolf (lykos) rapacious (harpax); in the morning he still eats, and in the evening they give him food" (49: 27). Reference is made here to the slaughter of the Gibeonites by Saul, a Benjaminite. The term harpax (raptor, predator) will also be associated with the wolf in Ezekiel when he writes: "Her princes in the midst of her are like wolves (lykos ) exercising predation (harpazō) on their prey, ready to shed blood to seize the property of others" (22: 27). On this point, the wolf is associated with the lion and the panther in Jeremiah: "Therefore, the lion coming out of the forest wounded them, and the wolf (lykos) destroyed them even in their dwellings, and the panther rose up against their cities" (Jer 5: 6; see also Prov 28: 15). Logically, the wolf is associated with evil: "What union can there be between the wolf (lykos) and the lamb? It is the same between the sinner and the pious" (Sir 13: 17).

What about in the New Testament? We have the parable of the good shepherd in John: "The mercenary, who is not the shepherd and to whom the sheep do not belong, does he see the wolf coming (lykos), he leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf (lykos) seizes them and scatters them" (Jn 10: 12). The action of the wolf consists in destroying the unity of the community, in sowing discord and then contributes to disperse the members. The wolf leads them astray. In John, the parable appears in the context of controversies with the Pharisees. But at the time of the evangelist, the predators were both the Jews of the synagogue and the enthusiasts for whom the flesh had no importance since the baptized was like a risen angel; all these ideological pressures destroyed the unity of the community. The book of the Acts of the Apostles presents us with a farewell speech by Paul at Miletus on his way to Jerusalem where he will be taken prisoner: "I know well that after my departure some wolves will enter among you (lykos) fierce that will not spare the herd; from your own ranks will arise men of perverse words who will lead the disciples to follow them" (Acts 20: 29). This passage suggests two types of enemies: people from outside who come into the community to destroy it, and people from inside the community who stir up trouble and build their own chapels. Finally, a text from Matthew also sheds some light on the symbolism of the wolf: "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inside are wolves (lykos) raptors (harpax)" (Mt 7: 15). We will have recognized the reappearance of the word harpax (raptor, predator). It should be remembered that the function of prophet was a well-defined role in the first Christian communities, that of preaching, teaching and evangelical commentary; they therefore had a function of spiritual guide. Now, some were bad guides whose work, far from edifying, led people astray and destroyed the community. In his letters, Paul refers to these people, especially those who wanted to impose Jewish rules on baptized non-Jews.

This is the context in which v. 3 and its reference to wolves should be read. Let us not forget that the missionary was exercising a prophetic role. Now, in the exercise of his role, he will meet fierce opposition from people compared to wolves, opposition that will come from all sides, including other missionaries who will want to destroy his work. Is it any wonder that it is difficult to recruit laborers?

Bastazete is the present imperative of the verb bastazō, which means literally: to carry. Not very present in the whole of the Greek Bible, it is found especially in the Gospels-Acts: Mt = 3; Mk = 1; Lk = 5; Jn = 5; Acts = 4; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0.

What we wear belongs to two levels, i.e. the physical reality and the symbolic reality.

1. On the physical level, one carries a coffin, a pitcher of water, a purse, sandals, stones, the wooden cross, a child in the womb, a corpse, an impotent man, Paul being attacked, temple columns, ears of corn.

2. Symbolically, one carries a spiritual cross, the sickness of others, the burden of the day, a difficult word of Jesus, the name of Jesus before the nations, a judgment, the marks of Jesus in one's body, the wicked, suffering in Jesus' name, taxes, wisdom.

Thus, on the physical level, one carries an object or a person, and on the spiritual level it is above all a question of assuming a difficult or demanding reality.

Although the verb bastazō is not frequent, it belongs to Luke's vocabulary. It appears in the Acts of the Apostles with both its physical and spiritual significance. Of the five occurrences of his gospels, four are from his pen. And here, in v. 4 while he is looking at the text of Mark who speaks of not "taking (airō) money", Luke modifies the expression so to speak of not "carrying ( bastazō) purse". The result is to focus our attention on the missionary's garb, and to visualize the purse on the belt, or rather the purse missing from the belt. For a traveler, it is a form of destitution, because he is left to the goodwill of others for his subsistence.

Ballantion is the neuter noun balantion in the accusative singular, the accusative being required because the word plays the role of direct object complement of the verb "to carry". It is a rare word in the whole Bible, and it appears only in Luke in the whole New Testament: Mt = 0; Mk = 0; Lk = 4; Jn = 0; Acts = 0; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. It is usually translated as: purse, that pouch that in NT times was attached to the belt and in which coins were put.

The Septuagint gives us only a few examples of balantion, and the term seems to refer to different things. In Prov 1: 14, one speaks of a common "purse". However, the Septuagint translates by balantion the Hebrew term kîs, a generic term which can designate a purse as here in Prov 1: 14 or Isa 46: 6 (translated by marsippion [small bag, purse] by the Septuagint), but can also designate a bag in which a merchant could carry his scale and his weights (Deut 25: 13 and Mic 6: 11, translated in both cases by marsippion in the Septuagint; Prov 16: 11, translated by a paraphrase by the Septuagint).

As for Job 14: 17, balantion seems to designate a bag to wrap something up so that it escapes the sight of others. Here the Septuagint thus translated the Hebrew term ṣĕrōr (bundle, parcel, pouch, bag [for wrapping], and pebble). In fact, it happens that the term ṣĕrōr refers to the money that one carries (see Gen 42: 35 which speaks of a "bag of silver, translated as desmos [package] by the Septuagint; see also Prov 7: 20 which speaks of a "bag" of silver, translated as endesmos [package] by the Septuagint; see Haggai 1: 6 which speaks of a "bag" of perforated silver, translated by the Septuagint as desmos. Otherwise ṣĕrōr means anything tied together or wrapped, when it does not mean pebbles or stones or crushed grain.

In short, there is no technical term for the purse worn on the belt, and the translators of the Septuagint used different Greek terms. It was Luke who seems to have standardized the language and made balantion a term to specifically designate the purse that the traveler carried on his belt. In this he breaks new ground, for the four occurrences in his gospel are unique to him, and no other New Testament writer uses this term. Mark, for his part, simply says: "no bronze coins on the belt".

What is stated in v. 4? To understand it, we need only translate it into modern terms: "Go without a wallet (and without a credit card)". The image is striking. Of course, Palestinian society was different from ours. But the fact remains that we are asked to go on mission without economic resources. We put our total trust in God and in the welcome of the people. This is a form of poverty.

Pēran is the feminine pēra in the accusative singular, the accusative being required because the word plays the role of direct object complement of the verb "to carry". It is a rare word in the whole Bible, and in the NT it appears only in the evangelists: Mt = 1; Mk = 1; Lk = 4; Jn = 0; Acts = 0; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. It is Mark who seems to have introduced the word for the first time in the context of the sending of the Twelve, taken up by Matthew and Luke. But the latter will take up the term again in the context of the sending of the 72, and then in two verses in ch. 22 where it echoes the sending of the Twelve.

H.G. Liddell et R. Scott (A Greek-English Lexicon) gives us this definition of pēra : leathern pouch for victuals. The Gospels give us few details about this pouch, except that it normally accompanied the traveler. But fortunately Judith's book is more explicit when it writes: "she fills a bag (pēra) with flour barley, a cake of dried fruits, breads and cheese; she carefully packed up all her vessels and loaded them to her servant" (Jdt 10, 5). Thus, it is a bag or a satchel for the food of the traveler which allowed him to feed himself on the way.

Thus, to ask the missionary to leave without a bag or pouch is to ask him to travel without taking any food with him, relying on the goodwill of the people to feed him. This request, after the one to travel without money, obliges the missionary to live like a destitute. On a symbolic level, this means relying on God alone.

Hypodēmata is the neuter noun hypodēma in the accusative plural, the accusative being required because the word plays the role of direct object complement of the verb "to carry". It is not a frequent word in the Bible, and in the NT it occurs only in the Gospels-Acts: Mt = 2; Mk = 1; Lk = 4; Jn = 1; Acts = 2; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. This Greek word is sometimes translated as shoe, sometimes as sandal. In our translation, we preferred to use "shoe" to distinguish it from another Greek word: sandalion (sandal).

The Septuagint almost always translates as hypodēma the Hebrew word: naʿălâ. This Hebrew word has as its root the verb nāʿal which means "to lock", and thus translates the idea of a sole locked around the foot. But there are two cases where the Septuagint translates naʿălâ with the Greek word sandalon. There is first Isa 20: 2 ("The Lord spoke to Isaiah, son of Amos, saying: Go, and take off the hair shirt from your loins; untie the sandals [gr. sandalon, Hebrew: naʿălâ] of your feet, and do as I tell you; travel naked and barefoot." And there is Josh 9: 5 ("The side [koilos] of their shoes [hypodēma] as well as their sandals [sandalon] were worn and patched, their garments showed the cord, and the bread of their supply was dried up, moldy, eaten away." This last case is surprising, for the Hebrew text simply says, "they had old sandals (naʿălâ), worn and sewn up, and they wore old, worn clothes; all the bread of their provisions was dry and in crumbs". Thus, the translator of the Septuagint felt the need to use two Greek words to translate naʿălâ, first hypodēma with the attribute koilos (lit. hollow), as if the shoe had an "edge", like a boot, then sandalon. Thus, it would seem that one could wear either simple sandals or a slightly more "dressed" shoe which could cover the foot more. But this example seems an exceptional case, and in general the Hebrew always has the same word naʿălâ for the shoe on the feet, and the Septuagint almost always translates by hypodēma, which our Bibles most often translate as "sandal".

What do we know about hypodēma? Several times the straps of this shoe are mentioned: John the Baptist says he is unworthy to untie the straps of Jesus' shoes (Mk 1: 7; Lk 3: 16; Jn 1: 27). Thus, when we speak of taking off one's shoes, one says "to untie the straps of one's shoe" (Isa 5: 27), or simply "to untie one's shoe" with the Greek verb lyō or hypolyō (Acts 7: 33; 13: 25; Ex 3: 5; Deut 25: 9.10; Jos 5: 15; Rt 4: 7.8.).

As one can imagine, the shoe, which was not worn while staying at home, was used for walking. Thus the Israelites walked in "sandals/shoes" for forty years in the wilderness, and thanks to God, their sandals did not wear out (Deut 29:4). On the other hand, the Gibeonites who went to meet Joshua and his people complain that "our clothes and shoes have worn out during our long journey" (Josh 9:13). When Isaiah evokes this period of the Exodus when the Israelites were able to cross the sea, in order to announce the return from exile in the present time, he says: LXX "The Lord will cause his arm to fall on the river, and he will strike the seven mouths of it, so that one will cross them with sandals" (Isa 11:15). And if during the celebration of the Passover, sandals were required ("You shall eat in this way: with your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand, and you shall eat in haste: it is the Passover of the Lord", Ex 12:11), it is because it was necessary to leave quickly for the journey of the transhumance.

But beyond its utilitarian side, the shoe/sandal had a symbolic value. First of all, it symbolized what was of little value. The prophet Amos denounces those who exploit the poor and needy, and buy them with cheap gifts, like a pair of sandals (Amos 2:6; 8:6). And when one makes a plea of one's honesty, one claims that one has not even taken a pair of sandals, not even the strap of a pair of sandals (Gen 14:23; 1 Sam 12:3; Sir 46:19).

Since one takes possession of a territory by walking through it, the shoe becomes the symbol of taking possession of a thing and exercising one's rights. Thus, Ps 60:10: LXX "And Moab, the vessel of my hope; I will lay my sandal upon Idumea; the strangers are subject to me" (see also Ps 108:10). Thus, to express the fact that one was giving up a right of possession, one untied the shoe of one's right foot and handed it over to the person who became the purchaser. This is what is described in the book of Ruth: LXX "Now this rule has existed in Israel for a long time concerning redemptions, and markets: to confirm any word, the man untied his shoe and gave it to his relative, who took back his right of redemption. Such was the testimony in Israel" (4:7; see also 4:8). This practice is found in the administration of the levirate, so that when a relative did not want to marry the widow of his brother who had died without children, the relative had to untie his sandal from one of his feet to express the fact that he was not exercising his right of levirate, while the widow spat in his face (Deut 25:9); and the text of Deuteronomy concludes: "And the house of that man shall be called in Israel the house of the one who has untied his sandal" (25:10)

Shoes are therefore a symbol not only of possession, but also of authority and domination. In this perspective, we must understand this passage from Solomon's Psalm: "Foreign nations have come up to your altar and have trampled it with their shoes because of their pride" (2:2). They are also a symbol of dignity and nobility: "How beautiful are your feet in your sandals, daughter of a prince! The contours of your thighs are like necklaces, the work of an artist's hands" (Song 7:2). Conversely, walking barefoot was a symbol of loss of power and grief. When Job says: "The Lord makes the priests go barefoot; he overthrows the most stable authorities", he refers to the humiliation of the priests. To announce to Egypt its defeat and humiliation, God said this to Isaiah: "Go, untie the sackcloth from your loins and take off your sandals from your feet"; Isaiah did so, he walked naked and unshod (Isa 20:2). In the funeral ceremony, to express mourning, one walked barefoot. It is in this context that we must understand the word of God addressed to Ezekiel who, announcing his imminent death, asks that no funeral rites be performed: "You shall have a sigh of blood, a pain of loins; your hair on your head shall not be braided, and your sandals shall be on your feet; no lip shall comfort you, and you shall not eat the bread of men" (Ezek 24:17); since sandals were not worn at funerals, keeping one's sandals on was a way of not doing a funeral rite.

All this helps us to understand the scene at the burning bush when God tells Moses: "Do not come near here; take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy ground" (Ex 3:5). Why ask to remove the sandals? The first answer comes from the affirmation that the land is sacred, and therefore from the need to separate the sacred from the profane, the sandals representing the profane, they who have traveled the roads and collected dust; removing the sandals is equivalent to the rite of ablution with water before prayer and religious gestures. But there is more. The sandals are a symbol of possession, power and authority. To remove them is to give up one's authority and submit to God's, to humble oneself out of respect for God.

After this long detour, we can return to v. 4 and Jesus' request to the missionary to travel without shoes/sandals. This request is quite unusual, because the shoe was thought of as a walking shoe. But, as we have seen, walking without sandals was a sign of poverty and humility, an expression of the absence of rights and power. This was the atmosphere in which the mission had to take place.

Let us note in conclusion that Luke, rather than taking up the term sandalon from Mark, opted for hypodēma from Q document, just like Mt 10: 10b by the way. This is all the more surprising since he nevertheless uses it in Acts 12:8 in this scene where Peter is freed from prison: "The angel said to him: Put on your belt and fasten your sandals (sandalon)". It is possible that Luke intended to reflect the milieu of Greek culture and the Septuagint, where hypodēma is widely used to refer to the shoe, as seen in Matthew and in shared ancient tradition by Mark and John on John the Baptist's unworthiness to untie Jesus' sandal. By using sandalon in reference to the sending of the Twelve on mission, would Mark have wanted to draw inspiration from the Greek text of Isa 20, 2 where the prophet is sent barefoot (without sandalon) and naked on a mission? Be that as it may, Luke and Matthew did not want to follow him down this path.

Mēdena is the adjective mēdeis in the accusative singular, the accusative being ordered by the fact that it plays the role of direct object complement of the verb "to greet". It is found in all the evangelists, except John: Mt = 5; Mk = 9; Lk = 9; Jn = 0; Acts = 19; 1Jn = 1; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 1. It means literally: none; and so when it is the attribute of a person, it means: no person, and is usually translated by: no one; when it is the attribute of a thing, it means: no thing, and is translated by: nothing. Very often, the adjective plays the role of a noun or a name, so that the name "person" or "thing" is implied.

In the synoptic gospels, of the 23 occurrences of the word, 13 are used in the context of Jesus asking his disciples not to say anything about what has happened or to say that he is the Messiah. This is what biblical scholars call the "messianic secret," a notion introduced by Mark and taken up by Matthew and Luke. For Mark, the identity of Jesus and the meaning of what he said and did can only be understood after his death on the cross; hence the idea of keeping silent until all this is understood.

The word is very Lucan. It appears 19 times in the Acts of the Apostles, and in his gospel, of the nine occurrences, five come from his pen. And here, in v. 4, it is he who adds this word to the Marcan tradition which he takes up again in connection with the conditions of the mission.

Why not talk to anyone? It is the urgency of the mission. You can't linger on the road, which is what would happen if you took the time to connect with others. The important thing is to go directly to the goal, to the place of the mission.

Hodon is the feminine name hodos in the accusative singular, the accusative being required by the preposition kata, when it means: on the extent of, along. It means: road, path, way. It is this Greek word that gave us: odometer (to measure speed on the road). It is a frequent word in the gospels-Acts, except in John: Mt = 22; Mk = 16; Lk = 20; Jn = 4; Acts = 20; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0.

Jesus was an itinerant preacher, so it is not surprising that many of the events recounted in the gospels take place on the road. It is on the road that Jesus has a number of encounters, like the two blind men on the side of the road (Mt 20:30), the blind Bartimaeus also on the side of the road (Mk 10:46), a rich young man who asks about eternal life and whom he calls to leave everything to follow him (Mk 10:17), a man who commits himself to follow him to the end (Lk 9:57). It is on the road that Jesus forms his disciples by asking the question of his identity ("Who am I?" (Mk 8:27), he tells them that he must suffer and die in Jerusalem before rising again (Mt 20:17; Mk 10:32), he teaches them about keeping the Sabbath while his disciples are gathering ears of corn along the way (Mk 2:23). And in Luke, it is while Jesus is on the road to Jerusalem for almost ten chapters (9:51-18:14) that he delivers most of his teaching to the disciples. And it is while Jesus is on the road that he receives a triumphal welcome in Jerusalem (Mk 11:8; Mt 21:8; Lk 19:36).

If such is the master, such will be the disciple. This is especially clear in Luke. While walking on the road, the disciples of Emmaus meet Jesus who explains the Scriptures to them (Lk 24:32). On the road to Gaza, Philip meets the Ethiopian eunuch to explain a passage from the prophet Isaiah, which leads him to ask for baptism (Acts 8:26, 36, 39). It is on the way to Damascus that Paul experiences the risen Christ, which leads him to his conversion to the Christian faith (Acts 9: 2-6; 22: 4ff; 26: 9ff).

The image of the road is the image of the journey, of learning, of development, it is the image of life. Also, of the 82 occurrences of the word hodos in the Gospels-Acts, 31 do not refer to the physical road, but to its symbolic significance. And one of the first to be noted concerns the term used to designate the Christian faith: the Way. In the Acts of the Apostles, the expression is used eight times; for example: "So Apollos began to speak with confidence in the synagogue. Priscilla and Aquila, who had heard him, took him with them and explained to him more exactly the Way" (Acts 18:26; see also 9:2; 18:25; 19:9,23; 22:4; 24:14,22). Thus, the Christian faith is not presented as knowledge or doctrine, but as a direction given to one's life, a walk in the footsteps of Jesus; it is a dynamic reality.

In the Gospels, several expressions give the symbolic meaning of the road: "the way of life, the way of perdition" (Mt 7:13-14), "the way of righteousness" (Mt 21:32), "the way of God" (Mk 12:14 || Mt 22:16 || 20:21), the "way of peace" (Lk 1: 79), "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life" (Jn 14:6), "the way of life" (Acts 2:28), the "way of the nations" (Acts 14:16), the "way of salvation" (Acts 16:17). All these expressions carry the same idea: human action is not neutral, there are actions that lead to authenticity and develop the human being so that he is truly himself and the image of God, and there are actions that destroy him and where he is no longer the image of God. And Jesus came to show this way by his whole life, including his death triggered by love.

An interesting example of the symbolic value of the way comes from all these passages in reference to the role of John the Baptist: "Behold, I send my messenger ahead of you to prepare your way. A voice cries out in the wilderness, 'Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths'" (Mk 1:2; Mt 3:3; Lk 3:4; Jn 1:23). This idea, that the life of the Messiah will be like a road where no obstacles must be placed in order for him to carry out his mission, was taken up by the four evangelists. The image of the road is important, because the action of the Messiah is inscribed in time, and we must not prevent him from reaching us progressively; there is nothing instantaneous.

In v. 4, hodos refers of course to the physical road on which the missionary must walk. But it also has a symbolic meaning. For setting out on a journey obliges one to leave one's home and go far away, to allow oneself to be displaced, to live a form of exodus in order to go and meet the other. This is the condition of the missionary.

And here in v. 4 Luke presents us with a new face of mission. In fact, in the sending of the Twelve on mission, Matthew writes the following about Jesus' instructions: "Jesus sent these Twelve on mission with the following instructions: 'Do not go the way of the Gentiles or enter a town of Samaritans'. The Jesus of Luke does not limit the paths that the missionary can take. In fact, this sending of 72 missionaries intends to reach all the nations of the earth, and therefore intends to travel all the roads of the world.

Aspasēsthe is the verb aspazomai in the aorist active subjunctive, 2nd person plural. The subjunctive is a way of expressing an imperative here, in the form of a wish. It means "to greet" and is not very frequent in the Gospels-Acts: Mt = 2; Mk = 2; Lk = 2; Jn = 0; Acts = 6; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 1; 3Jn = 2.

When we talk about greeting someone, what exactly are we talking about? We guess that the demand of Jesus is not to avoid saying "Hello" to the people we meet on the road. Hebrew does not have a generic term to say "to greet someone". Take the example of Ex 18: 7 as translated by the King James Version: "And Moses went out to meet his father in law, and did obeisance, and kissed him; and they asked each other of their welfare (Heb.: šālôm [peace], gr. aspazomai [greeting]), and they came into the tent". Literally, in Hebrew, Moses and his father-in-law inquired of each other about their peace (šālôm). For wishing each other šālôm (peace) was a way of greeting each other, as today wishing each other a "good morning". The Septuagint translated here šālôm by the verb aspazomai, so that the sentence becomes: "they greeted each other mutually" (see also Judg 18: 15).

We will have noticed the gesture of Moses to greet his father-in-law: he prostrates himself, he kisses him. The OT gives us some examples of gestures to express the greeting. Here is Job's testimony of another time in his life: "When I went out to go to the city gate and had a seat prepared for me in the square. The young people saw me and hid, the old men got up and stood. The princes stopped their words and put their hands on their mouths" (Job 29: 7-9). Thus, the gesture of getting up and standing was a way of greeting someone. If you were on a mount, you got off: "When Abigail saw David, she hastened to get off the donkey; then she fell face down on the ground, prostrate, before David" (1 Samuel 25:23). For those close to them, kissing them was a way of greeting them: "Elisha left his oxen, ran after Elijah and said, Let me, please, kiss my father and my mother, and I will follow you" (1 Kings 19: 20). And there was this unusual gesture of taking the beard: "Joab said to Amasa: How are you (šālôm ʾattâ, lit.: peace to you), my brother? And with his right hand he seized Amasa's beard to kiss it" (2 Sam 20: 9).

In the New Testament we have an amalgamation of two cultures, the Hebrew culture and the Greek culture. This is how wishing each other šālôm (peace) became literally: wishing each other eirēnē (peace); for example: "Peace (eirēnē) be with you! Your friends greet you. Greet ours, each by name" (3 Jn 1:15). But in the Greek world, the usual way of greeting each other was to say: Chaire. Chaire is the verb chairō in the present imperative, and means literally: rejoice. But in everyday life in the Greek world, it means: hello, hi, hey, and has been translated into Latin as ave. It is with this term that the angel Gabriel greets Mary (Lk 1: 28), that Judas greets Jesus in Gethsemane (Mt 26: 49), that the Roman soldiers greet Jesus with his crown of thorns (Mk 18: 18 || Mt 27: 29 || Jn 19: 3). Now the verb chairō has the same root as the noun chara (joy). It is therefore telling that Paul combines the Hebrew and Greek way of expressing his wishes with the words "peace" (šālôm) and joy (chara): "May the God of hope fill you with all joy (chara) and peace (eirēnē) in the faith, so that you may abound in hope through the power of the Holy Spirit! (Rom 15:13). But it is above all the apt word charis (grace) combined with eirēnē (peace) which will be signature as greeting in the introduction of his letters; for example: "grace to you (charis) and peace (eirēnē) from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ"(Rom 1: 7; voir aussi 1 Cor 1: 3; 2 Cor 1: 2; Gal 1: 3; Eph 1: 2; Phil 1: 2; Col 1: 3; 1 Thess 1: 2; 2 Thess 1: 2; Titus 1: 4; Phlm 1: 4).

How is Jesus' attitude to greetings presented? One can imagine that Jesus had the opportunity to greet people a lot during his life. But the Gospels hold nothing back. What they retained was Jesus' denunciation of the behavior of scribes and Pharisees who liked to receive greetings in the public square (Mk 12: 38 || Mt 23: 7 || Lk 20: 46; 11: 43); this greeting could involve bowing and various gestures to acknowledge their importance. Jesus denounces this behavior which is a search for glory and personal interest and only accentuates their hypocrisy under a religious veneer. On the other hand, Matthew presents us with this sentence of Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount: "And if you greet (aspazomai) only your brothers, what extraordinary things are you doing ? Don't the pagans themselves do the same?" (Mt 5:47). The greeting is a sign of welcome and the establishment of a relationship. Moreover, the first thing that the missionary must do when arriving in a house is to greet the occupants: "When entering the house, greet it" (Mt 10: 12). The welcome of the believer is the widest possible ("You will therefore be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect", Mt 5: 48).

So we can be surprised by this sentence that we find only in Luke where Jesus asks the missionary not to greet anyone on the way. This request is in contrast to what is found in Sirach: "Be ashamed... of keeping silence before those who greet you (aspazomai)" (Sir 41: 20). Should we take this request of Jesus literally? In fact, it is likely that Luke's formulation repeats what is found in the account of Elisha and the Shounamite. Let us remember that Elisha had promised a child to this woman whose husband was old, and she gave birth to a son, but one day when he was going to join his father in the fields, this son died suddenly. Tearful, the Shounamite goes to Elisha. The latter wants to intervene immediately by first sending his servant Gehavi to the child, and therefore says to him:

Elisha said to Gehazi: Put a belt around your loins, take my staff and go. If you meet someone, do not bless (bārak) him; and if someone blesses you (bārak), do not answer him. You will put my stick on the boy's face (2 Kings 4: 29).

Blessing someone was another way of greeting someone, in addition to saying šālôm (peace). However, Elisha asks his servant not to bless anyone on the way, and therefore not to greet anyone. Why? Due to the urgency of the situation: it was necessary to intervene as quickly as possible with the deceased child. Greeting people would have meant taking the time to get in touch, to inquire about people's situation, which would have greatly delayed the intervention with the deceased child.

Luke probably knew this passage on the intervention of the prophet Elisha through the Septuagint version. And it is reasonable to think that it influenced him in his writing of the missionary's condition. Mark and the Q document seem to ignore this instruction. It is possible that this is an addition by Luke. In any case, all the evangelists have suggested that the mission was urgent for Jesus.

Oikian is the accusative singular of the feminine noun oikia, the accusative being ordered by the transitive verb eiserchomai (to enter) for which it is a direct object complement; it means: house. Two words in Greek designate the house, the masculine noun oikos, and the feminine noun oikia. All the evangelists use both terms: oikos (Mt = 10; Mk = 13; Lk = 33; Jn = 5; Acts = 25; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0) and oikia (Mt = 25; Mk = 18; Lk = 24; Jn = 5; Acts = 12; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 1; 3Jn = 0). As we can see, Matthew and Mark prefer oikia to oikos, while Luke prefers oikos to oikia, while John uses them in an equivalent way. There does not seem to be any nuance between the two terms. A typical example comes from John where the house of Martha and Mary is called first oikos, then oikia :

• Jn 11: 20: "When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went to meet him, while Mary sat in the house (oikos)"
• Jn 11: 31: "When the Jews who were with Mary in the house. (oikia) and comforted her, saw her get up quickly and go out; they followed her, thinking that she was going to the tomb to weep.

When we go through the use of oikia by the evangelists, we note four possible meanings.

1. First, there is the reference to the physical house that largely dominates. For example:
   • Mt 2: 11: "On entering the house (oikia), they saw the child with Mary his mother; and they knelt down and paid him homage. Then, opening their treasure chests, they offered him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh."

2. But the term sometimes refers, not to the physical house, but to the set of people who live there. For example:
   • Mt 12: 25: "He knew what they were thinking and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house (oikia) divided against itself will stand."

3. There is the special case where the term refers symbolically to the residence of God:
   • Jn 14: 2: "In my Father's house (oikia) there are many dwelling places. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?"

4. Finally, there is the unique case where house refers to a person's property or possessions:
   • Mk 12: 40: "They devour widows' houses (oikia) and for the sake of appearance say long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation"

On the house, here is what write L. Monloubou et F. M. Du But (Dictionnaire biblique universelle, p. 442):

The oriental house has evolved little over the ages: walls of rough stones and raw bricks, light frameworks hardly exceeding 10 feet, reed and rammed earth roofs. The simplest house is a hut with one or two rooms, leaning against a rock wall if the site has one. In town, one room overlooks the street on its short side, and another, at the back, is lit by a high window.

Large houses are, in reality, closed courtyards bordered by a number of huts: a large family can gather there with its food reserves and a little livestock. Sheds and lean-tos are supported by wooden pillars with a stone base. The ease of the owner can be recognized, for us, by the regularity of the walls and angles, and the paving of part of the floors. A large "house" fits in a courtyard of 50 x 33 feet, and the state of the walls allows at most to store one or two rooms on the floor. When one finds larger dimensions, one speaks of a "palace" and one thinks of a building for public use.

The roofs are terraces, not very inclined, for lack of a real framework. In the city, they are left flat and one takes the cool in summer under a shelter of foliage ...

...In the Greco-Roman period, the technique and decoration of rich houses improved, as recent finds in Jerusalem prove. In the villages and poor neighborhoods, construction became so dense that it was possible to move from terrace to terrace (cf. Mk 2:4 and the excavations in Capernaum).

Nouns oikia and oikos are part of Luke's vocabulary, as they appear both in Acts and in his gospel. But does Luke establish a nuance between the two terms? Consider first the Acts of the Apostles. The term oikia is only used in reference to a private house: the house of Judas, of Simon the currier, of Simon Peter, of Mary, of the jailer, of Justus. As for the term oikos, it covers a wider range of meanings: most frequently the term designates a clan or a whole family (for example, the house of Israel), but it also designates a house in general, without it being possible to associate it with a particular individual (for example, the Christians broke bread in their houses) or even the temple ("what house will you build me, saith the Lord", Acts 7: 49); of course, on a few occasions, it can also designate the house of a private individual (the house of Corneille, of Lydie, of the jailer). This last case illustrates that Luke can use both oikia and oikos in the same scene to refer to the same house:

Then they (Paul and Silas) proclaimed the word of the Lord to him (the jailer) and to all who lived in his house (oikia). That very hour, in the middle of the night, the jailer took them away to wash their wounds; then, without further ado, he received baptism, himself and all his people. He then took Paul and Silas into his house (oikos), gave them a meal and rejoiced with his family for having believed in God (Acts 16:31-34).

What about the Gospel of Luke? The gospel reflects what we said about Acts. The gospel reflects what we have said about Acts. The noun oikia refers not only to the physical house, especially that of a well-identified individual, but also to the house in general, the only exception being a passage copied from Mark where oikia refers to a person's property. On the other hand, the domain of meaning of oikos is wider: it refers several times to the family or the clan (e.g., the house of David), or to the house of a person. On the other hand, the domain of meaning of oikos is broader: it refers several times to the family or the clan (e.g., the house of David), or to the temple ("Behold, your house will be left to you", Lk 13:35), in addition to referring to the house of a particular person (the house of Zechariah, of Mary, of the paralytic, of the centurion, of the Pharisee, the possessed man in the land of the Gergaeans, Jairus, the man with an unclean spirit, the householder who was robbed, the householder who had a great feast, the shepherd who had lost a sheep, the publican and the Pharisee, Zacchaeus). In short, oikia and oikos are synonymous in Luke, the only nuance being that only oikos is used to designate the clan or the family, or the temple.

Here, in v. 5, Luke takes up a passage from Mark 6: 10 where Jesus makes his recommendations to the missionaries who enter a house, and therefore copies the word oikia from this source. Why is the house the place of mission? For, according to the Gospel of Mark, it seems that it was above all in the synagogues that Jesus intervened (Mk 1: 21,39; 3: 1; 6: 2). Jesus also taught in the temple court (Mk 12:35). The public square could have been a normal place for the mission. Why send the Twelve into houses? In fact, when the Gospels begin to be written down, Christians are no longer welcome in the synagogues and the temple will be destroyed in the year 70. The sending of the Twelve is therefore situated in a Christian context where the evangelization will be done first of all in the houses, as Luke writes: "And they told him (the jailer) the word of the Lord and all who were in his house (oikia)" (Acts 16:32). And the house will become the center of Christian life: "And having recognized himself, he went to the house of Mary, mother of John, surnamed Mark, where a fairly large assembly had gathered and prayed" (Acts 12: 12).

Eiselthēte is the verb eiserchomai in the active aorist subjunctive, 2nd person plural, the subjunction being controlled by the particle an (if, if applicable) which introduces a hypothetical situation. The verb eiserchomai, composed of the preposition eis (towards, in) and the verb erchomai (to come), means: to enter, to penetrate . It is found regularly in the Gospel-Acts, especially in the Lucan tradition: Mt = 36; Mk = 30; Lk = 50; Jn = 15; Acts = 34. But we can affirm that the verb is as frequent, if not more frequent in Mark than in the other evangelists, knowing that of the 33 occurrences of Matthew, only 14 are specific to him, and in Luke, of his 50 occurrences, 28 are his own, the others coming either from Mark or from the document Q.

When we speak of entering, we are referring to a situation where one enters a place. And in fact, of the 165 occurrences of the verb in the Gospels-Acts, 24 refer to entering a city or town, and 85 to entering a house, a synagogue, a temple or a tomb, i.e. almost 70% of the cases. This place may not be geographical, and then it is a question, for example, of entering the Christian community (access is through the door that is Jesus, Jn 10:9; wolves may enter, Acts 20:29). And there are certain Hebrew expressions such as "to enter and leave" which designate the activity of a whole life (Jn 10:9; Acts 1:21), or "to enter into the labor of others", a way of expressing that the Christian mission inherits what Jesus sowed (Jn 3:5). But it happens that the place where one enters is more unusual with a symbolic value. This is the case when one enters an animate being.

• The evil spirit or demon or Satan that enters a person (Mk 9:25; Mt 12:45; Lk 11:26; 22:3; Jn 13:27)
• The unclean spirits that enter the pigs (Mk 5:12-13; Lk 8:30-33)
• The food that goes into a person's mouth (Mt 15:11; Acts 11:8)
• A thought that enters a person (Lk 9:46)
• A man entering his mother's womb again (Jn 3:4)

Finally, there are cases where the place belongs to the spiritual world. On this point, each evangelist has his particular touch.

Mark:

• There is the entry into Life, understood in the sense of Eternal Life and synonymous with the Kingdom of God, presented as a future reality beyond death, and which requires in the present moment to avoid shaking the faith of the weakest (9: 43-46)
• The alternative to entering life is eternal fire or Gehenna (9: 43-46)
• The entrance into the Kingdom of God, which seems to be a present reality, presupposes that we first welcome it as a child (10: 15)
• But entry into the Kingdom of God, presented as a future reality in the hereafter, will be very difficult for those who possess wealth (10: 23-25)
• Even though he does not use the word "enter" exactly, Mark speaks of an entry into the trial that is asked to be avoided in prayer (14:38)

Matthew:

• He copies what Mark writes about the entry into Life, which requires not shaking the faith of the weakest, and its alternative, the gehenna of fire (18: 6-11), and the entry into the trial that is asked to be avoided in prayer (26: 41); and he also takes up the Q document that speaks of a narrow door to enter this Life presented as a future reality (7: 13)
• When he takes up the image of entering the Kingdom of God, he transforms it into the Kingdom of Heaven, while taking up the warning about the obstacle that the possession of wealth represents (19: 23-24), but at the same time he emphasizes the requirements to enter this future reality: it is necessary to behave properly (justice), to do the will of the Father or to return to the state of children or to observe the commandments, and the Pharisees and the scribes will be excluded (5: 20; 7: 21; 18: 3; 19: 17. 23-24; 23: 13)
• But he also mentions the present dimension, taking up elements from the Q document: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for you lock up the kingdom of heaven before men! You certainly do not enter, nor do you let those who do enter" (23:13); we are at the level of knowledge of this Kingdom

Luke - gospel:

• He copies Mark on the entry into the Kingdom of God, which presupposes that he is first welcomed as a little child (18:17), and the obstacle that riches represent (18:25), just as he takes up the entry into the trial that he asks to avoid in prayer (22:40,46)
• There is the entry in the cloud by Peter, James and John at the transfiguration (9: 34)
• Like Matthew, it takes up elements of the Q document on the entry into the Kingdom of God presented as an access to its knowledge today, from which the lawyers are excluded (11: 52)
• This Kingdom of God is associated with future salvation and to enter it one must pass through the narrow gate (13:23-24), an image that he takes from the Q document
• Finally, there is the entry into glory for the Messiah after having passed through the sufferings (24: 2)

John:

• Entry into the Kingdom of God is not possible unless the person is born of water and the Spirit, i.e. without allowing the Holy Spirit given by Jesus to transform him or her, which is symbolized by the acceptance of baptism (3: 5)

Luke - Acts:

• The only mention of the entry into the Kingdom of God is to underline that this entry is preceded by many distresses, an echo of the adversity that Christians encounter (14: 22)

Here, in v. 5, Luke copies a sentence that comes to him from Mark on entering a house for the missionary. The expression eiserchomai eis ton oikon / eis tēn oikian (to enter the house) in Mark is quite common: Mk 2: 26; 3: 27; 6: 10; 7: 17,24; 9: 28. But the expression also belongs to the vocabulary of Luke, and he even allows himself to add (underlined) the verb "to enter" (eiserchomai) to the Marcan source:

Mark 1	Luke 4
29 And immediately, leaving the synagogue, he comes to the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John.	38 And he arose out of the synagogue, and entered (eiserchomai) into Simon's house.

Mark 5	Luke 8
9 And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many.	30 And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered (eiserchomai) into him.
23-24 He pleaded earnestly with him, "My little daughter is dying. Please come and put your hands on her so that she will be healed and live." So Jesus went with him. A large crowd followed and pressed around him.	41 And, behold, there came a man named Jairus, and he was a ruler of the synagogue: and he fell down at Jesus' feet, and besought him that he would enter (eiserchomai) into his house.
37 And he suffered no man to follow him, save Peter, and James, and John the brother of James.	51 And when he came into the house, he suffered no man to enter (eiserchomai) in, save Peter, and James, and John, and the father and the mother of the maiden.

The fact of entering a house presupposes that the master of the house is ready to welcome the missionary, that he is willing to listen to him. Thus, missionary preaching is addressed only to people of good will, open to the word.

Prōton is an adverb that has the same root as the word prōtos (first), and therefore means: first; it establishes an order of priority. It appears regularly in the New Testament and in the gospels: Mt = 9; Mk = 7; Lk = 10; Jn = 5; Acts = 4; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. It can be seen that it is very present in Luke where, of the ten occurrences, eight are his own.

The adverb prōton is used to establish priorities. These priorities can be religious. For example:

• Mt 5: 24: "leave your gift there before the altar and go; first (prōton) be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift."

Priorities can be moral. For example:

• Mt 23: 26: "You blind Pharisee! First (prōton) clean the inside of the cup, so that the outside also may become clean"

Priorities can be ritualistic. For example:

• Lk 11: 38: "The Pharisee was amazed to see that he did not first (prōton) wash before dinner"

Priorities can be practical. For example:

• Lk 14: 28: "For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not first (prōton) sit down and estimate the cost, to see whether he has enough to complete it?"

Here, in v. 5, what is the priority of saying first to the residents of the house: "Peace"? Why say this word first? One could think of it as a gesture of politeness, as today the first thing one says when entering someone's home is "Good morning". But why would Luke go to the trouble of transmitting a catechetical tradition on missionary sending with a recommendation from Jesus focused on etiquette and manners? It is easy to guess that this is about something other than etiquette or manners. And the verb "to say" that follows must be interpreted as a proclamation. We have here a model that is also found in the Old Testament: it is God who "first" takes the initiative to save his people from Egypt, and the commandments of Sinai are only a response to this initiative. Thus, we must first announce what God has done, before asking for any action. It is the meaning of prōton in v. 5.

Eirēnē is the feminine noun eirēnē in the nominative singular; it is the subject of the implied verb "be". It means: peace, and it is especially present in the New Testament in the Pauline epistles and in Luke: Mt = 4; Mk = 1; Lk = 14; Jn = 6; Acts = 7; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 1; 3Jn = 1.

One cannot enter into the meaning of the word "peace" without considering the Old Testament context. For in the Jewish world, to say to someone šālôm (peace) was the usual way of greeting him, as we see in this passage from Judg 19:20 where an old man welcomes a Levite who needs lodging for the night:

And the old man said, "Peace (šālôm) [be] with you! howsoever let all thy wants lie upon me; only lodge not in the street"

As in today's greeting of "good morning" where we wish for a good day, wishing for peace implies wishing for all needs to be met; for the root of the word expresses completion, fullness, perfection (Monloubou-Du Buit, Dictionnaire biblique universel). To get an idea of what is included in this peace, we need only read Lev 26:3-6:

If you follow my statutes and keep my commandments and observe them faithfully, I will give you your rains in their season, and the land shall yield its produce, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit. Your threshing shall overtake the vintage, and the vintage shall overtake the sowing; you shall eat your bread to the full, and live securely in your land. And I will grant peace (šālôm) in the land, and you shall lie down, and no one shall make you afraid; I will remove dangerous animals from the land, and no sword shall go through your land.

Peace is part of a whole where one lives not only in security, but also in a certain prosperity. But, in the ancient mentality, all this depends on God who grants it to whomever he wants. This is how the Psalmist can sing:

Let me hear what God the Lord will speak,
for he will speak Peace (šālôm) to his people,
to his faithful, to those who turn to him in their hearts.(Ps 85: 8).

But with the prophets, especially Isaiah, peace appears in a new context: it will be granted through the mediation of the messiah. This is how Isaiah (9: 6-7) can write:

For a child has been born for us,
a son given to us;
authority rests upon his shoulders;
and he is named
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of peace (šālôm).
His authority shall grow continually
and there shall be endless peace (šālôm)
for the throne of David and his kingdom.
He will establish and uphold it
with justice and with righteousness
from this time onward and forevermore.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.

And the proclamation of peace is equivalent to the proclamation of the good news and is the equivalent of the proclamation of salvation and the reign of God: "How welcome on the mountain tops are the footsteps of the messenger who brings us to hear the peace (šālôm), who carries a message of goodness, who makes us listen to salvation, who says to Zion: 'Your God reigns!'" (Isa 52: 7).

This is the context in which we must read the song of Zechariah presented by Luke 1:79: "to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace (eirēnē)". With the New Testament, the peace of God is identified with Jesus, the risen messiah.

When we look at the New Testament as a whole, we see that the word "peace" can have different meanings.

1. The most obvious meaning of the word "peace" is the absence of conflict and war, the presence of a stable world without turbulence, and the existence of a great reconciliation between people and peoples.
   • Mt 10: 34: "Do not think that I have come to bring peace (eirēnē) to the earth; I have not come to bring peace (eirēnē), but a sword."
   • Lk 14: 32: "If he cannot, then, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for the terms of peace (eirēnē)"
   • Acts 7: 26: "The next day he came to some of them as they were quarreling and urged them into peace (eirēnē), saying, 'Men, you are brothers; why do you wrong each other?'"

2. An aparent meaning is that the word means security in relation to one's possessions and physical integrity, so that one can enjoy one's possessions in peace and have what one needs to live one's life without hindrance.
   • Lk 11: 21: "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his castle, his property is in peace (eirēnē)"
   • 1 Cor 16: 11: "therefore let no one despise him. Send him on his way in peace (eirēnē), so that he may come to me; for I am expecting him with the brothers"

3. Like good weather after a storm, peace marks the end of a tension or an unhappy situation. So when Jesus responds to a request for help and performs a healing, he is quite justified in saying to his interlocutor: go in peace. Peace comes from the answer to prayer, from the restored wholeness, from the fulfilled need.
   • Lk 2: 29-30: "Master, now you are dismissing your servant in peace (eirēnē), according to your word; for my eyes have seen your salvation"
   • Lk 7: 50: "And he said to the woman, 'Your faith has saved you; go in peace (eirēnē)'"

4. As in the world of the Old Testament, wishing for peace is a form of greeting, as we see in the 3rd letter of John (1: 14): "Peace (eirēnē) to you! The friends here send their greetings. Greet the friends there by name." But in the Greco-Roman context where the letters of the New Testament are located, the greeting is usually "bilingual", i.e. with reference to both the Greek greeting in the form of chaire (literally: rejoice, but meaning: greeting), which became charis (grace), and the typical Jewish greeting, šālôm (peace), became in Greek: eirēnē. Thus all the so-called Pauline letters begin with a formula of greeting similar to this: "Grace to you and peace (eirēnē) from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ! (Phlm 1: 3). But for a Christian, this peace from God and Christ Jesus is not just the wish for a peaceful life. This is what we must now examine.

5. Peace expresses what Christ Jesus brought, as summarized by Luke in Acts 10:36: "He sent his word to the Israelites, announcing to them the good news of peace (eirēnē) by Jesus Christ: he is the Lord of all", a phrase that he takes from the Septuagint version of Isa 52: 7 (LXX "Here I am, like the spring on the mountains, like the feet of the one who announces the good news of peace". It is therefore a question of messianic peace. This is what Jesus came to bring as indicated by these words that Luke puts in the mouth of Jesus while he weeps over Jerusalem: "If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace (eirēnē) - but now it is hidden from your eyes" (Lk 19:42). This is what Jesus left to his disciples when he left this world: "While they were saying this, he stood in the midst of them and said to them, 'Peace (eirēnē) to you!'" (Lk 24:36). Similar words are found in the evangelist John: "I leave you peace (eirēnē); it is my peace (eirēnē) that I give you; I do not give it to you as the world gives it" (Jn 14:27). And every encounter with the risen Jesus begins with these words: "Peace be with you! (Jn 20: 19,20,26). Why then does the word "peace" sum up the contribution of the risen Jesus?

   You have to go through the Pauline letters to get an answer. We know that on a human level, to live in peace with others means to be reconciled with others, to be in good relations. The same idea prevails when we place ourselves on the divine plane. This is what Rom 5:1 suggests: "Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace (eirēnē) with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Paul speaks of a reconciliation with God ("If, being enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, how much more, once reconciled, will we be saved by his life", Rom 5: 10). Reconciled with God, we can live a true relationship in peace. All of this is God's initiative. This is why in the letters we constantly speak of the God or the Lord of peace (1 Thess 5: 23; 2 Thess 2: 16; Phil 4: 9; Rom 15: 33; 16: 20; Heb 13: 20). This peace coming from God works a reconciliation with the whole of humanity, because this peace is transforming the human heart. This is what Eph 2: 13-17 describes:

   But now, in Christ Jesus, you who were once far off have been made near by the blood of Christ. It is he, in fact, who is our peace (eirēnē): what was divided he made unity. In his flesh, he destroyed the wall of separation: hatred. He abolished the law and its commandments with their observances. He thus wanted, from the Jew and the pagan, to create in himself a single new man, establishing peace (eirēnē), and reconcile them both to God in one body, by means of the cross: there he killed hatred. He came to announce peace (eirēnē) to you who were far away, and peace ( eirēnē) to those who were close.

   The notion of peace thus makes it possible to summarize the good news of the gospel, the new man reconciled with God and with others. But at the same time peace seems to be the work of the Spirit. In John's gospel, when Jesus says to his disciples, "Peace be with you," he sends them on their mission and adds, "Receive the Holy Spirit" (Jn 20:21-22). And in his letter to the Galatians, Paul can write: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace (eirēnē), long-suffering, helpfulness, kindness, trust in others" (Gal 5:22; see also Rom 15:13). Thus, the word "peace" designates both our new relationship with God and our new capacity in our relationships with others, a new capacity that is life in the Spirit, where the word "peace" receives several synonyms, such as charity, joy, longsuffering, helpfulness, goodness, trust in others, mercy, and abundant hope.

Luke, as we have already noted, is the one who refers most to peace, and in more than half of the cases it is a reference to messianic peace. Here, in v. 5, saying "peace" when entering a house is of course a way of greeting the occupants, but let's not forget that we are talking about a missionary who brings the good news of the gospel of peace, and so this greeting refers to the good news of messianic peace that is offered to the freedom of each person; this is why each person is free to accept.

It may be surprising to note that Jesus' recommendations do not provide any details about the content of missionary preaching. We must therefore understand that the simple mention of peace is sufficient to refer to the whole content of the gospel, and that the emphasis of our pericope is above all on "missionary methods", i.e. on the how of mission.

Ekei is an adverb of place which means: there. It appears regularly in the gospels-Acts: Mt = 28; Mk = 11; Lk = 16; Jn = 22; Acts = 6; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0, especially in Matthew and John.

The adverb ekei usually designates a geographical place, be it a house, a barn, a synagogue, a city, a region or a whole country (85% of cases in the Gospels-Acts). But it also happens that the adverb refers to

• to a person (e.g., "Then he goes and takes seven other spirits worse than himself; they return and dwell there [in the man]. And the final state of that man becomes worse than the first," Lk 11:26),

• or to a symbolic reality such as a person's focus (e.g., "For where your treasure is, there also will be your heart," Lk 12:34),

• or to time (e.g., "There [on the day of judgment] will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the prophets in the Kingdom of God, and you, thrown out," Lk 13:28),

• or to an event (e.g. "On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there [at the wedding]", Jn 2: 1)

Ekei belongs to the Lucan vocabulary, because of the 16 occurrences in his gospel, nine are his own. And he allows himself sometimes to add it (underlined) in he copies his Marcan source, a way to be more precise on the geographical level. For example:

Mark 12	Luke 21
42 A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which are worth a penny.	2 he also saw a poor widow put there (ekei) in two small copper coins.

Mark 15	Luke 23
22-24a Then they brought Jesus to the place called Golgotha (which means the place of a skull). And they offered him wine mixed with myrrh; but he did not take it. And they crucified him...	33 When they came to the place that is called The Skull, they crucified Jesus there (ekei)

In v. 6, the adverb ekei is introduced by Luke and intends to designate the house, but the house in its double meaning: the geographical place, since the missionaries have entered a house, but also the extended family that inhabits it. The adverb allows us to focus our attention on this place.

Huios is the masculine noun huios in the nominative singular, the nominative being required because the word is the subject of the verb "to be" (literally: if a son of peace is there). It means: son, and is very frequent in the Gospels-Acts: Mt = 89; Mk = 35; Lk = 77; Jn = 55; Acts = 21; 1Jn = 22; 2Jn = 2; 3Jn = 0. But of these 301 occurrences in total, 176 are used to designate Jesus as the son of God or the son of man, that is, more than half (58%). Nevertheless, if we remove this last case from the equation, we still end up with 125 occurrences of the word "son", compared to 26 occurrences of the word "daughter". This is not surprising in a patriarchal society where only men have social status and where having a son is more valuable than having a daughter. Let us be aware, however, that in the Gospels-Acts the term huios can have several meanings which I have grouped into five categories.

Biological meaning: it is the male child begotten by parents (71 fois: Mt = 18; Mk = 7; Lk = 26; Jn = 12; Acts = 8; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0). Examples:

• Lk 1: 13: "But the angel said to him, "Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son (huios), and you will name him John"
• Mk 6: 3: "Isa not this the carpenter, the son (huios) of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him"

Spiritual meaning to designate the being of Jesus: Jesus is the son of God or he is the son of man (175 times, of which 82 times "son of man": Mt = 49 (30 times "son of man"); Mk = 22 (14 times "son of man"); Lk = 37 (25 times "son of man"); Jn = 40 (12 times "son of man"); Acts = 3 (1 time "son of man"); 1Jn = 22 (0 times "son of man"); 2Jn = 2 (0 times "son of man"); 3Jn = 0). Examples:

• Lk 1: 32: "He will be great, and will be called the Son (huios) of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David"
• Mk 2: 10: "But so that you may know that the Son (huios) of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" - he said to the paralytic"

Member of a genealogical line: one is son of an ancestor according to the family tree (19 times: Mt = 10; Mk = 3; Lk = 4; Jn = 0; Acts = 2; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0). Examples:

• Mt 1: 1: "An account of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son (huios) of David, the son (huios) of Abraham"
• Mt 1: 20: "But just when he had resolved to do this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, 'Joseph, son (huios) of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit'"

(Note: we have the equivalent of the female side with "daughter" that can designate a genealogical line: Lk 1:5 "he (Zechariah) had for wife a daughter (thygatēr) of Aaron, whose name was Elizabeth")

Group member by race: this is how one is a son of a country or a son of humanity (14 times: Mt = 3; Mk = 1; Lk = 5; Jn = 0; Acts = 5; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0). Examples:

• Lk 1: 16: "He will turn many of the sons (huios) of Israel to the Lord their God"
• Mk 3: 28: "Truly I tell you, the sons (huios) of men will be forgiven for their sins and whatever blasphemies they utter;"

(Note: we have the equivalent of the feminine side with "daughter" that can designate membership in a racial group: Lk 23:28 "But Jesus turned to them and said, 'Daughters (thygatēr) of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep rather for yourselves and for your children!'")

To be under the authority of someone, of a group, or to adhere to a set of values values: to be a son means to be a disciple of a master or a friend of someone or a value that identifies a person or a group (22 times: Mt = 9; Mk = 2; Lk = 5; Jn = 3; Acts = 3; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0). Examples:

• Lk 10: 6: "And if anyone there is a son (huios) of peace, your peace will rest on that person; but if not, it will return to you"
• Mk 3: 17: "James of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is, Sons (huios) of Thunder)"

In v. 6, the word "son" in the expression "son of peace" belongs to a Semitism to designate someone who is a disciple of peace, who is ready to accept the good news of the gospel and to become a Christian. The very fact that the word "son" is used lets us understand that, in order to accept the gospel message, a certain connivance is already required, so that the missionary intervention only reveals the listener to himself.

Epanapaēsetai is the verb epanapauomai in the future passive indicative, 3rd person singular (lit.: it will be rested). The verb epanapauomai is formed from the adverb epanō (over) and the verb pauō (to cease) and means "to finish an action over someone or something." The verb conveys two main ideas: to come on top of someone to stay or rest on them, and to lean on someone.

1. Num 11: 26 gives us an example of the first meaning: "And there were two men left in the camp, the name of the one was Eldad, and the name of the other Modad; and the spirit rested (epanapauomai) upon them, and these were of the number of them that were enrolled, but they did not come to the tabernacle; and they prophesied in the camp."

2. 2 Kings 5: 18 gives us an example of the second meaning: "And let the Lord be propitious to thy servant when my master goes into the house of Remman to worship there, and he shall lean (epanapauomai) on my hand, and I shall bow down in the house of Remman when he bows down in the house of Remman; even let the Lord, I pray, be merciful to thy servant in this matter"

In the whole New Testament, we find only two occurrences of this verb, Lk 10:6 in the gospels, Rom 2:17 for the rest of the New Testament. The meaning of the verb in Paul is quite clear: addressing the Jew, Paul remarks that the Law is for him (the Jew) a support, the basis of his confidence in the claim to know God and his will, so that our Bibles have translated the phrase as "you who rely on the law". But what is the meaning of the verb epanapauomai in Lk 10: 6, while the subject is "peace", and the verb is followed by "upon you"; contrary to the meaning of the verb in the letter to the Romans, the verb here cannot have the meanings of "leaning on". Rather, we have the idea that peace will "rest upon" the person who welcomed the missionary who offered him peace, i.e. it will come to take up residence within him. It is possible that here in v. 6 we have an echo of the cycle of the prophets Elijah and Elisha.

The company of the prophets from Jericho, who were watching, said, "The spirit of Elijah is resting (epanapauomai) on Elisha." And they went to meet him and bowed to the ground (2 Kings 2: 15)

If this perception is correct, this scene evokes transmission of the Spirit. Moreover, did we not see earlier that peace is the fruit of the Holy Spirit (Gal 5:22; Rom 15:13); transmitting the Spirit and transmitting peace are synonymous. Thus, the family that welcomes the peace of the missionary sees the Spirit come to live within them, and this is the beginning of a life in the Spirit.

Ge is a Greek particle which is not very present in the Gospels-Acts, except in Luke: Mt = 4; Mk = 0; Lk = 8; Jn = 0; Acts = 4; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. It has no equivalent in our modern languages. It aims to underline the word that precedes to give it a certain strength. When we want to underline the minimum that can be done, ge will often be translated as "at least".

I tell you, even though he will not get up and give him anything because he is his friend, at least (ge) because of his persistence he will get up and give him whatever he needs(Lk 11: 8)

When on the contrary we want to emphasize the maximum that can be done, ge will often be translated as "even".

He who did not even (ge) withhold his own Son, but gave him up for all of us, will he not with him also give us everything else? (Rom 8: 32)

The particle ge can be joined to other particles, and in this case it reinforces them. For example, it can be joined to alla (but, on the other hand), or to ara (so, then, is it), or to kai (and), or to ei (if), it will then often be translated as "indeed".

Thus indeed (ge) you will know them by their fruits (Mt 7: 20)

In a negative proposition introduced by "if" (ei), ge emphasizes the contrast between two situations and is often translated as "otherwise indeed".

Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them; otherwise indeed (ge), you have no reward from your Father in heaven(Mt 6: 1)

And there is the special case where the particle ge is joined to the interrogative particle mēti (Is it?) to emphasize the contrast in the question. We have only one case in the NT. It will be translated either as "even more" or "even less" depending on the context.

Do you not know that we are to judge angels - Is not even more (ge) the things of this life! (1 Cor 6: 3)

Why did we stop at this particle? First of all, to point out that it belongs to the vocabulary and style of Luke. Not only is he the one who uses it the most (8 occurrences in his gospel and 4 in his Acts), but of the 8 occurrences in his gospel, 7 are his own. Moreover, he occasionally adds (underlined) this particle to his Marcan source.

Mark 2	Luke 5
22a And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost, and so are the skins	37 And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise indeed (ge) the new wine will burst the skins and will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed

Here, in v. 6, we have a sentence that really comes from the pen of Luke.

Secondly, this analysis allows us to grasp Luke's intention to accentuate the contrast between the two situations, that of the one who welcomes peace and that of the one who does not. For, let us not forget, Luke could simply have written: "If there is a son of peace in the house, this peace will rest on him", without saying anything more. Why insist on the "if not indeed"? This is what we must now analyze.

Anakampsei is the verb anakamptō in the active future tense, 3rd person singular, the subject being "peace". It is formed by the preposition ana which describes a movement from bottom to top, and the verb kamptō (to bend, to bow), and thus to lean upwards, i.e. to return, to go back. It is a very rare verb in the Gospels-Acts (Mt = 1; Mk = 0; Lk = 1; Jn = 0; Acts = 1; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0), and not very frequent in the Septuagint with 15 occurrences.

This verb is not very present in the NT, and it is therefore difficult to grasp its meaning. It appears in Matthew's infancy narrative where the magi receive the divine warning not to "return" to Herod's house as they heard, after their visit to the child in Bethlehem (Mt 2:12). In Acts, it appears in a context where Paul bids farewell to the community of Ephesus and promises to "return" (Acts 18:21). The author of the epistle to the Hebrews tells us about the ancestors (from Abel to Abraham and Sarah), who died in faith without having seen the realization of the promises, but were looking for a better country, and therefore did not want to "return" to their original homeland (Heb 11:15). In these three situations, it is a matter of returning to one's point of origin.

If we accept this meaning, how are we to interpret our v. 6 where is peace returning to the missionary? First of all, it is the idea of returning to its point of origin. Peace has its origin in the missionary who greeted the inhabitants of the house and offered evangelical peace. If there is refusal and peace cannot enter the family, then it returns to its point of origin, the missionary. Everything is presented as if peace were a person, that it could go somewhere and come back. In fact, the key to understanding this passage is to identify peace and the Spirit, as we have already pointed out. This is confirmed by the expression "it will return upon you" (epanapaēsetai epʼ auton). Why "upon (epi) you"? This is the expression we always use to talk about the Spirit. Some examples:

• Lk 1: 35: "The angel answered her [Mary], 'The Holy Spirit will come upon (epi you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God"
• Lk 3: 22: "And the Holy Spirit descended upon (epi) him in bodily form, like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, 'You are my son; today I have begotten you"
• Acts 2: 3: "And there appeared to them tongues as of fire, and they were divided, and there fell upon (epi each of them"

One can be disconcerted by this idea that if the Spirit is not welcomed into a family, it must return to its point of origin. We probably have an echo of the spiritual worldview in antiquity. Let us remember this story about the unclean spirit which comes to us from source Q: "When the unclean spirit has gone out of a man, it wanders through the arid regions in search of rest; as he does not find any, he says to himself: 'I am going to return (hypostrephō) to my dwelling, whence I came out'" (Lk 11: 24; see also Lk 8: 28-33 and paral., the story of the man inhabited by a legion of demons who, expelled by Jesus, ask to enter pigs). The Spirit must make its home somewhere, it cannot exist without an anchor point. If he cannot live within a family, he must return to his point of origin where he already has his home. In fact, this idea presents an interesting facet on the Spirit: the Spirit is the Spirit of someone or of a group, it is not a disembodied spirit; when the Spirit is offered, it is the Spirit of someone or of a group, just as we saw with regard to Elisha and Elijah: "The spirit of Elijah was resting (epanapauomai) on Elisha" (2 Kings 2: 15). Inhabited by the Spirit of Jesus, the missionary offers it to a family, and if the family does not want it, the Spirit returns to the missionary, just like any spirit.

Beyond this ancient perception of the spirit, the sentence insists on an important point: refusing the peace-spirit is like a gift that is returned to the sender: it is intended to signify a rupture and create a gap between two communities. We have here the same idea that will be taken up later with the dust of an unbelieving city that one must remove from oneself, to mark the rupture. One can refuse a gift, but this has consequences.

The question remains: where does the choice of anakamptō, a rare verb, come from, as it only appears here in the whole gospel? This verb could belong to the Q document used here by Luke. This is all the more probable since this verb is a counterpart to another verb which only appears here in Luke: epanapauomai (to rest). Moreover, the usual verb in Luke to express the action of returning or going back is hypostrephō (Mt = 0; Mk = 0; Lk = 21; Jn = 0; Acts = 11; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0). Thus, Luke would have taken up the old tradition of the Q document on the messianic peace offer of the apostle which takes the form of the Spirit of the risen Jesus coming to inhabit those who welcome him, but returning to the apostle after a refusal, a sign that the Spirit of the risen will not be shared and a sign of a form of rupture.

Could such an ancient tradition have been inspired by the OT? Where did the verb epanapauomai come from? When we go through the Septuagint, which was the main reference for the first Christians whose first language was Greek, we find barely 15 occurrences of this verb, and most of the time it translates Hebrew šûb (to return, to turn back). But the Hebrew word šûb appears more than a thousand times in the Hebrew Bible, and most of the time it is translated by different Greek terms like epanastrephō (to return), apostrephō (to turn away), hypostrephō (to turn back), epistrephō (to turn around), etc.

One should not look for much consistency among the various translators of the Septuagint. But it remains that the translation of šûb by anakamptō is rare. And when we go through the different occurrences, it is about returning home or to one's point of origin: Jephthah's daughter returning to her father (Judg 11:39), David returning home to Jerusalem (2 Sam 8:13), Jeroboam returning to Jerusalem (1 Kings 12:20), David's soldiers returning to Jerusalem (1 Chr 19:5), the repudiated woman returning to her first husband (Jer 3:1), someone who returns to Jerusalem to defend it (Jer 15:5), a rampart prevents one from returning to the temple (Zech 9:8), the young of the doe no longer return to the family bosom (Job 39:4), one returns to one's sinful ways (1 Esd 8:84), what comes from the waters returns to the sea (Sir 40:11). Despite the different situations, there is a common theme: returning to one's source or origin.

Without doubt, the passage most representative of what we have just said is Sir 40:11: "whatever comes from the earth returns to the earth, as what comes from the waters returns (anakamptō) to the sea." The analogy of the Spirit and water is one that has always existed. Also, it is not impossible that this passage from Sirach was the inspiration for the author of this ancient tradition about the peace-Spirit which, when denied, returns to its source.

Menete is the verb menō in the present active imperative, 2nd person plural. It means: to remain or stay, and appears especially in the Johannine tradition: Mt = 3; Mk = 2; Lk = 6; Jn = 40; Acts = 11; 1Jn = 23; 2Jn = 3; 3Jn = 0.

When we go through the Gospels-Acts, we observe that this verb takes on various meanings.

1. In the synoptic gospels, and especially in Luke, menō means to live in a house, to stay with someone, to stay somewhere.
   • Lk 1: 56: "And Mary stayed (menō) with her about three months and then returned to her home"
   • Jn 4: 40: "So when the Samaritans came to him, they asked him to stay (menō) with them; and he stayed (menō) there two days"

2. Just like in everyday language, menō can express the idea of prolonging or lasting in time, of subsisting in time, of prolonging its existence.
   • Jn 12: 34: "The crowd answered him, 'We have heard from the law that the Messiah stays (menō) forever. How can you say that the Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man?'"
   • Jn 21: 22: "Jesus said to him, 'If it is my will that he stay (menō) until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!'"

3. Menō can also mean, as can be noted in everyday language: to stay in place, not to move, to remain in the same state and in the same place.
   • Mk 14: 34: "And he said to them, 'I am deeply grieved, even to death; stay (menō) here, and keep awake.'"
   • Acts 27: 31: "Paul said to the centurion and the soldiers, 'Unless these men stay (menō) in the ship, you cannot be saved'"

4. Finally, there is this meaning of menō which appears especially in the Johannine tradition and where it designates the fact of a reality inhabiting a person, animating him, exercising its hold on him.
   • Jn 5: 38: "and you do not have his word staying (menō) in you, because you do not believe him whom he has sent"
   • 1 Jn 2: 27: "As for you, the anointing that you received from him stays (menō) in you, and so you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, stay (menō) in him"

In Luke, the six occurrences of menō all refer to staying in a house: it is Mary who comes to stay with Elizabeth (1:56), it is the missionaries who receive hospitality from a house (9:4; 10:7), it is Zacchaeus who receives Jesus in his home, it is the disciples of Emmaus who ask Jesus to stay with them. Of course, through the physical gesture of living in a house, there is the symbolic meaning of a form of communion: to welcome someone into one's home is also to welcome him into one's heart. Thus, by opening the door to the missionary, a family not only makes a gesture of hospitality, but welcomes what he represents and is ready to listen.

We have here an echo of the practice common among the first generations of missionaries. Paul himself experienced this practice, and his letters also speak of many other itinerant preachers, if only sometimes to denounce them as false apostles.

Esthiontes is the verb esthiō in the present active participle, in the nominative masculine plural, the number and gender agreeing with "you", implied (i.e. the missionaries). It means: to eat, and it is quite frequent in the Gospels-Acts, especially in Luke: Mt = 24; Mk = 27; Lk = 33; Jn = 15; Acts = 7; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0.

The verb "to eat" belongs to different scenes according to the evangelical authors.

1. In Mark's work, the majority of references to eating are concentrated in two scenes:
   • Jesus feeds the crowd for whom he has pity on two occasions (6: 36-44; 8: 1-8), and we can add his request to feed Jairus' daughter whom he has just raised from the dead (5: 43)
   • And there are the polemical scenes where Jesus and his disciples are reproached for eating with sinners and for not following the Jewish rules of purity (2: 16; 7: 2-5)

   Thus, the action of eating has no interest in itself, except as an occasion for teaching. This is also the case in two mentions of the fact that Jesus and his disciples do not have time to eat, pressed by the crowd (3:20; 6:31): this is an illustration of Jesus' power of attraction. The scene in which Mark seems to focus on the meal itself is the last supper, which is presented to us as a Passover meal and in which the bread becomes a sign of his given body (14:12-22). As for the rest, the eating is somewhat incidental (John the Baptist ate locusts, 1:6; David eating the oblation bread [a reference to 1 Sam 21], 2:26; the dogs eating under the table, 7:28; the spell Jesus puts on the fig tree so that its fruit will no longer be eaten, 11:14).

2. The Q document shows us three scenes where people are eating.
   • John the Baptist, who did not eat bread or drink wine, is compared to Jesus, who is considered a glutton and a drunkard (Lk 7: 33-34 || Mt 11: 18-19)
   • Jesus invites his disciples to stop worrying about what they will eat and drink (Lk 12:22-29 || Mt 6:25-31)
   • And there is the parable where the servant, faced with his master's delay in returning home, forgets his responsibilities and begins to eat, drink and get drunk (Lk 12: 45 || Mt 24: 49)

   Eating is a double-edged sword: it can be a gesture of openness and communion, but at the same time it can become a sign of undue preoccupation, irresponsibility and bad reputation.

3. In Matthew, there is very little interest in eating. Of the 24 occurrences of the verb, only 5 are unique to him. And almost every time, it is simply to add precision to Mark's text: to explain that if the disciples plucked ears of corn, it was because they were hungry and wanted to eat (Mt 12:10); to clarify the question of clean and unclean by specifying that it is eating without having washed their hands (Mt 15:20); to make sure that it is understood that the 4,000 people spoken of are those who have eaten (Mt 24:29); the only exception is in the scene of the Last Judgment, where the criterion for entering the Kingdom is to have given food to the hungry (Mt 25:35). 42).

   Thus, Matthew's interest is primarily ethical, to feed the hungry.

4. With Luke, we enter a very different world. Not only is he the one who uses the term "eating" the most, but of the 33 occurrences in his gospel, 19 are his own. Is this the influence of the Greek symposium where people ate and talked? The meal represents an important moment in the life of Jesus. Luke describes a few scenes of Jesus eating, and it is often an opportunity to offer teaching:
   • He accepts the invitation to eat from a Pharisee named Simon, into whose house a weeping sinner enters and covers Jesus' feet with kisses and perfume, which is the occasion for a teaching on the forgiveness of sins (Lk 7:36-50)
   • He eats in the home of a Pharisee leader on the Sabbath, and various events prompt a teaching on his part: the healing of a hydropic man, which is the occasion for a teaching on healing on the Sabbath; the observation of people who are looking for the first places, which provokes a teaching on the attitude to have in front of others, and especially on the importance of giving priority to the poor (14: 1-33)
   • If Jesus takes a last meal before dying, it is because he longed for this moment before dying (Lk 22:15-16), and he promises his disciples that they will eat and drink at his table in the Kingdom (Lk 22:30)
   • Finally, when Jesus appeared to the disciples after his resurrection, after asking for food, he ate in front of them, showing that he was not a ghost (Lk 24:43)

   In Luke, eating is an important part of life: it was for Jesus, and it is for the disciple, because he is the only evangelist to refer explicitly to the fact that the disciples must eat (Lk 10:7-8). And for him, the festive meal is the best way to celebrate the return of the sinner (Lk 15:23 where the fatted calf is killed for the prodigal son). Nevertheless, like the other evangelists, he emphasizes the ambiguity of the action of eating: the rich man who thinks he is spending his life eating and drinking carelessly sees his life suddenly come to an end without being able to really benefit from what he has amassed (Lk 12:16-21); people are deluded into thinking that it is enough to have eaten and drunk with Jesus to enter the Kingdom (Lk 13:26); the time of eating and drinking must be preceded by a time of serving (Lk 17:28).

   In the Acts of the Apostles, the action of eating plays little role, if not an accessory one, in introducing the access of pagans to the Christian table with the vision of Peter where he is invited to eat food considered impure (Acts 10:13-14; 11:7), and that scene where Paul's enemies swear not to eat until they have murdered Paul (Acts 23:12.21). The only scene in which Paul eats is during the Eucharistic celebration over which he presides (Acts 27:35).

5. In John, the reference to the action of eating appears only in two scenes: the one at the end of the Samaritan woman's story where the disciples, having returned from the city to get something to eat, ask Jesus to take some food (4:31-38), and the one where Jesus gives food to the crowd and ends with the discourse on the bread of life (6, 4-58) (the expression "to eat the Passover" in 18:28 can be omitted). In both scenes, physical food is only a way of introducing another kind of food: in the first scene Jesus expresses his hunger to see his mission accomplished: "My food is to do the will of the one who sent me and to carry out his work" (4:34); in the second scene, it is the food of revelation in and through Jesus, of that word which has its source in God (6, 58). This is what interests John.

   Thus, eating becomes an analogy to express this longing for food that is of a spiritual nature, which only God can fulfill through Jesus. This analogy is also associated by John with what the community experiences when it gathers for the Eucharist.

In the whole context of the Gospels-Acts, the reference to the action of eating in v. 7 is unique: it is the only time that the disciple-missionary who is to eat is mentioned, without it being a symbolic evocation of something else. We are faced with a small manual for the perfect missionary in a pragmatic approach: he too must eat. So he will depend on his host for food, and it is not he who will set the menu, and there will be no question of pure or impure food, or of the Jewish ritual rules around the meal; the context is universal.

Pinontes is the verb pinō in the present active participle, in the nominative masculine plural, the number and gender agreeing with "you", implied (i.e. the missionaries). It means: to drink, and it appears quite regularly in the Gospels-Acts, even if it is less frequent than to eat: Mt = 15; Mk = 8; Lk = 17; Jn = 11; Acts = 3; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0.

In half of the 54 occurrences of the verb "to drink" in the Gospels-Acts, it appears in couple with the verb "to eat". Thus, all that we have said about the action of "eating" also applies to the action of "drinking".

Let's look at the cases where the verb "to drink" appears alone.

1. A first case is given to us by the words of Jesus who responds to the request of James and John to sit at his right hand in his Kingdom: "Can you drink the cup that I am about to drink and be baptized with the baptism with which I am about to be baptized? (Mk 10:38-39 || Mt 20:22-23). Drinking from the cup is a metaphorical expression that comes from the fact that, according to the custom of meals, the head of the family presented each guest with a cup that had already been filled, and the fact of drinking from the same cup symbolized the communion between the guests. Thus, Jesus asks James and John if they are able to share in the fate that awaits him. And this fate is specified by the verb "to baptize", which in Greek means first of all "to plunge" or "to drown", and for a ship "to sink"; it is a reference to the death of Jesus.

2. A second case is given to us by the last meal of Jesus (Mk 14:23-25 || 26:27-29 || Lk 22:18) where to drink from the cup of wine is to drink his spilled blood, and thus to commune with his death, a gesture identical to that of eating the bread of his given body. There is in this gesture a decision to follow the same path as that of Jesus. The scene is accompanied by the words of Jesus who announces that the next time he drinks from the cup will be in the Kingdom, whereas it will be a cup of thanksgiving. Note that in John (6:53) the reference to drinking the blood of Jesus takes place in the discourse on the bread of life following the scene of the feeding of the crowd, but the meaning of the gesture is the same as that found in the last meal of Jesus in the Synoptics.

3. The third case is when Jesus speaks of the cup he has to drink, mentioned only by Matthew (Mt 26:42) and John (Jn 18:41). We find the same meaning as in the two previous cases: to accept and assume this path that leads to suffering and death.

4. The fourth case takes place on the cross when Jesus is offered wine mixed with myrrh in Mark (15:23), mixed with gall in Matthew (27:34). Mark refers to the ancient practice of numbing the pain of the condemned with alcohol, the myrrh enhancing the flavor of the alcohol. Matthew refers to Psalm 69:22 where the righteous man complains of being mocked with the offering of vinegar wine mixed with gall. But both Matthew and Mark say that Jesus refused the offer, wanting to accept his fate to the end. Note that only Matthew explicitly uses the verb "to drink": "he would not drink".

5. The fifth case is unique to John and is especially concentrated in the episode of the Samaritan woman (4:7-14) which begins with Jesus' request for a drink, and continues with the distinction of two types of water to be drunk. This scene will be echoed a little later (7:37) when Jesus says: "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. With these scenes we are in a different register where it is no longer a question of drinking from the cup of a sacrificed life, but of drinking from the personified wisdom of which the OT speaks and which John presents to us as being the Word.

6. Finally, let us mention some secondary cases, such as this addition to Mark's gospel (16:18) where it is assured that believers will be able to drink deadly poison with impunity, or the description of the Nazirite in John the Baptist (Lk 1:15) who "will drink neither wine nor strong drink", or again, this comparison of the new and the old, where experience shows that "no one, after having drunk old wine, wants new" (Lk 5, 39).

What to conclude? Apart from the reference to drinking the personified wisdom that is Jesus in John, the majority of cases in the gospels where the word "drink" appears alone refer to the action of drinking from the cup, a gesture of communion with the tragic fate of Jesus.

What about Luke? This reference to the bitter cup is almost totally absent in Luke. He has eliminated our first case (the request of James and John), as well as our fourth case (Jesus being offered a drink on the cross); the third case (Jesus having a cup to drink) is totally absent. Even the scene of Jesus' last supper lessens the emphasis on the cup of spilled blood, as for the first cup he simply says, "Take this and share it among yourselves," and then immediately adds the reference to the sharing of the fruit of the vine in the kingdom, emphasizing the communion in the gathered community; and when he refers to the blood spilled in the second cup, he emphasizes that it is the cup of the new covenant. Luke is not interested in the sacrificial aspect of Jesus' death.

Here, in v. 7, the action of drinking appears with that of eating, and it is not a symbolic gesture: the missionaries need what is necessary for their physical life.

Axios is the adjective axios in the nominative masculine singular, and it is the attribute of the noun "laborer" (ergatēs). It appears only a few times in the entire New Testament and especially in the Gospels-Acts, with the exception of Mark's Gospel where it is totally absent: Mt = 9; Mk = 0; Lk = 8; Jn = 1; Acts = 7; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. Basically, it is an adjective used to compare two things that would be placed on a scale, thus to evaluate their weight or their value. Our bibles offer various translations depending on the context: one thing is "worthy" of another thing, or "deserves" that other thing, i.e. they have the same weight on the scale; it can also be translated with the adjective "suitable": there is an adequacy between two realities, which have the same weight on the scale.

The adjective axios can take on different shades of meaning in different contexts. Let's take a brief look at the New Testament as a whole.

1. Most frequently, we compare an action with its consequences, and therefore axios introduces the idea of reward or punishment as a result of an action; we will then often translate axios as "he deserves" with an explanation of the reason for doing so.
   • Lk 7: 4-5: "When they came to Jesus, they begged him earnestly and said, "He deserves (axios, lit.: it is worthy) that you grant him this, because he loves our nation and it is him who built us the synagogue".
   • Lk 23: 15: "Neither did Herod, for that matter, since he sent him away before us. You see; this man has done nothing that deserves (axios, lit. is worthy of) death"

2. Sometimes the evaluation of one reality is done to compare it to another: the comparison makes it possible to identify the value of a reality, for example a person, and thus to determine whether he or she belongs to a certain category or group; or the comparison makes it possible to determine the difference between two realities.
   • Mt 10: 37: "Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy (axios) of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy (axios) of me"
   • Rom 8: 18: "I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy (axios) comparing with the glory about to be revealed to us"

3. Sometimes the comparison does not seek to see if two realities belong to the same category, but to determine if one is not the expression of the other.
   • Mt 3: 8: "Bear fruit worthy (axios) of repentance"
   • Acts 26: 20: "but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout the countryside of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God and do deeds worthy (axios) of repentance"

4. In some cases, the comparison concerns the adequacy of an action with the context of a situation, i.e. whether the action is appropriate in that context.
   • 2 Thess 1: 3: "We must give thanks to God at all times about you, brothers, as it is right (axios, lit. worthy), because your faith is in great progress and the love of each one for the others is growing among you all"
   • 1 Cor 16: 4: "if it is right (axios) that I should go also, [with those who will bring the fund-raising], they will accompany me"

5. Finally, there are cases in which there is no comparison, but the simple affirmation of the value of a reality that weighs heavily on the balance of Christian life.
   • 1 Tim 1: 15: The saying is sure and worthy (axios) of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners - of whom I am the foremost" (see also 1 Tim 4: 9)

Note that axios is not so present in the Septuagint and is concentrated in the sapiential tradition, especially the book of Wisdom. When we consider the Hebrew Bible, we note that it is often the verb šāwâ (to agree with, to be or become like, to equal, to resemble) that has been translated by axios. But we find the same great ideas that we have underlined, for example Job 33:27: "I was not punished as my sins deserved (gr. axios, lit. it was fitting for; Hebr. šāwâ )"; or Prov 8:11: "For wisdom is more precious than precious stones, and nothing that is esteemed is worthy (gr. axios; Hebr. šāwâ) of it".

The book of Wisdom, where eight occurrences of the adjective appear, offers us almost the entire panoply of meanings that we have identified in the NT: identification of two realities to determine whether it belongs to the same reality (3: 5: "for God tested them, and found them worthy of Him"); the reward for an action (9:12: "and I will be worthy of my father's thrones"); one reality expression of the other (13:15: "Then he made in his wall a niche worthy of his work"; the appropriateness of an action with a situation (19: 4: "For the destiny, whereof they were worthy, drew them unto this end, and made them forget the things that had already happened.

Here, in v. 7, the adjective axios compares the laborer with his wages. The wage appears as the normal "reward" for his work, the consequence of his action. Even if axios belongs to the Lucan vocabulary, the expression "for worthy (is) the laborer of his wages" is not his, since he copied it from a Q document, since it is also found in Matthew with a slight variation ("for worthy [is] the laborer of his food"). The expression reflects a very ancient tradition, since it is also found in the first letter of Timothy: "for worthy (is) the laborer of his wages" (1 Tim 5:18b). And according to Paul, it reflects what Jesus proposed: "The Lord commanded those who preach the gospel to live by the gospel" (1 Cor 9:14).

Thus, Luke here takes up an ancient tradition that goes back to Jesus himself, where it was normal for the missionary to make a living from his work, and thus be supported by the Christian community. But this was not an obligation, since Paul often opted not to demand anything for his work, but to support himself with his trade as a tentmaker (1 Cor 9:15-18).

Misthou is the masculine noun misthos in the genitive singular, the genitive being required by the adjective "worthy". It is not very frequent in the New Testament and more specifically in the Gospels-Acts, being totally absent from the Gospel of John: Mt = 10; Mk = 1; Lk = 3; Jn = 0; Acts = 1; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 1; 3Jn = 0. It means literally: what is due, and so depending on the context it is translated either as "reward" or "wages".

We can group the different occurrences of the word into two sets.

1. The greatest number of occurrences concern the idea of reward for one's actions, specifically the reward that the Father in heaven will give to the one who lives the beatitudes, who practices justice without being noticed, who welcomes the prophet and the righteous as prophet and righteous, who offers a cup of fresh water to the followers of Christ, who loves his enemies and lends without return; Paul and Apollos will also have their reward, one for planting, the other for watering (1 Cor, 3, 8). For Revelation, the end of time is near, and therefore the time to reward the prophets, the saints and all those who fear the Lord. As for those who have committed injustice, they will receive the wages of injustice (see 2 Pet 2:13). It should be noted that the verb that accompanies the word "reward" here is always in the future tense, because it is linked to the great judgment at the end of time. On the other hand, when the verb is in the present tense, we are in a condemnable situation where the person who acts seeks to be noticed and honored by others, and therefore has already obtained his reward. Thus, the notion of reward is a way of expressing the intention of an action: does one seek to be noticed and to appear as a demigod in front of others, and thus one's own interest, or on the contrary, does one seek what is good in the eyes of God. These occurrences are concentrated in the synoptic gospels, especially Matthew. Here are some examples:
   • Mk 9: 41: "For truly I tell you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ will by no means lose the reward (misthos)"
   • Mt 6: 2: "So whenever you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be praised by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward (misthos)"

2. In a number of instances, misthos refers to a sum of money for work done: it is the master of the vineyard who gives each laborer his wages at the end of the day (Mt 20:8); it is Judas who buys an estate with the wages of his betrayal (Acts 1:18); it is the author of the letter of James who castigates the rich who withhold the wages due to the farm workers; It is Jude and Peter who denounce the false Christian teachers who are paid to mislead Christians, just as Balaam was paid to curse Israel (Jude 1:11; 2 Pet 2). In this context, 1 Timothy 5:17-18 defends the idea that elders or presbyters who exercise the community presidency and dedicate themselves to preaching and Christian formation should be remunerated, i.e. receive a salary.

The word misthos does not really belong to Luke's vocabulary. In his gospel, the three occurrences can be attributed to the Q document, and its mention in the Acts of the Apostles comes from an ancient tradition about Judas' fate after his betrayal.

Note that here in v. 7, Luke offers us the phrase: "for worthy (is) the laborer of his wages", whereas Matthew 10:10c writes rather: "for worthy (is) the laborer of his food". Which is the original version of the Q document, Luke's or Matthew's? We choose Luke's for the following reasons:

1. Luke's version is also found in 1 Tim 5:18, although there is no reason to believe that both authors knew their respective works
2. In most cases, it is Luke who seems to respect the original version of the Q document best (see for example the Lord's Prayer), whereas Matthew does not hesitate to modify the source he copies
3. It is easy to understand why Matthew wanted to change the word "salary": two verses earlier in his gospel, Jesus had just said to the missionaries "you have received freely, give freely", and so it was inconsistent to speak now of salary; moreover, it is also possible that in his community (perhaps Antioch), preachers or teachers were not paid, but rather had recourse to the right of the rabbis to live off the gifts of their followers.

But Luke introduces this sentence on remuneration with the conjunction "for" (gar), by way of explanation of what precedes. Jesus has just recommended that they eat and drink what the host offers them. So Luke seems to be telling us that the remuneration of the missionary consists in the food and drink offered to them, and in this he joins Matthew who speaks of the laborer who is worthy of his food.

One can imagine that remuneration could take various forms. So Luke presents us in v. 7 with the practice of itinerant preachers as well as those called prophets or teachers in the Greco-Roman communities who received some remuneration from the Christian communities that delegated them to this task. His gospel was probably published around the year 85, but this practice of remuneration was perhaps already in place in the year 46 when Paul undertook his first missionary journey, "sponsored" by the church in Antioch. In any case, by the year 55 the practice seems to be widespread. In his letter to the Philippians (4:10-20), Paul thanks them for their generous gifts. In his letter to the Corinthians he says that he consciously opted not to be paid by the Corinthians but to work as a tentmaker to support himself, while deploring the work of the false apostles who were paid and undermined his own work (see 1 Cor 9:14-18; 2 Cor 11:7-11).

Metabainete is the verb metabainō in the present active imperative, 2nd person plural. This is a very rare verb in the whole Bible: it appears only in the Gospels-Acts in the whole New Testament: Mt = 6; Mk = 0; Lk = 1; Jn = 3; Acts = 1; 1Jn = 1; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. It is formed from the preposition meta (after) and the verb bainō (to walk, to advance), and so it means: to move, to pass from one place to another.

When we look at the 17 occurrences of the verb in the Bible, we notice that its meaning varies according to whether the emphasis is on the place we are leaving or the place we are moving to.

1. In a majority of cases the emphasis is on the place one is leaving, and metabainō will be translated as "to leave" or "to depart" or "to move away".
   • Mt 15: 29: "After Jesus had moved (metabainō) from that place, he passed along the Sea of Galilee, and he went up the mountain, where he sat down"
   • 2 Macc 6: 1: "Not long after this the king sent an old man of Athens to compel the Jews to move (metabainō) from the laws of their fathers, and not to live after the laws of God"

2. In other cases the emphasis is on where one is heading, towards which one is moving, and metabainō will be translated as "go to" or "pass to" or "adopt".
   • Wsd 7: 27: "And being but one, she can do all things: and remaining in herself, she maketh all things new: and in all ages moving (metabainō) into holy souls, she maketh them friends of God, and prophets"
   • 2 M 6: 9: "and whoso would not move (metabainō) themselves to the manners of the Gentiles should be put to death. Then might a man have seen the present misery"

3. Finally, in many cases, the focus is on both the point of departure and the point of arrival, and so movement from one place to another is intended to be described, and metabainō will be translated as "to pass or move from here to there."
   • Mt 17: 20: "He said to them, 'Because of your little faith. For truly I tell you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move (metabainō) from here to there,' and it will move (metabainō); and nothing will be impossible for you'"
   • Jn 5: 24: "Very truly, I tell you, anyone who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life, and does not come under judgment, but has moved (metabainō) from death to life"

Here, in v. 7, metabainō describes the passage from a place one leaves to that of another place. This word does not belong to the Lucan vocabulary. Its presence in v. 7 is most likely explained by the fact that the evangelist is taking up an ancient tradition about the practical code of missionary life. Neither Mark nor Matthew seem to know this tradition. What is its significance? In the verb metabainō there are two aspects, that of leaving a place and that of going to another place. Why would the missionary leave a house? Of course, the gospel text does not say. But the context is that of a host who has welcomed the missionary, and the recommendation is to accept what he intends to offer in return, i.e. food and drink. So, a possible explanation for leaving the house is that the missionary is not happy with what the host is offering, and therefore going to the next house would be motivated by the desire for more satisfactory remuneration. By forbidding this attitude, Jesus intends to denounce the search for one's own interests and ask that the only concern be the mission.

It is worth mentioning the expression ex oikias eis oikian (out of a house into a house), for this is the only case in the whole New Testament, which confirms that we are not dealing with a Lucan expression. It is found only in Sir 29:24 when the author laments the fate of the stranger:

Better is the life of the poor under their own crude roof
than sumptuous food in the house of others.
Be content with little or much,
and you will hear no reproach for being a guest.
It is a miserable life to go from house to house (ex oikias eis oikian):
as a guest you should not open your mouth (LXX: Sir 29: 22-24).

There is another almost synonymous expression, that of going from door to door.

• Ex 32: 27: "And he said unto them, This is what the Lord God of Israel saith, Gird up every man his sword, and go through the camp, and go from door to door (apo pylēs epi pylēn), and let every man slay his brother, and his neighbor, and his kinsman"
• Ezek 40: 23: "And there was a gate in the inner court looking toward the gate of aquilon, like the gate that looked toward the east; and the man measured the court from gate to gate (apo pylēs epi pylēn), and it was a hundred cubits" (see also Ezek 40:27)

In short, the expression is rare, but it is not unknown to the OT.

Dexētai is the verb dechomai in the middle aorist subjunctive, 3rd person plural, the subjunctive being required by the particle an (if any) which introduced a hypothetical, thus unreal situation for the moment. It means: to receive, to accept, to take, to welcome. It appears occasionally in the Gospels-Acts, especially in Luke: Mt = 10; Mk = 6; Lk = 16; Jn = 1; Acts = 8; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0.

The verb "to receive" can take on various nuances. It can have a passive connotation in the sense that we simply open our arms to what is offered to us, and then it is often translated as "to welcome". On the other hand, the emphasis can be on the fact that we grasp what is given to us, and then it is translated as "to take".

When we go through the New Testament, we observe that the verb "to receive" concerns four different realities.

1. In the majority of cases (60%), receiving is about a person, so it has the meaning of welcoming someone:
   • Mt 10: 40: "Whoever welcomes (dechomai) you welcomes (dechomai) me, and whoever welcomes (dechomai) me welcomes (dechomai) the one who sent me"
   • 2 Cor 11: 16: "I repeat, let no one think that I am a fool; but if you do, then welcome (dechomai) me as a fool, so that I too may boast a little"

2. But it happens that, especially in Luke and the Pauline epistles, "to receive" concerns the word of God, and therefore it has the meaning of "to believe" or "to obey":
   • Acts 8: 14: "Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had welcomed (dechomai) the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them"
   • 1 Thess 1: 6: "And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, for in spite of persecution you welcomed (dechomai) the word with joy inspired by the Holy Spirit"

3. In a number of cases, "receive" refers to some object, such as a bill, letters, a cup, an offering. It is then often translated as "to take":
   • Lk 16: 7: "Then he asked another, 'And how much do you owe?' He replied, 'A hundred containers of wheat.' He said to him, 'Take (dechomai) your bill and make it eighty.'"
   • Lk 22: 17: "Then he took (dechomai) a cup, and after giving thanks he said, "Take this and divide it among yourselves"

4. Finally, there is the case in Mark, taken up by Lk 18:16, where "to receive" concerns the kingdom of God, and then it is a question of welcoming it as one welcomes a person:
   • Mk 10: 15: "Truly I tell you, whoever does not welcome (dechomai) the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it"

The verb dechomai belongs to the Lucan vocabulary. He uses it the most, and sometimes he even adds it to his Marcan source:

Mark 4	Luke 8
16 And these are the ones sown on rocky ground: when they hear the word, they immediately hold (lambanō) it with joy	13a The ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive (dechomai) with joy

Here, in v. 8 the verb dechomai refers to people, i.e. the missionaries, and thus the verb is usually translated as "to welcome". The subject of the verb is "they", implied to be the inhabitants of the city.

We observe something surprising in Luke's account. Whereas Mark's account, which Luke takes up in good part, tells of the missionary's entry into a house, and then addresses the case where he is not received, Luke, after having told of the missionary's entry into a house, now addresses the case of the entry into a city. Why speak now of the city after having spoken of the house: is it not illogical, since one must first enter the city before reaching the house? One gets the impression that, in addition to the Marcan source, Luke had another tradition linked to the mission to the city, which he wanted to include in his account. But it is probably mainly the fact that the Q document he also uses in this account reports curses on cities that have not received the gospel, and that he must find a way to make a transition to this source. Matthew (10:11-12), for his part, also speaks of entering a city, but he proceeds in logical steps: entry into a city (v.11), then entry into a house (12b). With the insertion of the entry into a city after the entry into a house, Luke is obliged to repeat himself (underlined):

House	City
5 Then, perchance, into whatever house you might enter...	8a And in whatever city perchance you might enter and they would welcome you,
7 Then, in this house stay, eating and drinking the things (brought) by them	8b eat the things being set before you

It is difficult to get a sense of the people included in this "they" related to the city: a crowd of citizens? Civil servants? For Luke, this is probably not important. What probably matters to him is that the city as a city can take a stand against the proclamation of the gospel: it can welcome it, as here in v. 8, or it can reject it, as in v. 10.

Paratithemena is the verb paratithēmi in the present passive participle, accusative neuter plural, the verb agreeing with the Greek article ta (things) which acts as a noun and is direct object complement of the verb "to eat". The verb is composed of the preposition para (near) and the verb tithemi (to put, to set, to place), thus "to put near", hence: to present. This verb is not very frequent in the whole New Testament, and half of the occurrences are found in Luke: Mt = 2; Mk = 4; Lk = 5; Jn = 0; Acts = 4; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0.

In the New Testament, the verb paratithēmi can have three different realities as its object.

1. Most often, it has as its object food or that which is related to food (this is exclusively the case in Mark), and it is usually translated as "to offer" or "to serve.
   • Mk 8: 7: "They had also a few small fish; and after blessing them, he ordered that these too should be served (paratithēmi").
   • Lk 11: 6: "for a friend of mine has arrived, and I have nothing to serve (paratithēmi) him."

2. But sometimes the object that is presented is of the order of the word or the message, and we will then translate the verb by "to propose" or "to entrust".
   • Mt 13: 24: "He proposed (paratithēmi) them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to someone who sowed good seed in his field"
   • 2 Tim 2: 2: "And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust (paratithēmi) to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others."

3. Finally, the object that is presented is a person, oneself or someone else; it is the idea of recommending someone or entrusting them to someone else.
   • Lk 23: 46: "Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, "Father, into your hands I commit (paratithēmi) my spirit." Having said this, he breathed his last"
   • Acts 20: 32: "And now I commit (paratithēmi) you to God and to the message of his grace, a message that is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all who are sanctified"

Here, in v. 8, the object is obviously food, because Jesus asks to eat the food "served" or "presented" by the host. Now, this is the second time he returns to the subject, for in the previous verse (v. 7) he had already said: eating and drinking the things from them, i.e. the things presented by the host. Is v. 8 totally redundant? Not really, because the emphasis is different. In v. 7, the idea of eating what is offered by the host illustrated the idea that the laborer has a right to be paid, and therefore should be provided for. What is now the proper emphasis of v. 8? The clue is given to us by 1 Cor. 10:27:

If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before (paratithēmi) you, without raising any question on the ground of conscience.

The first epistle to the Corinthians (ch. 8 and 10) addresses the problem of meat offered to idols. In the ancient world, butchery was often a sacred act, because it could be done in a pagan religious setting, and the meat that was offered in the market often went through these rituals. Many Christians, for reasons of conscience, refused to eat these meats. Now, the 72 missionaries sent to the nations of the earth will necessarily find themselves in pagan environments where it was normal to eat these meats. What does Paul say? Eat what is served to you without question for reasons of conscience. What does Jesus say? Eat what is served to you.

Thus, the invitation to eat what will be served to the missionary does not have the same meaning in v. 7 and v. 8: in the first case, the invitation could be paraphrased as follows: don't be afraid to eat, you have the right to do so; in the second case, the paraphrase could be as follows: don't be afraid to eat, even if it is food probably from a pagan cult.

Therapeuete is the verb therapeuō in the present imperative, 2nd person plural. The Greek word has given us the words: therapy, therapist, therapeutic. It means: to care for, to serve. In the New Testament, it appears almost exclusively in the Gospels, especially in Matthew and Luke: Mt = 16; Mk = 5; Lk = 14; Jn = 1; Acts = 5; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. We cannot analyze therapeuō without mentioning a virtually synonymous verb: iaomai, which means: to heal. This verb is even less frequent and also appears almost exclusively in the Gospels, especially in Luke: Mt = 4; Mk = 1; Lk = 11; Jn = 3; Acts = 4; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0.

Is there a nuance between the two verbs? Let us first note the scenes in which an evangelist uses the two verbs almost synonymously.

1. Matthew

   There is the scene where the centurion of Capernaum (ch. 8) begs Jesus about his paralyzed servant:

   7 Jesus said to him, "Shall I go and treat (therapeuō) him?" 8 But the centurion answered, "Lord, I am not worthy for you to come under my roof: just say a word and my servant will be healed (iaomai)... 13 And Jesus said to the centurion, "Go home! Let it be done to you as you have believed." And the servant was healed (iaomai) at that hour.

   We have translated the two verbs with a different word, but it is not certain that the evangelist had such a nuance in mind.

2. Luke

   Luke (6:18) uses both verbs in the same sentence: "they had come to hear him and to be healed (iaomai) of their diseases ; those afflicted with unclean spirits were treated (therapeuō)". It is likely that Luke uses two different verbs to avoid repetition, but the meaning of both verbs seems to be the same. Similarly, when he presents the sending of the Twelve (9:1-2), he writes this:

   1 Then Jesus called the twelve together and gave them power and authority over all demons and to treat (therapeuō) diseases. 2 He sent them to proclaim the Kingdom of God and heal (iaomai) [the weaks]

   Between giving the ability to treat (therapeuō) and sending to heal (iaomai), it is difficult to see a difference. The same observation can be made with another passage from Luke (14: 2-3)

   And Jesus asked the lawyers and Pharisees, "Is it lawful to treat (therapeuō) people on the sabbath, or not?" But they remained silent. Then Jesus took the sick man and healed (iaomai) him and sent him away.

   Taking over Mark's account of the woman with blood loss, Luke ends the story (8:47) with the woman testifying that she was healed (iaomai), the same verb used by Mk 5:34; however, at the very beginning of the account, Luke takes the liberty of slightly modifying Mark's account by adding, "she had spent all her wealth on doctors, and none had been able to treat (therapeuō) her" (8:43). One imagines that Luke used iaomai to copy Mark, but in modifying Mark, he preferred therapeuō. But both verbs refer to the same disease, that of blood loss, and so it is hard to see a nuance between the two terms.

3. John

   In John, the healing of a paralytic at the pool of Bethzatha (ch. 5) serves as an example. The evangelist writes this:

   10 So the Jews said to the man who had been treated (therapeuō), "It is the sabbath; it is not lawful for you to carry your mat"... 13 But the one who had been healed (iaomai) did not know who it was, for Jesus had gone away from the crowd that was in that place.

In short, the two verbs seem perfectly synonymous, and the only observation we can make is that when they are used in pairs, therapeuō mostly comes first, followed by iaomai. Note that Mark escapes our analysis, as he uses therapeuō almost exclusively, with iaomai used only for the account of the woman with blood loss, an account he no doubt receives from some tradition.

Overall, when we go through the Gospels-Acts, we notice that not only is therapeuō (41 times) used more than iaomai (24 times), but the list of issues it covers is broader. Here is the list:

Greek Terms	The Issue	therapeuō	iaomai
nosos	disease	x	x
malakia	weakness	x
basanos	torment	x
daimōn / diabolos	being under the yoke of the demon or devil	x	x
pneuma akatharton / ponēron	being under the yoke of an impure / evil spirit	x	x
selēniazomai	be epileptic	x
paralytikos	be paralyzed	x	x
chōlos	be lame	x
typhlos	be blind	x
kyllos	be crippled	x
kōphos	be mute	x
hydrōpikos	be hydropic	x	x
cheir xēra	having a paralyzed hand	x
haimorroeō	have hemorrhages (hemorrhoids)	x	x
arrōstos	be without energy	x
asthenēs	be impaired	x	x
kakōs	to feel bad, to not feel good	x	x
mastix	be suffering	x
pyretos	fever		x
dysenterion	dysentery		x
ous aphērethē	the ear has been torn off		x

Of course, sometimes both verbs are used in a general way, without mention of any disease (e.g., "Surely you will quote to me this saying: Physician, treat [therapeuō] yourself," Lk 4:23). But what is unique about iaomai and not found with therapeuō is a symbolic or spiritual meaning. For example, Mt 13:15, Jn 12:40, and Acts 28:27 quote Isa 6:40: LXX "For the heart of this people is hardened; and they have turned a deaf ear, and closed their eyes, lest their eyes should see, and their ears should hear, and their hearts should understand, and they should be converted to me, and I should heal them (iaomai)." It is also in a spiritual context that we must read Hebrews 12:13, where the author invites the Christian to straighten the path of his personal life so that he will not be a cripple, but a healed person (iaomai). The author of the letter of James (5: 16) invites the believer to confess his sins in order to be healed (iaomai). Finally, the first letter to Peter (2:24) refers to the death of Jesus on the cross, whose wounds have healed us (iaomai).

Combining the two verbs, Luke is the one who makes the most reference to healing (34 times), even if we limit ourselves to his gospel (25 times, 17 of which are unique to him). Here, in v. 9, Luke takes up in part what he said about the sending of the Twelve: "He gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases and to send them to proclaim the kingdom of God" (Lk 9:1b-2), a text that he copied in part from the sending of the Twelve in Mark 6:7b ("And he began to send them two and gave them authority over the unclean spirits"). But Mark's account did not explicitly speak of healing people. Luke does. And surprisingly, Matthew (10, 1b) does so as well ("he gave them authority over unclean spirits to cast them out and to cure every disease and every sickness"). What does this mean? One can assume that the Q document associated the sending of missionaries with a healing ministry.

Whatever Luke's source, the important point is to emphasize that missionary work is not just the proclamation of a word, but a work of transformation, where wounds are healed, where diminished people regain their full health.

Astheneis is the adjective asthenēs in the accusative masculine plural, the accusative being required because the adjective here plays the role of a noun, i.e. weak people, direct object complement of the verb "to treat". It is an infrequent word in the Gospels-Acts: Mt = 3; Mk = 1; Lk = 2; Jn = 4; Acts = 3; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. It means literally: weak.

Being weak can have various meanings depending on the context. When we go through the New Testament, we can identify four meanings that this adjective often used as a noun can take.

1. In the gospels, the adjective most frequently refers to someone whose health is poor, and our Bibles usually translate it as "sick".
   • Mt 25: 43: "I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick (asthenēs, lit. weak) and in prison and you did not look after me"
   • Jn 11: 3: So the sisters sent word to Jesus, 'Lord, the one you love is sick (asthenēs, lit. weak)'"

2. Sometimes, if the person is not fully fit, it is not because of the disease, but because of a physical infirmity. When we do not intend to name the disability exactly, we will use the generic term asthenes (weak) to indicate some kind of impairment. Our Bibles will often translate the adjective as "crippled" or "invalid" or "lame".
   • Jn 5: 7: "'Sir', the invalid (asthenēs, lit. weak) replied, 'I have no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred. While I am trying to get in, someone else goes down ahead of me'"
   • Acts 4: 9: If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a man who was lame (asthenēs, lit. weak) [from birth] and are being asked how he was healed"

3. The adjective "weak" can be understood in the moral sense to refer to someone who is unable to resist temptation or is easily shaken by what is contrary to his or her convictions.
   • Mk 14: 38: "Keep awake and pray that you may not come into the time of trial; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak (asthenēs)"
   • 1 Cor 8: 7: "It is not everyone, however, who has this knowledge. Since some have become so accustomed to idols until now, they still think of the food they eat as food offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak (asthenēs), is defiled"

4. Finally, the adjective "weak" is the opposite of what is strong, not only physically, but also socially, and therefore weakness refers to what lacks influence, power, influence, impact, effectiveness, transformative capacity.
   • 1 Cor 1: 27: "But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak (asthenēs) in the world to shame the strong"
   • Gal 4: 9: "Now, however, that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak (asthenēs) and beggarly elemental spirits? How can you want to be enslaved to them again?"

Here, in v. 9, asthenēs refers to sick and infirm people. When Luke writes his gospel, he knows the history of the apostles, the first missionaries, especially James, John and Paul whose mission he will tell in the Acts of the Apostles. And these missionaries healed the sick and infirm.

This mandate to target the "weak" says something about the mission: the goal is for everyone to regain their physical integrity. It is a call to transform the world to "health". For Luke, God does not want a sick world, but a healthy one.

Ēngiken is the verb engizō in the active perfect tense, 3rd person singular. The perfect tense is used to indicate that the action is finished. It appears especially in Luke in the Gospels-Acts: Mt = 7; Mk = 3; Lk = 18; Jn = 0; Acts = 6; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. It means "to approach" or "to come nearer": it is the idea that the distance either spatial or temporal between two realities has been reduced.

When we look at the different uses of engizō in the New Testament, the different contexts can be divided into five categories.

1. Most frequently, a person walking approaches a place, for example, a city or a house.
   • Mk 11: 1: "When they were coming near (engizō) Jerusalem, at Bethphage and Bethany, near the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples "
   • Lk 15: 25: "Now his elder son was in the field; and as he was coming, he came near (engizō) the house, he heard music and dancing"

2. But very often, it is another person whom one approaches, either to hear him, or to question him, or to take hold of him, or to embrace him. In the non-Pauline letters, we speak of approaching God, either through the mediation of Christ or through the rejection of sin.
   • Lk 15: 1: "Now all the tax collectors and sinners were coming near (engizō) to listen to him"
   • Mk 14: 42: "Get up, let us be going. See, my betrayer has come near (engizō)"

3. Just as often, too, reference will be made to an event that is about to occur, and a spatial image will be used to affirm that the time of that event has approached, i.e., that it is imminent. The events spoken of cover a wide range: the return of Christ, the end of time, the destruction of Jerusalem, the Passover feast, the arrest of Jesus and his death on the cross, the time of light with the Christian life; in terms of the cycle of nature, it may be the moment when the tree bears fruit. The word "imminent" can have various meanings: a few minutes, a few days, a few years.
   • Lk 21: 20: "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near (engizō)"
   • Jas 5: 8: "You also must be patient. Strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord has come near (engizō)"

4. Among imminent events, there is the special case of the kingdom of God. For, unlike the arrival of a destruction or a festival, for example, the arrival of the kingdom of God does not seem to be a punctual, identifiable event, circumscribed in a precise time, so that one could say: it has arrived! Moreover, as we shall see in our analysis of the "kingdom of God", the influence of this kingdom is felt in stages, so that in a certain way, in Jesus, it has already arrived in part; there is therefore an "already there" and a "not yet". This ambiguity is translated by the verb "to draw near".
   • Mk 1: 15: "and saying, 'The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near (engizō); repent, and believe in the good news'"
   • Lk 10: 11: "Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet, we wipe off in protest against you. Yet know this: the kingdom of God has come near (engizō)"

5. Finally, there are some cases where we are in a symbolic context of intangible realities: the treasure in the sky that a thief cannot approach, the death that one has narrowly avoided.
   • Lk 12: 33: "Sell your possessions, and give alms. Make purses for yourselves that do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near (engizō) and no moth destroys"
   • Phil 2: 30: "because he [Epaphroditus] came near (engizō) to death for the work of Christ, risking his life to make up for those services that you could not give me"

The verb engizō is thoroughly Lucan. Not only does he use it the most, but of the 18 occurrences in his gospel, 17 are his own. We even note that when he copies passages from Mark, he sometimes adds (underlined) the verb engizō in his editing.

Mark 10	Luke 18
46 And they come to Jericho. And as they came out of Jericho, and his disciples and a large crowd, the son of Timaeus - Bartimaeus - a blind beggar sat by the roadside...	35 As Jesus came near (engizō) Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging...
49-51a Jesus stopped and said, "Call him." So they called to the blind man, "Cheer up! On your feet! He's calling you." Throwing his cloak aside, he jumped to his feet and came to Jesus. Jesus asked him...	40 Jesus stood still and ordered the man to be brought to him; and when he came near (engizō), he asked him

Mark 13	Luke 21
5-6 Jesus said to them: "Watch out that no one deceives you. Many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and will deceive many.	8 And he said, "Beware that you are not led astray; for many will come in my name and say, 'I am he!' and, 'The time has come near (engizō)!' Do not go after them

In his gospel, on two occasions (10: 9,11), in the context of the sending of the 72, Luke tells us through the mouth of Jesus that the "kingdom of God has come near". Why? This seems to be linked to the beginning of the phrase "treat the sick", since the proclamation of the kingdom follows the sending out to heal: healing and proclaiming the kingdom go together; one is a sign of the other. Thus, for Luke, a new time has begun in Jesus in which God visits his people, and therefore exercises his saving power, a transforming power: Jesus performs healings, his envoys perform healings. A new reality has begun to take hold, and then we can say that the kingdom of God has come near, i.e. has begun to act.

The expression basileia tou theou recurs regularly in the synoptic gospels: Mt = 36; Mk = 14; Lk = 32; Jn = 2; Acts = 6; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. Note that in Matthew it takes the form of basileia tōn ouranōn (Kingdom of Heaven), because in Jewish circles one avoided pronouncing the word "God," which is here replaced by "Heaven," the place considered to be God's residence: the plural was required, for this world above the firmament had several floors, with God occupying the top floor (on heaven, see the glossary).

It is worthwhile to understand the expression "Kingdom of God" well, because Jesus makes it the central theme of his preaching (on this topic, see Meier). First of all, it should be noted that the expression is absent from the Hebrew Bible and that we find it for the first time in the Greek Bible through Wis 10:10: "So the righteous man who fled from the wrath of his brother, she led him in straight paths, she showed him the kingdom of God and gave him the knowledge of holy things". The Old Testament speaks rather of God as a king who reigns by saving his people. A prophet like Jeremiah speaks of the promise of a new David who will reign over the kingdom of Israel, after God has reunited the twelve tribes of a broken people. This being said, it remains that this kingship of God is not a dominant theme of the Old Testament, and indeed of all intertestamental literature. What does this mean? Jesus seems to have grasped an image and language that was not central in Judaism and consciously decided to make it his central message.

What characterizes this reign or kingdom of God? First of all, it is a future reality that we wish to see come about, as expressed in the petition of the Lord's Prayer: "May your kingdom come". It is the expectation of the coming of God to liberate his people, as we find everywhere in the OT. And at his last supper, Jesus proclaims his hope: "Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God" (Mk 14:25): in spite of the failure of his life project, confirmed by his violent death, the Kingdom of God will come. During this reign, people will come from all over the world to join the Jewish community in the kingdom of God (Mt 8:11-12; Lk 13:28-29). And there will be a reversal of the situation for the disadvantaged of life, as expressed in the beatitudes: "Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven; blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted; blessed are those who hunger, for they will be filled" (Mt 5:3-13 || Lk 6:20-23).

At the same time, Jesus claims that God's reign has somehow already arrived, at least partially and symbolically. According to Meier, the following passages probably go back to the historical Jesus.

• "Jesus said to them, 'Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind see and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised and the Good News is proclaimed to the poor; and blessed is the one who will not stumble for my sake!'" (Mt 11:2-6 || Lk 7:18-23)
• "But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you" (Mt 12:28 | Lk 11:20)
• "When the Pharisees asked him when the Kingdom of God would come, he answered them, 'The coming of the Kingdom of God cannot be observed, nor can it be said, 'Behold, it is here' or 'It is there. For behold, the Kingdom of God is among you.'" (Lk 17:20-21)
• "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent and believe in the gospel" (Mk 1:15)
• "Blessed are the eyes that see what you see, and the ears that hear what you hear; for I tell you that many prophets and kings wanted to see what you see and did not see it, and to hear what you hear and did not hear it" (Mt 13:16-17 || Lk 10:23-24)
• "(And) they came and said to Jesus, "Why do John's disciples fast, and your disciples do not?" And Jesus said to them, "Can the bridegroom's companions fast while the bridegroom is with them?"" (Mk 2:18-20 || Mt 9:14-15 || Lk 5:33-35)

Thus, this reign of God is already manifested in the person of Jesus, even if it is incomplete. Such a kingdom is not a state of mind, but a dynamic event of God coming with power to reign over his people Israel at the end of time, an eschatological drama already partially begun through the ministry of Jesus.

In Luke, the expression "kingdom of God" occupies an important place: 32 occurrences, 16 of which are his own.

• First of all, it is linked to the content of the good news, and is therefore the main object of preaching and mission (4: 43; 8: 1; 9: 2.11).
• Announcing the coming of this kingdom is so urgent that it takes priority over all other activities (9: 60,62)
• The sign that this kingdom has already begun is the healings, including the casting out of demons (9: 11; 10: 9; 11: 20)
• This kingdom is like a force at work in the world, like mustard seed sown in the earth or leaven in the dough (13: 18,20)
• This force seems to be internal, so that it cannot be observed by pointing to any external reality, because it is already at work in the world (17: 20-21)
• In its final phase, this kingdom will resemble a great feast where people from the four corners of the earth will take their places, especially the poor, without forgetting the great characters of the OT: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the prophets (6: 20; 13: 28-29; 14: 15)
• But this final phase does not seem to be for tomorrow, so that in the meantime all are called to make the most of Jesus' teaching (19: 11)

Here, in v. 9, the announcement that the kingdom of God has come near could be paraphrased as follows: the healings that you can observe are the manifestation of this power of God that is transforming the world, a transformation that will only be completed at the end of time, but that has already begun to reach you.

The question remains: why is it so urgent to proclaim the kingdom and make it known? It seems that this force cannot act without the free cooperation of the human being.

Exelthontes is the verb exerchomai in the aorist active participle, in the nominative masculine plural, the participle agreeing in gender and number with "you", i.e. the missionaries. It is formed by the preposition ek (out of) and the verb erchomai (to come), and thus means: to come out of, i.e. to leave, and is very frequent in the gospels-Acts: Mt = 43; Mk = 39; Lk = 44; Jn = 30; Acts = 30; 1Jn = 2; 2Jn = 1; 3Jn = 1.

In the Semitic world, going in and going out are two fundamental activities, which can sum up the whole range of activities in a life. Thus, in the OT we have the Hebrew expression bôʾ (to enter) and yāṣāʾ (to go out) which is synonymous with acting. For examples:

• Josh 14: 11: "(Chaleb talking) I am still strong this day, as when the Lord sent me: just so strong am I now to come out (heb. yāṣāʾ; LXX: exerchomai) and come in (heb.: bôʾ; LXX: eiserchomai) for war"
• Num 27: 15-17: And Moses said to the Lord, Let the Lord God of spirits and of all flesh look out for a man over this congregation, who shall come out (heb. yāṣāʾ; LXX: exerchomai) before them, and who shall come in (heb.: bôʾ; LXX: eiserchomai) before them, and who shall lead them out, and who shall bring them in; so the congregation of the Lord shall not be as sheep without a shepherd." (see also: 2 Chr 1: 10; 1 Mac 9: 29)

The expression "to come in and to come out" is also found in Luke, who often likes to imitate the style of the Septuagint: "It is necessary therefore that of these men who accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus came in (eiserchomai) and came out (exerchomai) among us" (Acts 1:21). Note that New International Version and the Catholic Bible have translated the expression as "the whole time the Lord Jesus lived among us", the New English Translation as "all the time that the Lord Jesus associated with us".

The verb exerchomai is completely Lucan, with 74 occurrences, including the Acts of the Apostles. And in the Gospels, of the 44 occurrences of the verb, 23 are unique to it. The verb is used to describe various realities in the Lucan gospel, which can be grouped as follows.

1. In most cases, Luke uses this verb to describe the fact that a person leaves a place to go somewhere else. While sometimes he specifies that the person leaves a place (temple, house, court, city, tribunal), often he does not specify, so the verb is synonymous with "to go somewhere", or if it is an armed group, "to spread out".
   • Lk 6: 12: "Now during those days he came out (exerchomai) to the mountain to pray; and he spent the night in prayer to God."
   • Lk 22: 52: "Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple police, and the elders who had come for him, "Have you come out (exerchomai) with swords and clubs as if I were a bandit?"

2. A frequent use of the verb is in the description of exorcisms, which consists of driving demons, Luke's favorite term, or unclean spirits out of a person.
   • Lk 4: 35: "But Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Be silent, and come out (exerchomai) of him!" When the demon had thrown him down before them, he came out (exerchomai) of him without having done him any harm."
   • Lk 8: 2: "as well as some women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had come out (exerchomai)"

3. Less frequently, the verb is used to express the idea that a reality, often intangible, is communicated or disseminated. The verb "to go out" states that this reality has come to people. It is often translated that this reality has "appeared" or "spread".
   • Lk 2: 1: "In those days a decree came out (exerchomai) from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered."
   • Lk 7: 17: "This word about him came out (exerchomai) throughout Judea and all the surrounding country"

4. Two passages specific to Luke use the verb to describe a surprising phenomenon: a force (dynamis) was coming out of Jesus; it is as if there were a source of energy in Jesus, or something similar to an electric current that, when brought into contact with a person, transforms him and removes all disease. There is only one condition: you must touch Jesus. The verb "to go out" conveys the idea of a form of fluid that comes out of Jesus and is transmitted to a person.
   • Lk 6: 19: "And all in the crowd were trying to touch him, for power came out (exerchomai) from him and healed all of them"
   • Lk 8: 46: "But Jesus said, 'Someone touched me; for I noticed that power had come out (exerchomai) from me'"

5. Finally, there is the unique case in Luke where, in the scene of the miraculous catch, Peter asks Jesus to go away, because he feels that he is in the presence of a divine force. But why did Luke choose the verb "to go out" rather than "to go away" (in Greek aperchomai)? Let us remember that the scene takes place in a boat. But later, after the crossing of the Lake of Galilee, where the disciples were confronted with a storm that Jesus calmed, Luke describes Jesus getting out of the boat: "As he came out (exerchomai) on dry land" (8:27), repeating a text from Mark 5:2 ("And he came out of the boat"). For Luke, exerchomai is the appropriate verb for getting out of a boat. Now, what does Peter ask? That Jesus get out of the boat.
   • Lk 5: 8: "ut when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, 'Come out (exerchomai) away from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man!'"

Here, in v. 10, the verb "to come out" is situated in the context of a city ("Then, if you enter any city, let it not receive you"), and so "to come out" means: to come out of the city, and the rest of the verse situates us in the public square that was usually at the city's entrance. Luke thus modifies the context of Mark 6:11 where it is a question of going out of the house. He therefore insisted on having a scene that addresses the city, judging it important that his audience be concerned as a city that has a responsibility to receive the gospel, and so he duplicated the sending of the missionaries both to the house and to the city. In any case, the message is the same: in case of refusal, it is not a matter of using force, but of respecting the choice and leaving.

Plateias is the feminine noun plateia in the accusative plural, the accusative being required by the preposition eis (to). It is a rare word throughout the New Testament, especially in the Gospels-Acts: Mt = 2; Mk = 0; Lk = 3; Jn = 0; Acts = 1; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. It is formed from a root meaning: measure, width, and conveys the idea of a wide space, i.e. a wide way, an esplanade, a crossroad. Our bibles have translated the term either as "public square" or "street". We opt for the literal translation: main street, which allows us to convey the idea of both of a street and something "wide".

Since the number of occurrences in the NT is very limited, let us expand our look to include the Septuagint. The term plateia was used primarily to translate the Hebrew term rĕḥôb (wide and open place). But occasionally it also translates the Hebrew term ḥuṣ (the outside of the house, i.e. the street). In both cases, reference is made to a public space. What is the purpose of this public space?

• Travelers who had not found lodging could rest there and spend the night (Gen 19:2; Judg 19:15-20)
• People who had been executed were hung there (2 Sam 21:12)
• This is where a king or military leader gathers his army and the people to encourage them before the battle (2 Chr 32, 6)
• It is there that lamentations are sounded and mourning clothes are put on (Isa 15:3; Jer 48:38; Am 5:16; 3 Macc 1:18)
• If you want to make an inquiry, that's where you'll find the people to ask (Jer 5:1); that's where you look first when you're looking for someone (Song 3:2)
• This is where teenagers gather (Jer 9:21), or young boys and girls (Zech 8:5)
• Warlike battles could take place there, or massacres (Jer 49:26; 50:30; Ezek 28:23; 1 Macc 2:9)
• It is a place where people come to protest in times of trouble (Lam 2:11-12; 4:18), or to cry for help (Jdt 7:14.22)
• It is the place where prostitution was practiced (Ezek 16: 24,31)
• The public square could be located outside, near the gate of a walled city (Ezek 26:10-11; Nah 2:5; see also Ne 8:1 where rĕḥôb is translated by platos)
• It is the place where the elderly like to sit (Zech 8:4; 1 Macc 14:9); Job says that there was a place reserved for them (Job 29:7)
• It is the place for proclamations (Prov 1:20; Esth 4:1; 6:9,11; Ezra 10:8), either to announce something or to denounce something
• The public square is the opposite of the private space that is one's home (Prov 5: 16), and therefore the place of many unsavory things, such as foolish people (Prov 6: 6) or a woman who is a rake (Prov 7: 12) or the calls of Lady Madness (Prov 9: 14)
• It is the place of some trade, for usury and fraud are denounced (according to the Greek version of Ps 55:12)

In short, in a world where in the cities the houses were packed one on top of the other, and the streets were narrow, the places par excellence to gather, to communicate, to make transactions, to discuss were these wider spaces, often located at the entrance of the city from where the roads left in various directions and where any traveler had to pass.

This framework sheds light on the few occurrences of plateia in the NT. For example, hypocrites like to pray in these places to be seen (Mt 6:5). It is where people are randomly recruited to fill the banquet hall (Lk 14:21). It was an ideal place to find a space to teach, which Jesus probably did (Lk 13:26). According to Luke, there were a few wide avenues in Jerusalem where people could gather when Peter passed by in order to obtain a healing (Acts 5:15).

Here, in v. 10, one of Jesus' recommendations (probably from the Q document) in case of refusal is to go to the main street or public square. Why is this? Remember that this is the place for proclamations, either to announce something or to denounce something. This scene may be surprising, for one might have expected the missionary, faced with the refusal, to go away quietly, humbly, without making a fuss. It seems that the denunciation that follows is part of the gospel message.

Koniorton is the masculine noun koniortos in the accusative singular, the accusative being required because the word is the direct object complement of the verb "to wipe". It means: dust, and it appears only in the Gospels-Acts throughout the NT: Mt = 1; Mk = 0; Lk = 2; Jn = 0; Acts = 2; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0.

When we go through the Septuagint to analyze what has been translated by koniortos, there is a certain disappointment, insofar as there is no real standard in the translation. There are six occurrences where the word translated Hebrew ʾābāq (soil dust):

• in Ex 9:9 the Lord asks to take ashes from the furnace and throw them into the air like a whirlwind of dust to trigger the 6th plague of Egypt
• in Deuteronomy 28:24 the Deuteronomist warns the people that if they do not listen to the Lord, the sky will give dust instead of rain
• in Isa 5:24, in the context of the misfortunes of the great men of Judah, the prophet announces that their flower (their apparent beauty) will turn to dust
• in Isa 29, 5 the prophet announces that the wealth of the ungodly will be like the dust raised by the wheels
• Ezek 26:10 is part of a prophecy against Tyre where the prophet announces an attack by the king of Babylon where the city will be covered with the dust of his horses and chariots
• In Nah 1:3, the prophet presents God's intervention against his enemies in the image of an army that raises a lot of dust, but this dust takes the form of storm clouds

Thus, dust always appears in a negative context and is associated with a form of punishment.

Another Hebrew word translated as koniortos is ʿāpār (dry earth, powder) in Deut 9:21 where Moses affirms that he reduced to dust/powder the calf that the people had made for themselves as an idol. But let us note that the Septuagint has opted for gē (earth) in passages where one would have expected to read koniortos, as Gen 3:19 ("Yes, you are dust [Heb. ʿāpār, gr. gē] and to dust [Heb. ʿāpār, gr. gē] you will return"), or Job 10:9 ("Remember: you shaped me like clay, and to dust [[Heb. ʿāpār, gr. gē] that you bring me back"), or Job 16:15 ("I have sewn sackcloth on my scars and sunk my forehead in the dust [Heb. ʿāpār, gr. gē]"), or Mic 1:10 ("In Gath, do not make a proclamation...., weep. In Beth-leafra, roll in the dust [Heb. ʿāpār, gr. gē]." All this is indicative of the translator's understanding of the word koniortos: for to him the term is not primarily an element of the soil, but that which is reduced to fine grains like powder.

In Isa 3:24, the prophet attacks the luxury of the daughters of Zion and announces that their sweet perfumes will be replaced by decay (Heb. maq), which the Septuagint has translated as koniortos (dust). And Song 3:6 speaks of powder (ăbāqâ) of which the perfumes are composed, which the Septuagint has translated koniortos (dust). Otherwise, the Septuagint has translated various words that designate, for example, the ball. Since we do not know the Hebrew text that the translators had in hand, it is difficult to determine whether we are faced with the freedom of the translator or a different Hebrew text.

In short, the Septuagint leaves us with the impression that "dust" is less an element of the soil than what remains of the decomposition of elements and often appears in a context associated with disaster.

In the NT, of the five occurrences of koniortos four echo the tradition of the missionary shaking the dust off his feet in the face of the refusal to receive his message, which leaves us with the unique case of Acts 22: 23 where the Jews of Jerusalem in the temple precincts, exasperated at Paul's speech, throw their cloaks and toss dust into the air, shouting, "Let the earth be rid of such a person." In this last case, we are in a context of rejection, and if dust is associated with the decomposition of the elements, the fact of tossing dust into the air would mean that they want to rid the temple floor of this rotten person who is Paul.

Let us now turn to the question of the meaning of the gesture of the missionary shaking the dust from his feet. First of all, it should be noted that it appears in both Matthew and Luke, which indicates the presence of the Q document, a rather old source. Secondly, the wording here in v. 11 gives an indication of its meaning: "And the dust from your city that has stuck to our feet, we wipe off on you". This is a sign of total rupture: even the dust, associated with the smallest thing, an element of the decomposition of things, we want to give it back to the city where it came from, to keep nothing on ourselves. The message is clear: we have nothing in common.

Kollēthenta is the verb kollaō in the aorist passive participle, in the accusative masculine singular, and agrees in case, gender and number with koniorton (dust). It is infrequent throughout the New Testament, and in the Gospels-Acts it appears almost exclusively from the pen of Luke, with the exception of a passage in Matthew that is an echo of the book of Genesis: Mt = 1; Mk = 0; Lk = 2; Jn = 0; Acts = 5; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. Literally, it means: to cling, and can be translated in various ways depending on the context: to attach to, to join to, to unite with.

It has as its synonym the verb proskollaō, a verb formed from the preposition pros (towards, to) and the verb kollaō (to cling), and thus means "to cling to", thus to attach to. This verb appears throughout the NT only in the quotation from Gen 2:24 (LXX "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother, and will cling [proskollaō] to his wife, and they will be two in one flesh") in Mk 10:7 and Eph 5:31. Note that Matthew, who also refers to Gen 2:24 when he copies Mk 10:7, preferred for reasons known only to him the verb kollaō to the verb proskollaō.

In Luke, kollaō is often used in a context of interpersonal relationships where one joins or attaches oneself to other people: the prodigal son joins a farmer who sends him to feed the pigs (Lk 15:15), Paul tries to join the community of disciples (Acts 9:26), in Athens some people attach themselves to Paul (Acts 17:34), people do not dare to join the Christian community (Acts 5:13), Jews cannot enter into relationship with non-Jews (Acts 10:28). The only two exceptions to this context are Acts 8:29, where it is a question of joining the chariot of the Ethiopian eunuch, and Lk 10:11, where dust is clung to the feet.

In Paul, kollaō appears in a context of union: union with the harlot (1 Cor 6:16), union with the Lord (1 Cor 6:17), union with the good (Rom 12:9). Finally, let us mention Revelation, where sins are presented as something that sticks to the skin, and therefore become with time like layers that are superimposed.

What is common to all these instances of the verb "to cling" is that they all express the idea of a link of some kind, i.e. of two realities that are linked. This is clear when we are talking about a person joining a group, or a person joining another person like the prostitute, or union with the Lord, or conversely, union with sin. But this can easily be understood in the scene where Philip is asked to "tie himself to the chariot of the eunuch", i.e. to establish a bond with the eunuch. This also applies to the image of the dust stuck to the feet: the dust represents the "remains" of the city, and thus the link with it.

How does this inform our v. 11? The recommendation put in Jesus' mouth is to cut all possible ties with the city that refuses the message, since the dust clung to the feet represents this link.

However, a question remains: the verb kollaō in Luke is always followed by the dative (indirect object complement of attribution), except here in v. 11 where it is accompanied by the preposition eis (into, in) followed by a noun in the accusative: podous (feet); it is as if the dust moves to cling to the feet. There is no precedent for this turn of phrase in the NT.

The Septuagint offers us five cases where the verb is accompanied by the preposition eis:

• 1 Kings 11:2: LXX "Of the women of those peoples of whom the Lord had said to the sons of Israel, "You shall have no dealings with them, nor they with you, lest they turn away your hearts to their idols." Solomon had clung to (kollaō eis) them, he loved them."
• Ps 44:25: LXX (43:26) "For our soul is brought low to the dust, and our belly is clung to (kollaō eis) the ground."
• Lam 2:2: LXX "The Lord has drowned all the beauties of Jacob without sparing them; in his anger he has broken the strongholds of the daughter of Judah; he has clung them to (kollaō eis) the ground; he has profaned her king and her leaders
• Tob 6:19: LXX (Sinaiticus version) "Now when Tobias heard the words of Raphael, and heard that she was his kinswoman of the line of his father's house, he loved her very much, and his heart clung to (kollaō eis) her.
• Bar 1:20: LXX "And there clung to (kollaō eis) us the woes and the curse that the Lord commanded his servant Moses on the day he brought our ancestors out of the land of Egypt, to give us a land flowing with milk and honey as it is today.

Note that in 1 Kings 11:2 and Ps 24:25 kollaō translates the Hebrew dābaq, the same verb used in Gen 2:24 to affirm that the man must leave his father and mother to "cling" to his wife; the emphasis is on the union of two persons. Note also that in these five references, we can detect a movement, either the heart that sticks to a woman for love (1 Kings 11:2; Job 6:19), or God's action that causes misfortunes to stick to his people (Bar 1:2), or his action that sticks the strongholds of the daughter of Judah to the ground (Lam 2:2), or again, that causes the belly to stick to the ground (Ps 24:25).

What to conclude? The expression kollaō eis is rare, but it is not unusual. Moreover, it does not seem to belong to the regular vocabulary of Luke. It is possible, therefore, that Luke is drawing here from some tradition, perhaps the Q document.

Podas is the masculine pous in the accusative plural, the accusative being required by the preposition eis (to, in). It appears regularly in the Gospels-Acts: Mt = 10; Mk = 6; Lk = 19; Jn = 14; Acts = 19; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0, and it means: foot.

This part of the body takes on different meanings depending on the context.

1. Very often (one third of the cases), the word appears in the expression "to fall at someone's feet"; in the majority of cases, it is a question of falling at the feet of Jesus. It is a gesture of acknowledging the superiority of a person, of venerating him or her, and of begging for help.
   • Mk 5: 22: "Then one of the leaders of the synagogue named Jairus came and, when he saw him, fell at his feet (pous)"
   • Acts 10, 25: "On Peter's arrival Cornelius met him, and falling at his feet (pous), worshiped him."

2. The state of the foot is indicative of a person's condition or situation: having bound feet expresses a state of dependence and imprisonment; standing on one's feet expresses freedom, strength and health; losing the use of one's feet expresses a form of disability and powerlessness; when the risen Jesus shows his feet, he affirms that he is not a ghost, while demonstrating that he is the same as the one who was crucified on his feet.
   • Acts 14: 10: "said in a loud voice, "Stand upright on your feet (pous)." And the man sprang up and began to walk"
   • Acts 21: 11: "He came to us and took Paul's belt, bound his own feet (pous) and hands with it, and said, "Thus says the Holy Spirit, 'This is the way the Jews in Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles.'""

3. The foot is part of the human body, but seems to belong to a less noble category than other categories, so that removing sandals from someone's feet or washing someone's feet was a slave act.
   • Acts 13: 25: "And as John was finishing his work, he said, 'What do you suppose that I am? I am not he. No, but one is coming after me; I am not worthy to untie the thong of the sandals on his feet (pous).'"
   • Jn 13: 5: "Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples' feet (pous) and to wipe them with the towel that was tied around him."

4. But to set foot somewhere is to take possession of it, and to set foot on someone is an expression of authority and domination.
   • Mk 12: 36: "David himself, by the Holy Spirit, declared, 'The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet (pous)'"
   • Acts 7: 5: "He did not give him any of it as a heritage, not even a foot (pous)'s length, but promised to give it to him as his possession and to his descendants after him, even though he had no child."

5. Just as walking and driving is done by taking a direction, feet can express the direction a life is taking, for good or bad.
   • Lk 1: 79: "to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet (pous) into the way of peace"
   • Mk 9: 45: "And if your foot (pous) causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame than to have two feet (pous) and to be thrown into hell."

6. In a house, a city or a country, the contact with this land is through the feet, and it is the feet that can bring back something from the house, the city or the country.
   • Mk 6: 11: "If any place will not welcome you and they refuse to hear you, as you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet (pous) as a testimony against them.""
   • Acts 13: 51: "So they shook the dust off their feet (pous) in protest against them, and went to Iconium."

7. Laying things at someone's feet means entrusting those things to him; this is what the first Christians did when they sold their possessions and gave the money to the apostles to support the poorest. To lay one's cloak at someone's feet means to entrust one's person to someone, since the cloak represents one's identity; when those who stoned Stephen laid their cloaks at Paul's feet, they entrusted the testimony of their action to Paul.
   • Acts 4: 37: "He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet (pous)"
   • Acts 7: 58: "Then they dragged him out of the city and began to stone him; and the witnesses laid their coats at the feet (pous) of a young man named Saul."

8. Finally, sometimes the word "foot" has no particular meaning, other than to designate a part of the human body that is used to walk.
   • Mt 4: 6: "saying to him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down; for it is written, 'He will command his angels concerning you,' and 'On their hands they will bear you up, so that you will not dash your foot (pous) against a stone.'"
   • Jn 20: 12: "and she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had been lying, one at the head and the other at the feet (pous)"

In v. 11, the word "foot" appears in a context where it refers to what is in contact with the ground of a city. Remember that the missionaries were sent without shoes or sandals on their feet. And so the feet keep the vestiges of the city. Therefore, they must be cleaned so that nothing of the city remains for the break to be complete.

Apomassometha is the verb apomassō in the present middle indicative, 1st person plural. It is formed from the preposition apo (from) and the verb massō (to handle or work with the hands), and means: to wipe. There are only two occurrences of this verb in the entire Bible, in Luke and in the Sinaiticus version of Tobit in the Septuagint.

Let us use the text offered to us by the account of Tobit according to the Sinaiticus version of the Septuagint to grasp its meaning. The context is that Tobias wants Raguel to give him his daughter Sara in marriage. Raguel agrees, but warns Tobias that the seven previous men to whom he had given his daughter in marriage died when he went to the bridal chamber, but vows that this time the Lord will intervene on his behalf. So the marriage contract was signed, and Raguel asked his wife Edna to prepare the bridal chamber. Edna did so: "So she went and made the bed in the room as he had told her, and she led him there. And she wept for her. Then she wiped away (apomassō) the tears and said to her, 'Take courage, my daughter; may the Lord of heaven give you joy in place of your sorrow. Take courage, my daughter.' Then she went out." The meaning of apomassō in this story is very clear: it is wiping away her tears.

Here, in v. 11, we have the same verb, not in connection with tears, but with the dust clung to the feet. One can imagine the gesture of running one's hand over the soles of the feet to wipe off the dust. But the verb is followed by the personal pronoun "you" (hymin) in the dative, where it plays the role of indirect object of attribution. It should therefore be translated as "wipe the dust off you". The idea is that the missionaries wipe the dust off by running their hands under their feet and then letting it fall to the ground in the city, a way of handing over what belongs to them.

Plēn is an adverb derived from the comparative adjective pleiōn (more). It thus intends to amplify or emphasize what has just been said, but the way it does so varies according to the context: when it amplifies in a positive way, then it is translated as: also, moreover, in addition; when it emphasizes it in a negative way, then it is translated as: however, nevertheless, except that, excepted, otherwise. It is not very frequent in the whole of the NT, especially in the Gospels-Acts, except in Luke: Mt = 5; Mk = 1; Lk = 15; Jn = 0; Acts = 4; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0.

This adverb belongs to the Lucan vocabulary. Of the 15 occurrences in his gospel, 12 are his own. Here, in v. 11, he uses it to contrast the city's refusal to receive the messionaries and the rupture that this entails with the fact that the kingdom of God has begun to manifest itself. Why emphasize this contrast? The reason is simple: the rejection of a number of cities does not call into question the progress of this kingdom. It is like saying: the train is going by anyway, too bad you are not getting on it!

Ginōskete is the verb ginōskō in the present active imperative, 2nd person plural. It means: to know, and is very frequent in the gospels-Acts, more particularly in the Johannine tradition: Mt = 20; Mk = 12; Lk = 28; Jn = 57; Acts = 16; 1Jn = 25; 2Jn = 1; 3Jn = 0.

In the biblical world, and more particularly in the gospels, the verb "to know" is used to designate different realities, the main ones of which could be summarized as follows:

1. "To know" refers to factual knowledge, the receipt of information, i.e. learning a fact or being made aware of something. For example:
   • Lk 2: 43: "When the festival was ended and they started to return, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but his parents did not know (ginōskō) it."

2. "To know" means to grasp a life situation from certain clues, which is often translated as: to understand. For example:
   • Lk 20: 19: "When the scribes and chief priests knew (ginōskō) that he had told this parable against them, they wanted to lay hands on him at that very hour, but they feared the people"

3. "To know" is knowledge derived from faith, and allows one to enter into God's vision of human history. For example:
   • Lk 8: 10: "He said, 'To you it has been given to know (ginōskō) 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.'"

4. "To know" refers to the perception of the identity of a reality and is mostly translated as: to recognize. A recognition presupposes a prior knowledge, and some clues allow to make the link with this prior knowledge. For example:
   • Lk 24: 35: "Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he had been made known (ginōskō) to them in the breaking of the bread"

5. "To know" in the biblical world sometimes has a sexual meaning, to refer to mating without directly mentioning it, or to being in a couple relationship. For example:
   • Lk 1: 34: "Mary said to the angel, 'How can this be, since I don't know (ginōskō) a man?'"

It should be noted that in Luke it is factual knowledge that dominates, both in his gospel (especially the passages that are his own) and in Acts, followed by knowledge as a grasp of a life situation based on certain clues. Even if knowledge as a view of faith exists, it is not as present as it is in the Johannine tradition.

Here, in v. 11, the verb "to know" in the imperative is addressed to the cities that have refused the gospel message. So it can only refer to factual knowledge. Indeed, Luke has linked the healings to the kingdom of God. The people of the city can observe the healings, without making a connection in faith with the presence of the kingdom of God: the healings remain a mere piece of information.

But why insist that these "unbelievers" know that the kingdom has come near, since this does not entail any reception? The answer will be given later: it will be part of the evidence for their condemnation, for they knew, but did nothing.

It is worthwhile to stop briefly at the expression legō hymin (I say to you [plural]) or legō soi (I say to you [singular]) in the mouth of Jesus when it is followed by an affirmation, because it confers a certain solemnity and authority to what is affirmed. It appears in all four gospels (Mt=59; Mk=18; Lk=47; Jn=26) and seems to be very old, perhaps an echo of the tone sometimes used by Jesus. Since the four gospels wanted to give a certain importance to what is affirmed by Jesus, let us consider its content according to each tradition, treating separately the Q document, common to Matthew and Luke, and repatriating in Mark what Matthew and Luke have copied to him (which gives us the following distribution: Mk=18; Q=14; Mt=30; Lk=26; Jn=26).

1. Mark

   It is difficult to see a common thread in all the solemn affirmations of Jesus. They concern both the present and the future, and are intended to support certain attitudes as well as to denounce certain failings. And of the 18 instances of solemn affirmation, 13 are preceded by the word "Amen", usually translated as "truly", which gives even more strength and assurance to what is being affirmed; it is an ancient expression that could go back to Jesus himself.

   • They are a word of authority to heal: they command the paralytic and the so-called dead child to get up (2: 11; 5: 41)
   • They testify that Jesus knows who will deny him (14:30) and betray him (14:18), and what fate awaits him (14:25)
   • They reinforce certain actions and attitudes, especially through the promise of a reward: giving a Christian a drink (9:41), leaving everything to serve the gospel (10:29), keeping watch (13:37), welcoming the kingdom of God as a little child (10:15)
   • They emphasize the action and approach of certain characters: the poor widow who put all she had into the temple treasury (12: 43), the woman who poured precious perfume on Jesus' head (14: 9)
   • They accentuate the denunciation of certain actions and attitudes: blaspheming against the Holy Spirit (3:28-29), the repeated request for signs (8:12), the refusal to perceive that John the Baptist is the new Elijah (9:13)
   • They intensify the importance of faith: which can lift a mountain (11: 23) and can obtain what is asked for in prayer (11: 24)
   • They confidently announce certain events to come: some will soon see the kingdom of God (9: 1), and the events announcing the Son of Man (13: 30)

2. Document Q

   Overall, there is something sharp and dramatic about the solemn statements of the Q document that recalls the OT prophets. Note that the Q document never prefaces "I say to you" with the word "Amen," except probably Mt 24:47 || Lk 12:44.

   • They emphasize the urgency of changing one's attitude: it must be done now, before the judgment (Mt 5:26 || Lk 12:59), because it is not enough to be a Jew (Mt 3:9 || Lk 3:8), and the fate of those who do not change their attitude will be worse than that of Sodom (Mt 10:15 || Lk 10:12), and this generation will have to give an account (Mt 23:36 || Lk 11:51); for the time being, Jesus announces that he will be seen no more (Mt 23:39 || Lk 13:35)
   • They insist on the radical side of the Christian ethic: the love of enemies (Mt 5:44 || Lk 6:27), the refusal to worry about everyday needs, trusting that God will provide (Mt 6:25,29 || Lk 12:22. 27), the interest in the sinner whose transformation brings immense joy (Mt 18:13 || Lk 15:7), an unfailing perseverance that does not flinch in its responsibilities despite the absence of the Master (Mt 24:47 || Lk 12:44)
   • They highlight the attitude and action of certain characters: the faith of the centurion (Mt 8:10 || Lk 7:9), the action of John the Baptist (Mt 11:9.11 || Lk 7:26.28)
   • They remind us of the unique gift and happiness granted to the disciples to see the action of Jesus and to hear his word (Mt 13, 17 || Lk 10, 24)

3. Matthew

   He is the greatest user of this expression which appears throughout his Sermon on the Mount. In a gospel where action occupies a great deal of space, it allows him to give a certain solemnity and authority to the various ethical and legal statements. At the same time, as a Jew, he can insist on the fate that awaits the chosen people. Note that he is very fond of the word "Amen" which is of Hebrew origin, and he regularly uses it before the expression "I say to you": of the 31 occurrences of "Amen" in his gospel, 9 are a copy of Mark's, 22 are his own, and of these 8 are an addition to the text of the Q document.

   • As he addresses a community composed of a large group of Jewish Christians, he must first warn against the temptation to reject all their past, especially the rules stemming from the Law (5:18), because this is in a way to go further than the way Jewish fundamentalists live these rules (5:20), and thus to live a radical ethic such as never denigrate one's neighbor (5: 22), never utter a baseless word (12: 36), never covet one's neighbor's wife (5: 28), never repudiate one's own wife (19: 9), never swear, but always speak the truth (5: 34), never respond to evil with evil (5: 39), never practice acts of piety [prayer, almsgiving, fasting] to be seen to be good (6: 2. 5.16), always forgive (18: 22), be careful with the obstacle of riches (19: 23,24), have the greatest respect for the most fragile members of the community (18: 10), so that at the final judgement it will be the action of each one with regard to the least of these that will serve as a criterion [give food to the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, welcome strangers, clothe the naked, visit the sick, go to meet the prisoners] (25: 40,45)
   • The expression serves to give weight to the new community rules, such as fraternal correction (18: 18) and common prayer (18: 19)
   • It gives gravity to the refusal of all the chosen people and the authorities to the message of Jesus, so that prostitutes and tax collectors will precede them into the kingdom of God (21:31), and this kingdom will be entrusted to non-Jews (21:43), and the temple of Jerusalem will be destroyed (24:2), because they did not recognize that they were in the presence of someone greater than the temple (12:6), and God will no longer even recognize his people (25:12)

4. Luke

   In his gospel, Luke develops his own themes and the expression "I say to you" allows him to accentuate them. Among these themes are conversion and forgiveness of sins, the universal mission of salvation, the place of the poor and the relationship to money, the importance of prayer, perseverance in the present time, compassion. It should be noted that Luke is not very interested in the Hebrew expression "Amen": of the five occurrences in his gospel, three are simply a copy of Mark's text. At most he adds the word alēthōs (really).

   • The "sinner" has her sins forgiven, because she has loved much (7:47); the "good thief", who opened himself to Jesus, is promised paradise today (23:43); God rejoices for every sinner who accepts to be transformed (15:10); The publican is recognized as righteous in God's eyes, not the Pharisee, because he has recognized himself as a sinner (18:14); the unfortunate events are a reminder of the importance of allowing oneself to be transformed now (13:3,5).
   • Jesus' mission met with a wall among his countrymen where he was not seen as a prophet (4:24), and so it is among the non-Jews that he will be successful, as was foreshadowed by the story of the widow of Zarephath and the leper Naaman (4:25); but it is a difficult mission, so much so that Jesus can say that it is division, not peace, that he has come to bring (12: 51); Jesus himself was counted among the bandits (22: 37); and his mission will be accomplished at the cost of his life (22: 16. 18); yet, one should not be afraid to witness even at the cost of one's life, for it is one's situation in the next life that takes precedence (12:4,5,8); this mission nothing can stop it, for if the disciples keep silent, the stones will cry out (19:40); but the entrance into the kingdom has its requirements, while many will fail (13:24).
   • For Jesus, the poor must receive special attention, so that they are the first to be invited to the table, because at the eschatological banquet the rich are likely to be absent (14: 24); also money must absolutely be at the service of people who will know how to welcome us in the other life (16: 9)
   • Persevering faith is essential to the Christian life; it is the faith that allows us to pray without ceasing, with the assurance of an answer, like the unwelcome guest (11:8,9), or the judge who is prayed for a long time (18:8a); this is how God responds to the person who watches unceasingly (12:37); but the question remains: "When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?" (18:8b)
   • Compassion leads Jesus to speak this word of authority to heal the son of the widow of Naim (7:14)

5. John

   A particular feature of John is that the phrase "I say to you" is almost always (the exception being 4:35) preceded by "Amen, Amen. This gives even more force and solemnity to what Jesus is about to affirm. In John, these statements focus on the identity of Jesus, on the fate of the believer, while denouncing unbelief.

   • Jesus is the one through whom communication between heaven and earth is restored (1: 51), he testifies to what he knows and has seen (for before Abraham existed, he was (8: 58); in him one can see what the Father is (5: 19); he is the essential food to have life (6: 53); he is the door for all believers (10: 7); but for his mission to bear fruit, he must pass through death (12: 24), and this death is freely accepted, because he knows who will betray him (13: 21), he knows who will deny him (13: 38)
   • The believer is the one who is born from above (3: 3), i.e. from water and the Holy Spirit (3: 5). He has eternal life (5:24; 6:47), and even if he dies, he will live (5:25), and so it can be said that he will never see final death (8:51); he is called to serve humbly like Jesus who washes the feet of his disciples (13:16); in the context of Jesus' absence, a new form of his presence will be a source of great joy (16:20); what awaits him is the challenge of an immense harvest (4:35); he is called to do the same works as Jesus, and even greater ones (14:12); he is assured that the Father will answer his prayer (16:23); resembling Jesus himself, to welcome him is to welcome Jesus (13:20); but, like Peter, he leaves the control of his life to God (21:18)
   • John also gives a certain solemnity to the reproaches of Jesus who denounces the attitude of the Jews who are looking for him not for a sign to believe, but to fill their bellies (6: 26) and who delude themselves into thinking that Moses is the one who gives the true bread from heaven (6: 32); And since they refuse the truth about God offered in Jesus, they condemn themselves to be slaves of lies and sin (8: 34); they cannot be the shepherd of the flock, in fact they are thieves and robbers.

Here, in v. 12, the solemn expression "I say to you" comes from the Q document, which is also copied in Mt 10:15. The latter has heightened its solemnity by preceding it with the word "Amen", which gives even more assurance to the affirmation. The author of the Q document wanted to give a prophetic dimension to a warning addressed to those who refuse the gospel message. Thus, it is not a simple anodyne remark, but a solemn declaration about the fate that awaits cities that close themselves to the gospel. This could be seen as a Semitic exaggeration. But at the root of such a statement is the perception that refusing the gospel has harmful consequences for humanity.

Sodomois is the neuter noun Sodoma in the dative plural, the dative being ordered by its role of indirect object complement of attribution to the verb "to be": "it will be for Sodom". It designates the city of Sodom and, in the New Testament, it is very infrequent, especially in the Gospels-Acts: Mt = 3; Mk = 0; Lk = 2; Jn = 0; Acts = 0; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. This city is also called the "city of Lot", and therefore we must include this character in our analysis.

Genesis tells us the fate of this city. It was located south-east of the Dead Sea and marked its southern border (Gen 10:19); it was the main city of a group of five cities: Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboyim, Bela. The story begins with Abram's return from Egypt, where he had fled to escape a famine, and where he had become rich thanks to the favors of Pharaoh, who had included his wife, whom he believed to be his sister, in his harem; but discovering the deception, Pharaoh expelled Abram and his family (Gen 12:16-20). Abram's family includes his nephew Lot, i.e. the son of his brother Haran; unfortunately, Haran died before his father Terah, and the latter entrusted young Lot to Abram (Gen 11:27-32). Now, since both Abram and Lot had herds of small and large cattle, a conflict broke out between the shepherds of each, and to resolve this conflict, Abram decided that it was necessary to separate and offered Lot to choose first the new territory where he wanted to settle; Lot chose the eastern part of the Jordan, a well irrigated land, and went to live in Sodom. Abram then chose the western part of the Jordan, and went to live in the oaks of Mamre, near Hebron (Gen 13:1-18).

What interests us begins in ch. 18 of Genesis at the oaks of Mamre when Abram, now called Abraham since the covenant made with God promising him great descent (ch. 17), sees three men in front of his tent, who are in fact the Lord accompanied by two angels. Abraham hastens to offer them hospitality. Then the Lord tells him that when He returns, his wife Sarah, old and barren, will have a son. Then, looking in the direction of Sodom, he announces that the complaints against this city and its sin are so great that he must go and verify the situation before proceeding to its destruction. Then Abraham intervenes, pleading the cause of Sodom, and obtaining to suspend its condemnation if there are 50 righteous there, then 45 righteous, until 10 righteous.

In ch. 19 the scene moves to Sodom where the two angels are welcomed at the gate of Sodom by Lot who offers them hospitality and lodging. But when evening comes, Lot's house is surrounded by the people of Sodom, from the youngest to the oldest, who ask Lot to take the two men out, because they want to "know" (yādaʿ) them. Now, in the Semitic language, "to know" is also used to designate sexual relations, as we see for example in Gen 4:1: "The man knew (yādaʿ) Eve his wife. She became pregnant and gave birth to Cain." This is how Jewish and Christian tradition has understood this passage, and it has given us the words: sodomy, sodomize, sodomite, in reference to male homosexual relations. Lot, in order to protect his guests, offers them his two virgin daughters from his house to do as they please with them. But the people of Sodom push Lot away violently and are about to break down the door of the house. Fortunately, the two angels had just enough time to grab Lot to let him in, before striking the people outside the door with blindness. The rest of the story is a race against time, as the angels urge Lot to leave the city with his family as soon as possible, before its destruction comes. When dawn came, the two angels pulled Lot, his wife and his two daughters by the hand, saying, "Save yourself, your life is at stake. Do not look back, do not stop anywhere." When Lot entered the city of Zoar to take refuge, the Lord rained down brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, which upset not only those cities and their inhabitants, but also all vegetation. Unfortunately, Lot's wife looked back and became a pillar of salt. As for Abraham, from his home, when he looked towards Sodom and Gomorrah, "he saw that the flames came out of the earth like steam from a furnace" (Gen. 19:28).

This is the story of Genesis. This story struck the Jewish imagination and we see an echo of it throughout the biblical books. Sodom became the symbol of evil and of God's punitive intervention. Thus Deuteronomy threatens the people who break the covenant that their land will become like that of Sodom, where the fields will no longer produce anything and the plants will no longer grow (Deut 29:22). The prophet Isaiah, in denouncing the revolt of the inhabitants of Jerusalem against their God, associates Jerusalem with Sodom, saying: "They proclaim their sin as Sodom did, they do not hide it. Woe to those who do their own damage" (Isa 3:9). He does the same thing with the city of Babylon: "Babylon, the pearl of kingdoms, the proud adornment of the Chaldeans, will be overthrown by God like Sodom and Gomorrah. It will never be populated again; from age to age it will remain uninhabited. Not even the man of the steppes will pitch his tent there, nor will the shepherds stop there" (Isa 13:19-20). The association of Babylon's fate with Sodom also appears in Jeremiah (Jer 49:18; 50:40). Amos, for his part, associates the fate of the inhabitants of Samaria with that of Sodom: "I had shaken you as much as the divine shaking of Sodom and Gomorrah, and you were like a firebrand plucked from the fire, but you did not return to me" (Amos 4:11). Finally, the fate of the Moabites and the Ammonites is compared to that of the inhabitants of Sodom in the prophet Zephaniah (Zeph 2:9).

But Sodom is not only a reference as a punitive intervention of God, but also for its degree of wickedness. The prophet Jeremiah gives us a list of faults committed by the false prophets of Jerusalem, faults that he associates with those of Sodom: they engage in adultery and live in falsehood, they lend a hand to evildoers (Jer 23:14). Ezekiel gives us his own interpretation of the faults committed by the inhabitants of Sodom: "This was the fault of your sister Sodom: proud, full, carefree, she and her daughters; but she did not strengthen the hand of the poor and needy" (Ezek 16:49). Sirach makes a similar judgment to that of Ezekiel: "He did not spare the city of Lot, whose pride he abhorred" (Sir 16:8). Whatever Sodom's faults, they express the height of perversity. So to accuse someone of doing worse than Sodom is to accuse him of overstepping the mark, as the book of Lamentations does: "And the wickedness of this beautiful people of mine is greater than the iniquity of Sodom, which was overturned in a moment without any hands being moved" (Lam 4:6).

What about the New Testament? The interest of the second letter of Peter (2:6-7) and that of Jude (1:7) concerns the nature of the fault of the people of Sodom: that of unnatural sexual relations with angels who were taken for human beings. Paul, for his part, makes a negative reference to this: the whole people could have disappeared like Sodom if God had not taken the precaution of ensuring that there was a small remnant to have descendants (Rom 9:29). In the gospels, only Matthew and Luke refer to Sodom, and on this point they are very dependent on the Q document. Sodom serves mainly as a point of comparison in God's punitive intervention, whereas the fault of the cities of Galilee that refused the gospel message will be more serious than that of Sodom (Mt 10:15; 11:23-24; Lk 10:12). Uniquely, Luke presents the catastrophe of Sodom as an image of the day of the coming of the Son of Man: it will be an unpredictable event (17:28), no one will escape it (17:29), it is necessary to flee without looking back as Lot did (17:32).

As can be seen, the event recounted in Genesis about Sodom has become highly symbolic and each one has drawn from it a different element of symbolism according to the needs of the catechesis.

Let us say a word about archaeological research in the southeastern Dead Sea region. Between 1975 and 1980, there were excavations at four sites that bear the traces of a brutal destruction due to an earthquake accompanied by a violent fire around the middle of the Old Bronze Age, that is to say around 2,500 BC; the soil of the region being rich in hydrocarbons, bitumen contained underground would have gushed out during the earthquake and ignited (The Jewish historian Josephus [Judaic Antiquities, I, ch. 9] identifies the Dead Sea as being geographically close to the ancient biblical city of Sodom. He refers to the lake by its Greek name, Asphaltites, presumably because of the presence of bitumen). "It is not impossible that a local memory, or a reflection on the still visible ruins, was incorporated into the tradition of the patriarchs who came later" (Monloubou-Du Buit, Dictionnaire biblique universel, p. 707). Note that the southern region of the Dead Sea is shallow and, because of its salinity, favors salt ponds; thus, salt columns are found there that travelers can still observe today. It is probably from these columns of salt that the legend of Lot's wife developed. This region is now called Har Sedom or Jebel Usdum.

Here, in v. 12, Luke takes up a passage from the Q document that places the listener at the time of the great judgment, at the end of time, when God evaluates all peoples: despite the seriousness of the sins committed by Sodom, the sentence of this city will be lighter than that of the cities that have refused the gospel message. This verse implies two things:

1. The knowledge of the Gospel message emphasizes human responsibility in the direction of one's life and decisions;
2. God's punitive intervention can take place in two phases: an immediate intervention, as was the case in Sodom with the destruction of life, and a second intervention at the final judgment.

Of course, all these statements must be placed in the context of Jewish cosmology and theology, where disease and disasters were seen as a punitive intervention by God, and human history was to end in a final catastrophe and the judgment of God. Jesus seems to have distanced himself from such a view:

1. Sickness is not a punitive intervention of God and is not linked to sin, as his comment on the blind man ("Neither he nor his parents sinned that he was born blind", Jn 9: 3) and his reaction to the massacre of the Galileans ("Do you think that these Galileans were greater sinners than all the other Galileans for having suffered such a fate", Lk 13:2) or to the death of eighteen people killed by the collapse of the tower of Siloam ("Do you think that they were more guilty than all the other inhabitants of Jerusalem", Lk 13:4)
2. The emphasis of the judgment is more on the arrival in glory of the Son of Man, and thus the triumph of his message. Unfortunately, the first Christians, by integrating the framework of the Jewish apocalypse into their account of the end times, accentuated the destructive dimension.

Nevertheless, our verse 12, which comes from the Q document, therefore from an ancient source, could go back to the historical Jesus. So we are faced with a rhetoric with a pedagogical aim that accentuates the contrasts in human responsibility: whoever makes a choice in the light bears a greater responsibility than whoever makes a choice in the absence of knowledge; this is the case of the inhabitants of the cities of northern Galilee who had the good fortune to be in the presence of the evangelical light, which is not the case of the inhabitants of Sodom

Hēmera is the feminine name hēmera (day) in the dative singular which agrees with the preposition en (in, into). This word is very common in the gospels-Acts: Mt = 42; Mk = 25; Lk = 80; Jn = 30; Acts = 88; 1Jn = 1; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0, especially in Luke who uses it extensively.

Like the noun "day" in English, the Greek word hēmera is used to translate various realities.

1. It most often refers to the 24-hour day, and therefore may designate a specific number of days. For example:
   • Mk 1:13: "And he was in the wilderness 40 days (hēmera), tempted by Satan. And he was with the wild beasts and the angels served him."

2. However, it is often used not to refer to the 24-hour day, but to express a date, especially in the past: in this case, reference is made to a person or to events in time with the expression "in the days of...", or even more vaguely "in those days". We therefore refer to a period of time, or even a specific moment in time. For example:
   • Mt 23:30: "If we had lived in the days (hēmera) of our fathers, we would not have joined them in shedding the blood of the prophets.
   • Mt 22:46: "No one was able to answer him a word. And from that day (hēmera) on no one dared to question him any more".

3. We can also refer to a hypothetical event in the future for which we do not know the date: very often it is the day of judgment, or the dreaded catastrophe of the end of time, or even the departure of Jesus or his coming in glory.
   • Mk 13:24: "But in those days (hēmera) the sun will be darkened and the moon will no longer give its light".

4. The noun "day" is sometimes used in opposition to night. For example:
   • Lk 2:37: "she remained a widow; when she was 84 years old, she never left the Temple, serving God night and day (hēmera) in fasting and prayer".

5. Finally, it is sometimes used to describe the fact that a person is elderly, and therefore has many days. For example:
   • Lk 1:7: "But they had no children, because Elizabeth was barren, and they were both advanced in days (hēmera)"

Here, in v. 12, we have the expression "in these days" (tē hēmera ekeinē). The demonstrative pronoun "these" refers us to a future event that seems to designate the day of the end of time. Let us consider what the gospel traditions say about that day.

1. Mark
   • He distinguishes two periods, first the period before "that day" and then "that day" itself. In the period before, there will be great social upheavals, Christians will experience persecution, many false messiahs and false prophets will try to lead them astray (13:1-23). "That day" refers to the coming of the Son of Man surrounded by clouds, in the fullness of power and in glory, who comes to gather the elect; "that day" is accompanied by the setting aside of the stars and the shaking of the celestial powers, which are overshadowed by the Son of Man (13:24-32)
   • Mark insists that the exact timing of "that day" is known only to God, and that even the Son of Man does not know.

2. Document Q
   • This source presents us with the parable of the steward in charge of a house in the absence of the master and offers two scenarios: that of the faithful steward who has fed the household well and to whom the master will give more responsibility, and that of the unfaithful steward who has neglected the household and partied, and whom he will cut from his staff and send to meet the fate of the unfaithful / hypocrites. This story emphasizes two points: the return of the master (the Son of Man) is unpredictable, and on "that day" there will be an evaluation of everyone's conduct, and the result of the evaluation will have consequences for what happens next (Mt 25:45-51 || Lk 12:41-46). A similar story is the parable of the money (talents/mines) entrusted by a man to his servants to do business, and who on his return asks for an account: those who have made the money grow receive more responsibility, the one who has done nothing is deprived of what he received (Mt 25:14-30 || Lk 19:12-27)
   • That day corresponds to the coming of the Son of Man and will occur everywhere suddenly, like lightning crossing the sky (Mt 24: 27 || Lk 17: 24)
   • There will be no warning that this day is coming, as was the case with the flood at the time of Noah (Mt 24:37-39 || Lk 17:26-27)
   • That day corresponds to a judgment on humanity, and the judgment will be different according to the degree of responsibility, so that a city like Sodom will be judged less severely than the cities of northern Galilee that refused to be enlightened by the gospel message; moreover, at the time of the judgment, cities that refused the gospel message, such as Capernaum, will be thrown into Hades, that abode of the dead where half-lives are led (Mt 10:15; 11:21-23; Lk: 10:12-15)
   • With the Q document we see the expression "weeping and gnashing of teeth" to designate the fate of those who will be excluded from the Kingdom (Mt 8:11-12 || Lk 13:28)

3. Matthew
   • He is the only evangelist who uses the expression "Day of Judgment" (10:15; 11:22, 24; 12:37) and this must be understood in relation to his insistence on action: one can play important roles in the Church, such as that of prophet or exorcist, or perform miracles, but this will not prevent one from being excluded from the kingdom on the day of judgment if one's action is not in conformity with the gospel (7:22-23)
   • In the same way, "every unfounded word that men utter, they will give an account on the Day of Judgment" (12: 36)
   • In the great fresco of the scene of the Day of Judgment, it is the Son of Man in his glory who exercises judgment, and his criterion is what has been done or not done in the face of the hungry, the thirsty, the prisoners, the sick, the strangers; and the sentence is eternal life for some, eternal punishment for others (25: 1-46)
   • A feature of Matthew's gospel is the widespread use of the expression "outer darkness: there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (8:13; 13:43,51; 22:14; 24:51; 25:31), or "fiery furnace" (13:42,50) to designate the fate of those who will be excluded from the Kingdom

4. Luke
   • Luke has little interest in "that day" and in the judgment; most of the time he simply copies Mark and the Q document. Moreover, as much as Mark distinguishes well between what precedes the great day and the great day itself, in Luke everything seems to be one long sequence of events. However, throughout these difficult events, Luke tries to reassure his audience: when the Christians are dragged before the courts, they will be given language and wisdom which the adversaries will not be able to resist or contradict (21:15); not a hair on their head will perish (21:18); "when these events begin to take place, straighten up and lift up your heads, for your deliverance is coming" (21:29).
   • In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man is tortured in Sheol, while Lazarus is comforted by Abraham (16:22-26). Similarly, the "good thief" is promised paradise today without any evaluation of his life (23:43)
   • Nevertheless, Luke mentions the "great day of the Lord" (Acts 2:20), and it will be the role of the risen Jesus to "judge the universe with justice" (Acts 17:31)

5. Johannine Tradition
   • It mentions the "day of judgment", but the believer who lives in love confidently considers this day (1 Jn 4:17); in fact, with the coming of Jesus, the day of judgment has already taken place, because by taking a stand against him, one has judged oneself (3:19; 5:24)
   • Rather than speaking of "the day of judgment", the Johannine tradition prefers the expression "the last day": it is the day when Jesus will raise the believer (6: 39,40,44,54; 11: 24); it is the day when the Word that Jesus has spoken will judge every human being (12: 48)

What to conclude? In a unanimous way, "that day" designates the end of human history and the last intervention of the risen Jesus. This event will be sudden and unpredictable. And the last intervention of the risen Jesus takes various forms: "gather the elect", "raise the believer", "bring in the kingdom", "exclude from the kingdom"; there seems to be a form of evaluation of humanity, so that the actions taken have consequences. But all the terms used remain vague, and generally belong to the Jewish apocalypse which speaks of the resurrection of the dead and the punishment of the wicked.

In v. 12, the statement that the fate of Sodom will be less serious on the day of judgment than that of the cities of northern Galilee reveals little about the day of judgment; we learn only that refusing the light of the gospel carries a greater responsibility than that of the people of Sodom who were accused of being immoral.

Anektoteron is the adjective anektos in the comparative form, playing the role of attribute of the word "Sodom". It means: tolerable, bearable, and in the comparative form: more tolerable or bearable than. It appears only in the Q document in the whole Bible, and we know it from Matthew and Luke: Mt = 3; Mk = 0; Lk = 2; Jn = 0; Acts = 0; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0.

The Q document can be compared to loose sheets of stories and sayings of Jesus collected in a binder. Luke and Matthew draw from it independently according to the needs of their catechesis. Luke copies a passage about Jesus' reaction to the refusal of the cities of northern Galilee (Chorazin, Bethsaida, Capernaum) to hear his message and refers to the pagan cities (Tyre, Sidon) and sinful cities (Sodom and Gomorrah) which will be judged less harshly than the cities of his milieu. This passage is inserted in the second sending of missionaries (the 72), when Jesus evokes the possibility of not being welcomed. Matthew, for his part, first copies the beginning of the passage that alludes to Sodom and inserts it into the discourse surrounding Jesus' sending out of the Twelve on mission, when he mentions the possibility of not being welcomed (Mt 10:15); then, in a chapter in which he presents the reaction of different groups (Galileans, Pharisees) to Jesus' teaching, he copies the entire passage from the Q document in a section introduced thus: "Then he began to revile the cities where most of his miracles had taken place, because they did not change their mind" (Mt 11:20). In doing so, he copies twice the sentence about Sodom (10:15 and 11:24).

No matter how Matthew and Luke use the Q document, the message is the same: those who have been exposed to the gospel light will be more accountable than those who have not. One might ask: what exactly does "more tolerable than" mean? The Greek sentence is very concise and leaves little to be guessed at. Since the context is that of the day of judgment, one can only imagine that there will be degrees of severity in the sentence. But what does a greater degree of severity mean? We are not told, and probably the author of the Q document was not interested: his interest was only in insisting on the seriousness of the refusal of Jesus' fellow citizens, to perhaps "shake them up" a bit.

Ouai is the Greek word chosen by the Septuagint to translate various Hebrew words, all of which have in common that they convey an intense cry of pain or despair. These Hebrew words are first hôy, then ’ôy, and sometimes hô, hîy, or ’îy. They are usually translated in our Bibles as "woe" or "alas". But in fact they are onomatopoeias that could be translated as: "Ouch!", or "yikes", or "Ho no!", "argh", "Ho my God".

In the OT these words are quite present, especially in the prophetic tradition, especially in the first part of the book of Isaiah. The Septuagint has translated them all mostly by the same Greek word ouai. But the contexts in which these words are used can vary greatly.

1. First of all, there is the one in which a prophet denounces an attitude that is reprehensible and revolting in the eyes of God, and so his cry is one of exasperation ("How horrible [gr. ouai, héb. hôy]) They get up early in the morning to get drunk...", see e.g. Isa 5:8,11,18,20,21,22; or Am 5:18). Very often this cry is followed by the announcement of God’s intervention to remedy the situation and punish the guilty.

2. But there are also cases where the cry of horror is raised at the sight of a disaster, such as a military defeat (e.g. Lam 5:16: "The crown of our head is falling. How terrible [gr. ouai, Heb. ’ôy] for us! for we have failed", or the imminent arrival of enemy forces (e.g. Jer 4:13: "Like the clouds he comes up to attack; his chariots are like a hurricane, his horses are lighter than vultures. How terrible [gr. ouai, Heb. ’ôy] for us! We are devastated."

3. Sometimes, without reference to a specific event, the cry of horror is intended to express disgust at an enemy nation which believes itself to be invincible and which has caused much harm in the past; this cry is often followed by the hope of God’s intervention (e.g. Isa 33:1: "Ouch [Gr. ouai, Heb. hôy]! you [Assyria] who devastate and have not been devastated, you who surprise and have not been surprised. When you have stopped devastating, you will be devastated, when you have finished acting by surprise, you will be surprised".

4. In the sapiential tradition, this cry of horror loses its intensity and becomes more a way of pitying certain individuals and situations. Today we would say: "Poor you!" (e.g., Eccl 4:10: "Poor you [Gr. ouai, Heb. ’îy]! the one who is alone! If he falls, he has no helper to lift him up")

In the NT, we find some of these contexts. Revelation uses the most ouai to express horror at the imminent catastrophe that awaits the inhabitants of the earth and Rome (under the name of Babylon) thanks to the intervention of the angels of judgment because of their evil deeds. In Jude we find the prophetic language of the OT, which expresses its disgust at those who insult the angels of heaven and announces the intervention of God. Let us now turn to the gospels with the help of the following structure: to whom is the cry addressed? For what reason? What is the consequence of this situation?

1. Mark

   Verse	To whom?	Why?	Consequence
   13: 17	Pregnant women and those who will be breastfeeding	It will be difficult to run away from the enemies' attack	The prospect of death is implied
   14: 21	He who gives over the son of man	It allows authorities to put him to death	It would have been better if he had not been born (a useless and disastrous life)

   In Mark, the first cry of horror is in fact a complaint about the situation of certain women who will have difficulty escaping when Rome attacks Jerusalem. This is similar to some of the complaints in the OT about a catastrophe that is being announced. The second cry of horror can also be seen as a complaint about the action of Judas and could be translated as follows: "What a waste! One that has brought nothing".

2. Q Document

   Verse	To whom?	Why?	Consequence?
   Mt 11: 21 || Lk 10: 13)	Chorazin, Bethsaida	They are not repented before the miracles of Jesus	Treated more harshly on the day of judgment
   Mt 18: 7 || Lk 17: 1)	Those who cause scandals	They lead others to stop believing	Gehenna of fire (Mt only)
   Mt 23: 13 || Lk 11: 52)	Scribes and Pharisees (lawyers)	They bar the entrance of the Kingdom to men	They will not enter the Kingdom
   Mt 23: 23 || Lk 11: 42)	Scribes and Pharisees	Religious integralism while neglecting justice, mercy and faithfulness
   Mt 23: 27 || Lk 11: 44)	Scribes and Pharisees	Beautiful appearance, but the inside is hidden and is only dead bones and rot
   Mt 23: 29 || Lk 11: 47)	Scribes and Pharisees (lawyers)	Build the tombs of the prophets, while their fathers killed them

   These extracts from the Q document plunge us into the atmosphere of the OT prophets who denounce the entire people or individuals for rebelling against God and not following his Law. The Pharisees and scribes (in Luke) are denounced, but also the population of entire cities, or members of the Christian community who shake the faith of the most fragile. Horror is expressed at the attitude of these people. This attitude varies from refusal of the message of Jesus to a behavior contrary to the deepest will of God, including hypocrisy and lack of love for one's brother. Note that while some denunciations are accompanied by the announcement of some form of judgment, others are simply an expression of horror.

3. Matthew

   Verse	To whom?	Why?	Consequence?
   23: 15	Scribes and Pharisees	Make worthy of Gehenna those whom they have converted to Judaism	Gehenna
   23: 16	Scribes and Pharisees	Nonsensical casuistry
   23: 25	Scribes and Pharisees	They take care of the exterior purity, but the interior is bad

   Matthew's own passages seem to be a continuation of the Q document and the denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees. We are in a truly Jewish setting, with its emphasis on the details of the Law. The horror expressed is about taking the means as the end, and thus losing sight of the intent of the Law.

4. Luke

   Verse	To whom?	Why?	Consequence
   6: 24	The rich		They already have their consolation (meaning: will get nothing at the end of time)
   6: 25	The eaters		They will be hungry (implying: at the end of time)
   6: 26	Those who are spoken well of in the world		They are associated with false prophets
   11: 43	The Pharisees	They like the first seat in the synagogues and the greetings in the public places!
   11: 46	The Lawyers	They burden people with rules that are impossible to follow and they themselves do not follow them

   With Luke we observe a change of tone. First of all, the first three expressions of horror are situated in the context of the Beatitudes, and therefore express the "other side of the coin": after having valued the poor, Luke expresses horror for the rich, the well-to-do and the reputed. Why this horror? It is not clearly stated, but it seems to stem from the reversal of the situation that will one day take place, i.e. the rich will be stripped, will be hungry, their pretended reputation will be deflated. There are also two denunciations in Luke that concern the Pharisees and the lawyers: they are simple denunciations of the horror of certain attitudes, without mention of any consequences.

Thus, in the gospels ouai generally expresses a form of "disgust" at the behavior of certain individuals, a feeling that contrasts with the perception of society in general.

Here, in v. 13, we have an excerpt from the Q document which repeats the typical denunciations found in an Isaiah, a Jeremiah, an Ezekiel, an Amos or a Hosea.

Chorazin is a feminine name for a town located on the slope of Lake Tiberias (or Galilee) 3 km north of Capernaum (see the map). This Greek name would have a Hebrew etymology which means: the two cherries (Monloubou-Du Buit, Dictionnaire biblique universel, p. 117). Today it is the Khirbet Kerazeh, where the remains of a large synagogue from the 3rd and 4th centuries of our era can be seen.

The Q document, cited by Matthew and Luke, is the only one to mention this city in the entire Bible and seems to affirm that Jesus ministered and healed there. Why is this not mentioned elsewhere in the gospels? Remember that Matthew and Luke are dependent on Mark for Jesus' itinerary, and Mark did not include Chorazin for Jesus' period in Galilee, either because it did not fit his plan or because he had no source referring to it. As for John, he limits Jesus' intervention to a very limited number of places to which he gives great symbolic value: so either Chorazin was not a place of great value for his account, or he had no source referring to it. In any case, its mention in the Q document is not surprising, for it is one of the villages and towns of Galilee that Jesus went through "teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the Good News of the Kingdom and healing every disease" (Mt 9:35 || Lk 8:1).

Bēthsaida is a feminine name for this village located northeast of Lake Tiberias, on the west bank of the Jordan River, which empties into the lake (see the map). It is mentioned by the Q document (Mt 11:21 || Lk 10:13), Mark (6:45; 8:22), Luke (9:10) and John (1:44; 12:21). The Greek name is said to come from the Aramaic word beth (house) - tsaida (supply or fishery). Archaeological excavations at Et-Tell, the probable site, have revealed fishing gear, including lead weights used for fishing nets, as well as sewing needles used to repair fishing nets. These findings indicate that most of the city's economy was based on fishing in the Sea of Galilee.

According to John 1:44, Bethsaida was the home of Peter, his brother Andrew and Philip. Politically, Bethsaida belonged to the Gaulanitides (today's Golan Heights), under the rule of the tetrarch Philip (from 4 BC to 34 AD), who had the village erected as a city under the name of Bethsaida-Julias around 30 AD. Note that this eastern part of the shore of the Lake of Galilee was the most Greek part of Palestine, especially with the region of the Decapolis (the ten cities) further south. When some Greeks want to see Jesus, the evangelist John tells us that they first go to Philip; and the evangelist takes pains to specify: Philip was from Bethsaida. Why is this? Probably because he came from a milieu where there was a large group of Greek-speaking people, and so Philip understood Greek. This was probably also the case with Andrew, a very Greek name (male), whom Philip later addresses.

What events are linked to Bethsaida? Let us begin with Mark, where the village is mentioned twice. The context of the first mention (6:45) is that of the first feeding of the crowd, which happens "in a quiet place", in an uninhabited place, probably not far from Capernaum, according to what follows. At the end of this memorable meal, Jesus obliges his disciples "to get back into the boat and go before him to the other side, to Bethsaida. This is followed by the story of Jesus' walk on the water (6:46-52). At the end of this crossing, one would expect to arrive at Bethsaida. But no, Mark writes instead: "After the crossing, they landed at Gennesaret (a town on the western shore of the lake). What does this mean? Mark is obviously sewing together two independent accounts. Does he see the geographical inconsistency? Possibly, but it probably doesn't matter much to him. Matthew, on the other hand, seems to see the inconsistency and, when he copies this passage from Mark (see Mt 14:22), he simply deletes the mention of Bethsaida and writes: "Jesus obliged the disciples to get into the boat and go ahead of him to the other side." Note that the inconsistency is not completely removed, since by keeping the mention of Gennesaret he is referring to a town that is on the same (western) shore as Capernaum and the probable place of the first feeding of the crowd. But Matthew does not seem to have a good knowledge of Palestine, and in his mind Gennesaret was probably on the opposite shore. In any case, apart from the mention of going to Bethsaida, Mark will tell us nothing more about this village

The context of Mark's second mention of Bethsaida (8:22) is Jesus' ministry in Greek or Gentile territory. In the region of Tyre he heals the daughter of a Syro-Phoenician woman (7:24-30), then moves to the territory of the Decapolis (eastern part of the Lake of Galilee and the Jordan) and at an unidentified place on the shore of the lake he heals a deaf-mute; this is followed by the scene of the second feeding of the crowd, after which Jesus goes to Dalmanoutha, a completely unknown place, before leaving "for the other side" (8:13) and arriving at Bethsaida where he heals a blind man. Afterwards, Jesus goes back north to the region of Caesarea Philippi. Thus, all Mark reveals about Bethsaida is that it is a "village" (8:26) in the eastern sector of Palestine, in territory identified with the Greek or pagan world. In Mark we have a symbolic geography: the western shore of the Lake of Galilee belongs to the Jewish world, and the eastern shore to the Greek or pagan world.

Let us detail this statement. Before leaving for the pagan region of Tyre, according to Mark, Jesus has to face heated discussions with the Pharisees and some scribes about the ritual of Jewish ablutions in the western part of the Lake of Galilee. Earlier, near Capernaum, the first feeding of the crowd takes place, with its very Jewish symbolism: referring to 2 Kings 4:42-44 where the prophet Elisha feeds 100 people with 20 loaves of bread, thus multiplying the bread by five times, the story shows a Jesus more powerful than Elijah in multiplying the bread by a thousand times, and the twelve baskets that are left are to be kept to feed the twelve tribes of Israel. Mark presents us with a second feeding of the crowd that takes place while Jesus is ministering in the eastern part of Palestine. There is a consensus among biblical scholars (see Meier) that there was originally only one account of the feeding of the crowd, but that this account took on different colors depending on whether it circulated in the Jewish or Greek Christian milieu. In the Greek milieu, it was no longer 5,000 people, but 4,000 (the four cardinal points multiplied by a thousand), not five loaves, but seven (an important symbolic number in the Greek milieu, as shown by the institution of the Greek-speaking Septuagint (Acts 6:1-6) to support the work of the Twelve with the Hellenists; and of course it is seven baskets of bread that remain, not twelve.

What about Luke? Let us recall the context. Luke takes up Mark's account of the sending out of the Twelve on their mission (Lk 9:1-6) and of their return as the apostles recount what they have done (Lk 9:10). But whereas Mark writes: "And they went away in the boat to a deserted place apart" (Mk 6:32), Luke writes instead: "And taking them with him, he withdrew to a town called Bethsaida" (Lk 9:10b). Then follows the scene of the feeding of the crowd. But the question arises: since Luke depends on Mark for his account, how can he specify that the place of the scene is Bethsaida? One possible answer comes from a number of observations:

• Unlike Mark, followed by Matthew, Luke offers us only one scene of the feeding of the crowd; no doubt he saw it as an unnecessary double
• Luke skips the whole section of Mark between the two feedings of the crowd: the walking on the waters, probably too exotic for his Greek audience, the discussions on the clean and the unclean without interest for his audience, Jesus' stay in Tyre where he probably does not perceive the catechetical relevance for his audience. This is how he takes up Mark's account at the time of Peter's confession, after the second feeding of the crowd
• Luke and John seem to share a number of common traditions, the most obvious example of which is the miraculous catch of fish (Jn 21:1-14; Lk 5:1-11); but in John, where there is only one feeding of the crowd (Jn 6:1-15), the scene takes place in Bethsaida (this is not stated directly, but the scene takes place "on the other side", and at the end it returns to "the other side" in Capernaum). Luke must have known about this tradition of a single feeding of the crowd in the Bethsaida area.

Thus Luke is able to present us with a coherent account of a single feeding of the crowd in the Hellenistically marked region of Bethsaida, while retaining an ancient account with its Jewish coloring (5,000 men, twelve baskets of bread), followed by the crucial moment of Peter's confession about Jesus' identity.

It is time to return to our v. 13. At the end of this analysis, we can propose an answer to the following question: Why are the cities of Chorazin and Bethsaida targeted in this invective against the people who refused Jesus' message? If Mark is to be believed, would it not be Nazareth first and foremost (see Mk 6:4-6)? We can guess that these cities have a symbolic value. And from the geographical symbolism we have identified, we can say that Chorazin is mentioned as the chief town of the Jewish community, and Bethsaida as the chief town of the Greek community. In this way, it is the whole of the Jewish and Greek milieu that is targeted by this complaint of Jesus.

Tyrō is the feminine name Tyros, in the dative singular, the dative being required by the preposition en (into, in). It denotes the city of Tyre, in Hebrew Tsor, which comes from the noun tsûr meaning: rock or boulder; thus in some passages of Ezekiel (LXX: 26: 23,4,7,15; 27: 2,3,8) and Jeremiah (LXX: 21: 13) in the Septuagint, the name of the city is transliterated into Greek as: Sor. In the NT, only the synoptic gospels and Acts refer to it: Mt = 3; Mk = 3; Lk = 3; Jn = 0; Acts = 2; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0; in the Gospels, since two references in both Matthew and Luke come from the Q document (Mt 11:21-22 || Lk 10:13-14), and the third reference in Matthew (15:21) and Luke (6:17) is a reiteration of Mark (7:24), it can be argued that only Mark and the Q document mention this city. In Acts, the two occurrences of the word appear in Paul's journey from Miletus to Jerusalem to bring back the collection for the poor, when he must stop in Tyre (21:3-7).

Tyre was originally situated on an islet in front of the coast, hence the epithet "rock", and was a fortified city according to Jos 19:35. It is known from the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC and was part of the territory of the Philistines, one of the "sea peoples", during the OT period. It was then the commercial and cultural metropolis of all Canaan (Monloubou-Du Buit, Dictionnaire biblique universel, p. 751).

When we go through the OT concerning the way Tyre was perceived, we note two periods. First, there is the period of kings David and Solomon where relations are very cordial. Hiram, king of Tyre, sent David cedar wood, carpenters and stonemasons to build his palace (2 Sam 5:11). Similarly, the same king provided Solomon with cedar and juniper wood and gold at his discretion (1 Kings 9:11) and in return Solomon gave him 20 cities in Galilee. All this gives us an idea not only of Tyre's wealth, but of its technical expertise in cabinet making, masonry and metallurgy.

But the tone changes drastically with the prophets.

• Isaiah presents us with a prophecy announcing the devastation of Tyre without us really knowing why: it is probably its wealth, its pride, its arrogance that irritate the prophet (Isa 23:1-17).
• Jeremiah also speaks of the devastation of Tyre (Jer 47:4), not for specific reasons related to the city, but because Tyre is the land of the Philistines, and thus part of God's action against the nations; in fact, this is the prophet's theological interpretation of Tyre's tribulations caught up in the conflict between Nebuchadnezzar and the Egyptians, who will in turn occupy the city.
• The reproaches against Tyre are more explicit in Ezekiel (28:2): it is a city so proud that it believes itself to be the equal of God; by its intelligence it has made a fortune in trade and accumulated treasures of gold and silver
• Amos (1:9) criticizes Tyre for raiding its borders and selling whole groups of emigrants or prisoners as slaves.
• Zechariah (9: 1-2) reproaches Tyre for its wealth: "Tyre has built herself a fortress, she has accumulated silver as thick as dust and gold as the mud of the streets".

More information can be gleaned from the rest of the OT:

• Ps 45:13 uses the expression "daughter of Tyre" to describe the king's bride, a way of emphasizing the fact that she is very rich
• Ps 87:4 suggests that the city of Tyre had a worldwide reputation and that a person was proud to say, "I was born in Tyre."
• 2 Macc 4: 18 reveals that every four years in Tyre there was the equivalent of the Olympic games in honor of Melquart, the god of Tyre and Carthage, likened to the Greek Heracles

On the historical level, we know that Tyre succeeded in keeping its autonomy in front of the various empires of the Near East: Assyria, Babylonia, Persia, thanks especially to the support of Egypt. But Alexander the Great seized the city, after seven months of siege, by filling in a causeway from the coast to the island, to bring his war machines closer; with this filling in Tyre was no longer an island, but the isthmus we know today. The city became a typical Greco-Roman city.

This is the context in which we enter the NT. According to Mark (3:1), people had come from Tyre (about 34 miles) and Sidon (about 50 miles) to hear Jesus preach on the shore of the Lake of Galilee. Since the city of Tyre itself was heavily Hellenized, it can be assumed that it was Jewish peasants from the surrounding area who made the journey of a few days to hear the "rabbi". This fact would be confirmed by another passage in Mark (7:24) which tells us that Jesus went to the territory of Tyre for a form of retreat and went to stay in a house; we can guess that it was a Jewish peasant's house, since Mark tells of the contrasting arrival of a woman whom he describes thus: "the woman was a Greek (therefore not a Jew), of Syro-Phoenician race"; this account of Mark belongs to the cycle (7:24 - 8:26) where Jesus' interventions are with people in the Greek milieu. Mark thus emphasizes the strength of the influence of Jesus' ministry, whereas for John the Baptist he writes that they came only from "all the land of Judea" and from Jerusalem (1:5).

Luke in Acts (Acts 21:1-7) reveals some details about Tyre. The port seems to be still very active, so that Paul is able to board a ship sailing to Patara in Lycia (southern Turkey today: see map) which is to unload its cargo in Tyre. Luke also tells us that there was a small Christian community in this city, undoubtedly due to the dispersion of Greek-speaking Jews caused by a violent persecution in Jerusalem, of which Stephen was a victim (see Acts 11:19: "However, those who had been scattered by the turmoil over Stephen had passed on to Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, without preaching the Word to anyone but the Jews"). Paul spends seven days there, and at the end of his stay, the whole community goes outside the city and kneels on the beach, praying, before bidding farewell to Paul and his companion.

It remains for us to turn to the Q document which our v. 13 takes up. This text contrasts two Jewish cities (Chorazin and Bethsaida) with two "pagan" cities (Tyre and Sidon). It is only by reading the mention of Tyre and Sidon in the context of the OT prophets that we can understand the meaning of our passage. Indeed, the prophets are unanimous in predicting a punishment for the pagan cities of Tyre and Sidon, which are considered to be proud, rich, arrogant cities that believe themselves to be equal to God, in addition to having a cult to Melquart. The Q document takes up the idea that these cities will be punished by God on the day of judgment. But the fact that two Jewish cities will be punished even more severely shows the seriousness of the fault of the Jews who refused to open up to the message of Jesus.

Sidōni is the feminine name Sidōn in the dative singular, the dative being required by the preposition en (into, in). It refers to the city of Sidon, in Hebrew ṣîḏôn, meaning: hunting or fishing. The city of Sidon, also called Saida, is located 22 miles north of Tyre, and like Tyre, it is a seaport and a walled city (Isa 23:4). In the gospels, Sidon is always associated with Tyre: Mt = 3; Mk = 2; Lk = 3; Jn = 0; Acts = 1; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0.

Sidon appears to be a more ancient city than Tyre, for it was named long before Tyre, especially after the flood: "Canaan begat Sidon his first-born and Heth" (Gen 10:15). And when we speak of the delimitation of the territory of the Canaanites, only Sidon is named: "The Canaanite territory extended from Sidon to Gerar as far as Gaza, and to Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Cevoiim as far as Lesha" (Gen 10:19). Likewise, in speaking of the delimitation of the territory of Zebulun on the northwest coast, only Sidon is named: "Zebulun will have his dwelling by the sea. He has boats on the shore, and his borders overlook Sidon" (Gen 49:13). The first time the OT speaks of Tyre is during the reign of David and Solomon in the 10th century BC, and it is its king Hiram who seems to have given the city a considerable boost to the point that it overshadowed Sidon (see 2 Sam 5:11). If we are to believe Ezek 27:8, Tyre exercised a certain hegemony over Sidon: "You (Tyre) had the inhabitants of Sidon and Arvad for rowers; you had wise men on board, O Tyre; they were your sailors". It remains that the book of Joshua always gives to Sidon the attribute: the great one (Josh 11: 2,8; 19: 28)

It is difficult to get an idea of the particularity of the relations between Sidon and Israel, so often is Sidon associated with Tyre. On the one hand, Sidon appears to be a peaceful city ("when we went to explore the land as far as Laisa, we saw a people living in security, after the manner of the Sidonians, peaceful in their confidence", Judg 18:9) and when Alexander the Great took Tyre after a seven-month siege, the city of Sidon surrendered peacefully. On the other hand, the first book of the Maccabees clearly speaks of a coalition of the maritime cities of Ptolemais, Tyre and Sidon against Israel (1 Macc 5:15). The prophets' reproaches against Sidon are made through its association with Tyre. Only Ezekiel has an exclusive prophecy against Sidon (28:20-23), but one would look in vain for the reason why the Lord chastises the city; and what is remarkable is that as much as the prophet denounces the wealth and arrogance of Tyre, there is nothing of the sort for Sidon. Similarly, in the prophet Zechariah (9:2), although he announces a punishment for Tyre and Sidon, he mentions only the wealth of Tyre. Also, the only real reproach addressed to Sidon is that it is a pagan city, as can be read in the book of Judges: "The children of Israel began again to do what was evil in the sight of the Lord. They served the Baals and the Ashtaroths, the gods of Aram, the gods of Sidon, the gods of Moab, the gods of the sons of Ammon, and the gods of the Philistines. They forsook the Lord and served him no more" (Judg 10:6).

In the NT, only the Gospels-Acts mention Sidon, but as we have pointed out, Sidon is never separated from Tyre, with the exception of the passage in Acts 27:3 where the merchant ship on which Paul, then a prisoner, embarked after leaving Caesarea Maritime, makes a stopover in Sidon before going to the port of Myra in Lycia. Why Myra? It was the usual port of call for the ships full of wheat that arrived from Alexandria, in a straight line from the south, before heading for Italy. Why Sidon? It was the usual stopover before facing the open sea to go to Myra, bypassing Cyprus by the south. But the author of Acts informs us that the contrary winds from the west forced the ship to go around Cyprus by the north. In any case, this passage tells us that there was also a small Christian community in Sidon, as we have seen for Tyre. And the existence of this community can be explained for the same reasons as for that of Tyre.

For our v. 13, we can only repeat what we said in our previous analysis of Tyre. Sidon is the symbol of the pagan city, but since it has not been confronted with the light of the gospel, its responsibility will be less at the judgment.

Egenēthēsan is the verb ginomai in the passive aorist indicative, 3rd person plural, and it has dynameis (acts of power) as its subject. It basically means: to come into existence, hence to happen, to occur, to become. It is extremely frequent in the Gospels-Acts; it is even the fourth most used verb in the Gospels-Acts after legō (to say), eimi (to be) and erchomai (to go): Mt = 75; Mk = 55; Lk = 131; Jn = 51; Acts = 125; 1Jn = 1; 2Jn = 1; 3Jn = 1. As can be seen, it is Luke who uses it most frequently: when we combine his gospel and Acts we have a total of 256 occurrences. And in his gospel, out of a total of 131 occurrences, 111 are his own. Its major use is to introduce an event with the expression egeneto (It happened that...), 61 times out of the total of 131 occurrences of the verb in his gospel.

The context is different here in v. 13, because Luke copies a phrase from the Q document concerning "acts of power" or "miracles"; six of the occurrences of ginomai in Luke are from the Q document. What is noteworthy about v. 13 is that the verb ginomai is in the passive: had been done. What does this mean? Jesus is not talking about acts of power that he could have performed, but acts of power that could have been performed or happened. And when the verb is in the passive in the gospels, the subject is often God himself. Thus, acts of power are attributed to God alone, not to Jesus.

The same verb ginomai comes back a few words later in the expression: "those having been done". Here we have a passive past participle. Thus, the "miracles" witnessed by the people of Chorazin and Bethsaida are the work of God. If Jesus was really the author of the miracles, the author of the Q document would have used the verb poien (to do) and would have written: "those which I did in your house".

Dynameis is the feminine name dynamis in the nominative plural, the noun being the subject of the verb "had been done". It means: power, force, and has given us the names: dynamism, dynamite, dynamo. It appears regularly in the whole of the New Testament and in the Gospels-Acts, except in John: Mt = 12; Mk = 10; Lk = 15; Jn = 0; Acts = 10; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0.

In the glossary one can find a presentation of dynamis. Recall that in classical Greece, dynamis refers to the ability to perform an action. In the Septuagint, dynamis was used extensively to translate the Hebrew yhwh ṣěbāʾôt (Jeremiah 33:12 LXX: "Thus says Yahweh Sabaot" [kyrios tōn dynameōn, the Lord of hosts]). It also translates the Hebrew word ʿōz: strength, which is considered a quality of God (Psalm 89:11: "It was you who split Rahab like a corpse, scattered your adversaries by your arm of power [dynamis]"); it is through this power that God intervenes with his people.

For the NT, let us first consider the non-evangelical writings. The word dynamis in the plural often has the meaning of acts of power or brilliance which our Bibles translate as "miracles" and which correspond to the prodigies of the OT. Paul recognizes that some members of the Christian community have this charism, which he distinguishes from the charism of healing (1 Cor 12:10, 28-29). In the plural, dynamis also refers to those super-terrestrial forces that belong to the cosmos and seem to have a negative influence on the course of history (see Rom 8:38) and that Jesus, through his resurrection, finally brought into submission (1 Peter 3:22). In the singular, dynamis has a range of meanings:

1. it refers to the power of God that Paul opposes to human wisdom (1 Cor 1:18), and it is this power that was manifested at creation (Rom 1:20), and that continues through the proclamation of the gospel (Rom 1:16), which raised Jesus and will raise us in our turn (1 Cor 6:14)
2. this power of God is expressed through the gift of the Holy Spirit who strengthens the inner man (Eph 3:16) and makes the word persuasive (1 Cor 2:4)
3. risen, Jesus is clothed with the power of God which enables him to act in the world and will be manifested with brilliance at the time of his return (2 Thess 1: 7)
4. dynamis also has the general and common meaning of strength, capacity, value: "the tribulation that has come upon us in Asia has overwhelmed us beyond our capacity (dynamis)" (2 Cor 1:8)
5. The words "power" and "authority" are sometimes used synonymously, so that power is what allows one to establish one's authority: "You are worthy, O our Lord and our God, to receive glory, honor and power (dynamis), for you created the universe; by your will it was not and was created." (Rev 4:11)
6. In the Pauline tradition, dynamis is sometimes synonymous with action, and is therefore opposed to word, insofar as action must accompany word: "For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but in power (dynamis), in the working of the Holy Spirit, in superabundance" (1 Thess 1:5).

Let us now turn to the Gospels-Acts. Dynamis basically means a transforming power. But depending on the context, this power has different faces.

1. Very often, as we have seen in the OT, "power" is the attribute of God, and so we speak of the power of God, or the power of the Most High, or the power of the Spirit, or the power of the Lord, or we simply refer to God as Power.
   • Mk 14: 62: "Jesus said, 'I am; and 'you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power (dynamis),' and 'coming with the clouds of heaven.'"

2. Also quite frequently, and especially in the plural, dynamis refers to the impact of this transforming power of God in the face of disease, which our Bibles translate as "miracles," and which we translate as "acts or deeds of power."
   • Mk 6: 2: "On the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astounded. They said, "Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What deeds of power (dynamis) are being done by his hands!"

3. The source of this power is not always identified, which makes it possible to associate this attribute with various realities to describe its characteristics:
   • It is associated with the return of Christ or the Kingdom of God (Mk 9:1; 13:26)
   • It describes the ball of energy that was extracted from Jesus (Mk 5:30)
   • It colors the intervention of John the Baptist with the same power as that deployed by Elijah (Lk 1:17)
   • It characterizes the word of Jesus, so that the unclean spirits are expelled (Lk 4: 36)
   • It characterizes the testimony of the apostles to the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 4: 33)
   • It appears as an object that can be entrusted to someone, so much so that Jesus sends the Twelve with this ability over the disease (Lk 9: 1)
   • But this attribute can also be that of the enemy (Lk 10:19)

4. The word dynamis is also used in the plural in reference to the cosmic forces that exert a harmful influence on humanity and that will finally be destroyed at the end of time
   • Mk 13: 25: "and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers (dynamis) in the heavens will be shaken"

5. Finally, dynamis can simply refer to a personal capacity.
   • Mt 25, 15: "to one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his power (dynamis). Then he went away"

Luke is the greatest user of this word in the gospels: not only does the word appear 15 times, of which 11 occurrences are his own. But among the passages that are his own, only once (19:37) does dynamis designate what our Bibles call "miracle", even though he likes to insist that the Twelve received a power that allowed them to heal; Luke prefers to speak of "miracle" in his summaries: summary of Jesus' activity (Lk 19:37; Acts 2:22), Philip's activity (8:38), Paul's activity (Acts 19:11).

In v. 13, dynamis appears in a sentence from the Q document. This is the only example we have. The word clearly refers to what we have called "acts or deeds of power" and which is usually translated as "miracles". But we are not talking about any particular act of power. Rather, the emphasis is on the role that all of these acts of power should have played: that of being a sign of God's presence in Jesus, and thus should have caused an opening of the heart. This is the meaning that Luke expresses in Acts 2:2: "Jesus the Nazarene, this man whom God has accredited to you by the acts of power (dynamis), wonders and signs that he has performed through him in your midst. The evangelist John does the same thing, never using the word dynamis, but only the word "sign" (sēmeion). In other words, the "acts of power" should have been interpreted as a word from God, but were not. Why? The reference to Sidon and Tyre, which would have welcomed this word of God, gives us some clues:

• No one is a prophet in his own country, and perhaps the Galileans were reluctant to have this word of God come through one of their own
• As Jews, these Galileans probably lived in the assurance of possessing the truth about God, and therefore may have been less open than Gentiles faced with various legends.

Palai is an adverb which means: since a long time, formerly. It is extremely rare in the whole Bible, and in particular in the Gospels-Acts: Mt = 1; Mk = 1; Lk = 1; Jn = 0; Acts = 0; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0.

The adverb is intended to express a length of time. For example, in the NT, it refers to the length of time since the death of Jesus (Mk 15:44), the length of time Paul intervened in Corinth (2 Cor 12:19), the length of time God spoke through the prophets (Heb 1:1), the length of time since the Christian was purified by his baptism (2 Pet 1:9), the length of time God knows the ungodly who corrupt the community (Jude 1:4).

In v. 13, the author of the Q document states that if the Gentiles of Tyre and Sidon had witnessed the "acts of power" through Jesus, their hearts would have been opened "long ago." What does this mean? The notion of time is relative: on the one hand, there were no acts of power in Tyre and Sidon, and on the other hand, if there had been, it is not known how much time would have passed between these acts and the conversion of the people of Tyre and Sidon. In fact, the point of reference suggested by the story is the moment when Jesus makes his complaint: assuming that the acts of power had long since occurred at the same time in Tyre and Sidon as in Chorazin and Bethsaida, these Phoenician pagans would now, at the moment Jesus makes his complaint, be disciples. This means that the people of Tyre and Sidon would have accepted his word immediately, without hesitation.

Thus, the emphasis in v. 13 is on the fact that the "acts of power" that occurred in Chorazin and Bethsaida were so convincing and decisive that even the Gentiles of Tyre and Sidon would have immediately opened their hearts to Jesus' message without hesitation. This emphasizes the responsibility of the people of Galilee and their closed-mindedness.

Sakkō is the masculine noun sakkos in the dative singular, the dative being required by the preposition en (into, in). It means: sackcloth, and appears throughout the NT only in this quotation from the Q document (Mt 11:21; Lk 10:13) and in Revelation (6:12; 11:3).

The word sakkos is more common in the Septuagint because it was the choice of the translators to translate the Hebrew saq, which originally meant a coarse cloth made of goat or camel hair. Because the cloth was coarse, it could appear very dark.

• Rev 6: 12: "When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and there came a great earthquake; the sun became black as sackcloth (sakkos), the full moon became like blood"

This cloth could be used to make sacks for grain or victuals, as shown in the scene in Gen 42:27 when one of Joseph's brothers, on his return from Egypt, in a rest stop, opens his sack (saq) to give fodder to his donkey and sees the money Joseph had put in it. But in the same sentence the author of the narrative uses a synonym, 'amtaḥat (sack, flexible container for grain), which the Septuagint translated into Greek as: marsippos. Leviticus (11:32) gives us the rules for purification when bugs are in them. These bags were part of the usual equipment for travel, both for personal luggage and for an animal's food.

• Josh 9: 4: LXX "nd they also wrought craftily, and they went and made provision and prepared themselves; and having taken old sacks (sakkos) on their shoulders, and old and rent and patched bottles of wine."

Usually, saq means this loincloth or tunic made of this coarse material that covered the body from neck to ankle as a sign of mourning and penitence. It seems that it was worn directly over the skin (see Job 16:15 where his state of mourning is so long that the "sackcloth" appears sewn onto his skin), and it could be girded around the loins with a rope.

• 2 Kings 6: 30: LXX "And it came to pass, when the king of Israel heard the words of the woman, that he rent his garments; and he passed by on the wall, and the people saw sackcloth (sakkos) within upon his flesh"
• Isa 3: 24: LXX "And there shall be instead of a sweet smell, dust; and instead of a girdle, thou shalt gird thyself with a rope; and instead of a golden ornament for the head, thou shalt have baldness on account of thy works; and instead of a tunic with a scarlet ground, thou shalt gird thyself with sackcloth (sakkos)"

Finally, this fabric is sometimes presented as part of the prophet's clothing (e.g. in Isaiah 20:2, Isaiah wore "sackcloth" before going on his mission naked)

• Rev 11: 3: "And I will grant my two witnesses authority to prophesy for one thousand two hundred sixty days, wearing sackcloth (sakkos)."

Carrying the bag was one of the elements of the penitential and mourning rite that manifested itself in many ways:

1. The first gesture was often to tear a piece of his clothing:
   • Gen 37: 34: LXX "And Jacob rent his clothes, and put sackcloth (sakkos) on his loins, and mourned for his son many days"

2. Sometimes one shaved his heads and beards:
   • Jer 48: 37 (31): LXX "They shall all have their heads shaved in every place, and every beard shall be shaved; and all hands shall beat the breasts, and on all loins shall be sackcloth (sakkos)"

3. Fasting could be part of the penitential rite:
   • Jon 3: 5: LXX "And the men of Nineve believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloths (sakkos), from the greatest of them to the least of them"

4. The rite involved throwing ashes or dust on his face or head:
   • Lam 2: 10: LXX "Jod. The elders of the daughter of Sion have sat upon the ground, they have kept silence: they have cast up dust upon their heads; they have girded themselves with sackcloths (sakkos): they have brought down to the ground the chief virgins in Jerusalem."

5. The rite was accompanied by tears and lamentations:
   • Am 8: 10: LXX "and I will turn your feasts into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation; and I will bring up sackcloth (sakkos) on all loins, and baldness on every head; and I will make them as the mourning of a beloved friend, and those with them as a day of grief"

This is the context in which the word "sackcloth" in our v. 13 should be read. What is being said? If the people of Tyre and Sidon had witnessed God's actions through Jesus, they would have entered into a penitential rite, of which the most typical element is to be clothed in a tunic of coarse material made of skin. In this rite, one acknowledges having erred through one's fault, one strips oneself of the old man in the hope of receiving God's forgiveness.

The evocation of this penitential rite says one thing about the message of Jesus: it cannot be received without a change of life.

Spodō is the feminine noun spodos in the dative singular, the dative being required by the preposition en (into, in). It means: ashes, and only appears in the whole NT in this citation from the Q document (Mt 11:21 || Lk 10:13) and in the epistle to the Hebrews (9:13).

The word is more frequent in the Septuagint and translates the Hebrew: 'ēper (the only exception being Lev 1:16 where the Hebrew uses dešen to designate these fat ashes from the temple burnt offerings, and which the Septuagint has translated by the same word spodos). We can identify three contexts in which the word "ashes" appears.

1. Ash is basically the result of the combustion of matter. This particularity of the laws of physics gives the biblical author the opportunity to use various images to translate his message.
   • It is the image of a complete destruction: the prophet Ezekiel announces that Tyre will be reduced to ashes (Ezek 28:18; see also Mal 3:21)
   • The ash sticks to the feet, and thus makes it possible to trace those who pass in a place, a stratagem used by Daniel (Dn 14: 14)
   • It is the image of what is left for the poor to eat when everything has been consumed by fire (Lam 3:16; Ps 102:10)
   • Ashes are light, which serves as a comparison to the fog that spreads (Ps 147:5) or allows Job to announce to his adversaries that their pride will be scattered like ashes (Job 13:12)
   • Ash is also a means of torture that would have been practiced by the Persians in the 5th and 4th centuries BC and which is echoed in 2 Macc 13: 5-8: a prisoner would be locked in a tower full of ash and a rotating machine, tilted on all sides towards the ash, would collect this ash and end up covering the prisoner completely until he suffocated

2. Ash is the symbol of a reality without any value, associated with dust. In the OT it often occurs in pair with "dust" (Heb. 'āpār), which the Septuagint often translated as "earth" (gē); the Hebrew has this play on words: 'āpār wā-'ēper (dust and ash)
   • Gen 18: 27: LXX "And Abraam answered and said, Now I have begun to speak to my Lord, and I am earth and ashes (spodos)"
   • Job 42: 6: LXX "Wherefore I have counted myself vile, and have fainted: and I esteem myself dust and ashes (spodos)"

3. Finally, ashes appear in the context of the penitential and mourning rites with the wearing of the coarse cloth tunic, made of goat or camel hair, called "bag". One of the gestures was to throw ashes in the face. Why was this done? The biblical authors don't say, but we can guess the reason: it is a question of getting dirty, and thus of attacking one's beauty, which is a source of pride; from then on, one resembles the beggars and the poor who cannot "make themselves beautiful". It is therefore a gesture of humiliation. The same meaning appears in the related gesture of sitting in ashes, i.e. in dirt; it is the destruction of all self-esteem. All this is a starting point, if one wants to leave one's old behaviors, to throw away the old man, to humble oneself before God by asking him for forgiveness, and to engage in a new way.
   • Ezek 27: 30: LXX "And they shall wail over thee with their voice, and cry bitterly, and put earth on their heads, and spread ashes (spodos) under them"
   • Esth 4: 17k: LXX "And queen Esther betook herself for refuge to the Lord, being taken as it were in the agony of death. And having taken off her glorious apparel, she put on garments of distress and mourning; and instead of grand perfumes she filled her head with ashes (spodos) and dung, and she greatly brought down her body, and she filled every place of her glad adorning with the torn curls of her hair. And she besought the Lord God of Israel, and said"

It is in this last context that we must read v. 13, which assumes that the people of Tyre and Sidon would have sat down on sackcloth and ashes, witnessing the acts of power wrought by God in Jesus: they would have humbled themselves, recognized their fault, asked God for forgiveness and embarked on a new path.

Kathēmenoi is the verb kathēmai in the present middle participle, in the masculine plural nominative, agreeing in gender and number with "the people of Tyre and Sidon" which are implied. It is synonymous with kathizō (to sit), which is its equivalent in the active form, and means to sit down. It is found regularly in the Gospels-Acts: Mt = 19; Mk = 11; Lk = 13; Jn = 4; Acts = 6; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0.

According to the various contexts, the verb kathēmai can have various meanings.

1. To sit in a place is to take possession of it, to inhabit it, to stay there and to interact with others
   • Mt 4: 16: "the people who sat (kathēmai) in darkness have seen a great light, and for those who sat (kathēmai) in the region and shadow of death light has dawned"

2. It is the nature of a judge to sit on the bench and pronounce his sentence
   • Mt 19: 28: "Jesus said to them, "Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory, you who have followed me will also sit (kathēmai) on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel"

3. In Palestine, the teacher sits to teach, and the disciples sit to listen to the teacher
   • Mk 4: 1: "Again he began to teach beside the sea. Such a very large crowd gathered around him that he got into a boat on the sea and sat (kathēmai) there, while the whole crowd was beside the sea on the land"

4. Sitting is also the position one takes to observe or watch someone
   • Mt 27: 36: "then they sat (kathēmai) down there and kept watch over him"

5. The beggar sits down to beg as a sign of inferiority and humility
   • Mk 10: 46: "They came to Jericho. As he and his disciples and a large crowd were leaving Jericho, Bartimaeus son of Timaeus, a blind beggar, was sitting (kathēmai) by the roadside."

6. It is where you usually conduct your daily activities and practice your profession
   • Mk 2: 14: "As he was walking along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting (kathēmai) at the tax booth, and he said to him, "Follow me." And he got up and followed him"

7. To travel, we sit on our means of transport
   • Jn 12: 15: "Do not be afraid, daughter of Zion. Look, your king is coming, sitting (kathēmai) on a donkey's colt!"

In v. 13, what would be the significance of sitting in ashes for the people of Tyre and Sidon? We can associate this gesture with that of the beggar who assumes a pose of abasement and humility. But it also means to dwell in this place of dirt to express that aspect of oneself with which one has lived and which one now wants to leave.

The question remains: this v. 13 belongs to the Q document, which is also found in Mt 11:27, but the versions in Luke and Matthew are identical, except that in Luke the phrase "sitting down" is present; is this an addition by Luke to the Q document, or an omission by Matthew? There is no way to answer such a question with confidence, but it is more likely that the phrase "sitting" was part of the Q document. For Luke usually follows more closely the Q document he is copying (see the prayer of the Lord's Prayer), and the author of the Q document seems to be inspired by the account of Jonah where the expression "sitting in ashes" is found along with the verb metanoeō (to change one's mind).

"When the news reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, removed his robe, covered himself with sackcloth, and sat (kathizō) in ashes." (Jon 3: 6)
"Who knows? God may relent and change his mind (metanoeō): he may turn from his fierce anger, so that we do not perish" (3: 9)

The presence or absence of the verb "to sit" is not very important, because the Greek preposition en (in, into) implies that the people are sitting in the ashes, and Matthew may have found the verb "to sit" redundant.

Metenoēsan is the verb metanoeō in the active aorist indicative, 3rd person plural. It is a verb formed from the preposition meta (after, beyond) and the verb noeō (to perceive by thought, to realize, to grasp), and thus literally means: to realize afterwards, hence to change one's mind or opinion, which our Bibles translate as: to repent, to convert. It is not very frequent in the Gospels-Acts, and is totally absent from John: Mt = 5; Mk = 2; Lk = 9; Jn = 0; Acts = 5; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0; elsewhere, in the NT, it appears almost exclusively in Revelation.

To help us grasp the meaning of the verb, let us go through the Septuagint. The translators of the Hebrew Bible used metanoeō to translate the Hebrew verb nāḥam, one of whose meanings is: to regret. But while regret is sometimes translated by the Septuagint by the Greek term metamelomai, the choice of metanoeō usually occurs in a context where one regrets a decision and commits to changing the direction of one's action, so that nāḥam is very often accompanied by the verb šûḇ (to return, to go back) and which the Septuagint translated as epistrephō or apostrephō. Here are two examples:

• Jer 4: 28: LXX "Let the earth weep over these evils; let the sky darken in its heights; I have spoken and I will not change my mind (Gr. metanoeō, Heb. nāḥam); I have rushed forward, and I will not go back (Gr. apostrephō, Heb. šûḇ) from the goal"
• Jon 3: 9: LXX "Who knows if God will change his mind (Gr. metanoeō, Heb. nāḥam), and will not go back (Gr. apostrephō, Heb. šûḇ) of his fierce anger, and so we shall not perish?

One will have noticed that both examples have God as their subject: in fact the subject of the verb metanoeō is more often God than the human being in the Septuagint, because very often God had to intervene to correct his people, and when these people return to their God, then the latter changes his mind in his decision to punish them. It is easy to understand why the verbs nāḥam (regret) and šûḇ (return) go together, for they are two aspects of the same reality: regret is about a decision that was made, and turning away is a new decision to leave the bad behavior. Interestingly, the Septuagint translator so expected to always find this pairing in the prophetic tradition that he added it to his translation of Isa 46:8; let us compare the two versions.

Hebrew text	Translation of the Septuagint
Remember this, to revive your ardor, you transgressors, return (šûḇ) on this in the bottom of your hearts,	Remember these things, and groan; change your mind (metanoeō), O you who have gone astray; return (epistrephō) in your hearts

Note that in the sapiential tradition (Job, Qohelet, Psalms) where a Hebrew version is available, the verb nāḥam is never translated by metanoeō. In the book of Proverbs, metanoeō translates Hebrew verbs such as bāqar (to think) and šîṯ (to consider, to place, to establish).

What about the NT? First of all, metanoeō never applies to God, but only to human beings. It is the book of Revelation that uses this verb the most, first in the context of the local churches to whom it reproaches elements of their conduct, and then in the context of the great judgment of humanity, which is accused of having fallen into idolatry and of not returning to God despite the message of the plagues. Here we find the prophetic tradition to some extent: there is a call to leave bad behavior.

The atmosphere in the Gospels is a little different.

1. Mark

   It was Mark who introduced the verb metanoeō into the Synoptics. But unlike everywhere else in the Bible, the context is one of good news: "The time is fulfilled and the Kingdom of God is at hand: change your minds (metanoeō) and believe in the Good News" (1:15). If we understand Mark correctly, in order to believe in the Good News, we must "change our minds". We are not talking here about bad behavior from which one should distance oneself, but about accepting a new reality, that of the world of God which has become more present in Jesus; and this acceptance cannot be done without accepting that one's mental universe be turned upside down. This upheaval probably concerns two points in the Jewish universe: it is God who takes the initiative to intervene gratuitously with a face of compassion, without this being linked to the observance of the Law; secondly, God makes himself present through a human mediation, the very person of Jesus.

   Mark presents us with the call to "change one's mind" with disconcerting brevity, for he only returns to the subject when the Twelve are sent on their mission, when he simply writes: "They went out and proclaimed that it was necessary to change one's mind" (6:12). Only by considering the preceding context does one understand the challenge: in Nazareth people were saying, "Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" and they could not believe in him" (6:3-6). One cannot believe without changing one's mind about God himself and his way of being present in the world.

2. Q Document

   This source shared by Matthew and Luke offers us two passages. There is the one that is the object of our analysis (Mt 11:21 || Lk 10:13) where Jesus reproaches two cities of Galilee for not having changed their minds at the sight of the acts of powers operated by God in Jesus. Unfortunately, since this source is not a complete gospel, but various texts collated like leaves from a schoolbag, it is difficult to grasp the full context of these words. But we can guess that "changing one's mind" means accepting that the acts of power witnessed by the people of Chorazin and Bethsaida should have been seen as signs accrediting Jesus as God's messenger, and thus accrediting his message around the Good News. As we saw in Mark, where the people of Nazareth could not believe that this Good News was mediated by one of their own, we can assume that this was the case for these two towns in Galilee.

   The other passage (Mt 12:41 || Lk 11:32) refers to a scene in the book of Jonah, ch. 3, where the prophet, after failing in his mission, ends up announcing the destruction of the great pagan city of Nineveh, and the city begins to change its attitude, to mourn and to do penance under sackcloth, with the hope that God will change his mind and not bring destruction upon the city. And so God reversed his decision to harm them. The text of the Q document ends with "And there is more here than Jonah". The context is that of the sign that this generation demands, and Jesus is referring to the sign of Jonah, i.e. his unharmed passage through the belly of the sea monster, but which is in fact a reference to the death of Jesus. The logic of the whole argument is this: if the pagans of Nineveh welcomed the word of the prophet Jonah, how much more should the people of Jesus' time have welcomed his word, and thus changed their ideas about him and about God.

3. Matthew

   The evangelist seems to have little interest in this theme and simply copies both Mark (Mt 3:2; 4:17) and the Q document (Mt 11:20-21; 12:41).

4. Luke

   The evangelist shows the greatest interest in the subject and makes it a theme of his gospel. Of the nine occurrences of the verb metanoeō in his gospel, seven are his own. Moreover, in his Acts, he even delights in picking up the style of the prophetic tradition where the Hebrew text uses the pair nāḥam and šûḇ translated by the Septuagint as the pair metanoeō and epistrephō. For example:

   but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout the countryside of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should change their mind (metanoeō) and turn (epistrephō) to God and do deeds consistent with a change of mind (Acts 26: 20; see also Acts 3: 19)

   In Acts, the primary meaning of "change of mind" is quite clear: in his speech to the Jews, Peter reminds them that they crucified Jesus, but that God raised him from the dead, and so changing their minds means recognizing that they were mistaken and must now believe in the risen Jesus by being baptized (see Acts 2:38; 3:19). In his speech in Athens, Paul tells his audience that God is not reduced to idols of the human imagination, and therefore to change one's mind means to put aside these idols and turn to the God of Israel who raised Jesus from the dead (Acts 17:30). In his speech to King Agrippa, Paul recalls his conversion and his mission to both Jews and Gentiles, and in this context changing one's mind means recognizing that one had been living in ignorance until then, rejecting Christians among the Jews, worshipping idols among the Gentiles, and welcoming God's action in Jesus. In short, the change of mind involves coming to believe in the risen Jesus. Luke also presents us with a second meaning of the change of mind, this time on the moral level: Simon the magician is invited to renounce the idea of buying the ability to give the Holy Spirit and to ask God's forgiveness (Acts 8:22).

   These two contexts for the change of mind are also found in his gospel. The verb first appears in a context where it is important to discern the signs of the time before it is too late. The call to change one's mind comes in the context of two disasters (13: 3,5) where people lost their lives: Luke does not explain what this change of mind is, emphasizing that it must be done now; but the overall context is one of a call to be aware of this unique time of Jesus and his message. The two parables of the lost sheep and the lost coin (15:7,10) offer an example of what it means to "change one's mind": the lost sheep and the lost coin probably represent members of the community who have left it, and the change of mind is their return through pastoral work, which is celebrated with great joy. This theme will also be taken up in a mini-canon law (17: 3-4) concerning a brother who has offended us and the attitude to have: if this brother changes his mind and re-establishes ties, we must always forgive. Finally, there is the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, in particular the scene in Hades where the rich man asks to go and warn his five brothers to change their minds so that they do not suffer the same fate as he did; the change of mind is rather a change of heart, for the rich man's fault is not to have seen Lazarus at his door. As we can see, change of mind is not a uniform notion, but applies to different realities. But we can affirm that it always implies a disposition of the heart.

What to conclude? There is no single definition of metanoeō. Nevertheless, this reality is presented in a positive way throughout the Bible. It assumes that human beings, in their freedom, can err. But he also has the possibility of recognizing this error, and of returning to the path of truth; not everything is fixed in a form of determinism.

In the NT, this change of mind concerns above all the way in which Jesus is viewed: because of what he said and did, and the face of God that he transmits, we can only really welcome him by renouncing a whole world that we have received and that we have forged for ourselves. For a Jew, it is the world of the Law and of the transcendence of God; for a pagan, it is the security of the many idols and of his moral universe. For the Christian, the first step in changing his mind is to become aware of everything that in itself deviates from what Jesus said and did.

In v. 13, this excerpt from the Q document places us before the Jewish audience in Galilee and complains about the lack of change of mind among those who refused to see in a fellow countryman a word from God. This excerpt leaves us with the mystery of human freedom, but we can guess that these people were not seekers of truth, an essential condition for changing their minds.

Kapharnaum is the name Kapernaum or Kapharnaoum in the feminine singular vocative. It is a name of Aramaic origin: Kephar nâḥûm (village of Nahum). This village is located 2.5 miles from the mouth of the Jordan River when it flows from the north into the Lake of Galilee (or Gennesaret or Kinneret or Tiberias). Since the Jordan River was the border between Galilee and Gaulanitides (today's Golan Heights, see map), between the authority of Herod Antipas and Philip, Capernaum was the main border town, and therefore had a customs office and a royal garrison to police it. The village underwent a great development in the 3rd and 4th centuries. The great synagogue, discovered in 1905, dates from this period and was built in the Greek-Syrian style. Nearby, the remains of a Byzantine octagonal church, built around an older house, venerated as the House of Peter by the ancient pilgrims, were recently discovered. Today, the place is called Tell Hum (Monloubou-Du Buit, Dictionnaire biblique universel, p. 106).

But our main interest is the place of Capernaum in the gospel story and the ministry of Jesus. On this point, we must consider the evangelists individually, since their perspective is so different. To see this more clearly, let us consider each evangelist with the following table.

What can we learn from this picture of Capernaum? Only Mark and Matthew give some importance to Capernaum. For Mark, it is the place of residence of Peter and Andrew, and will become that of Jesus during his ministry; Jesus teaches in the synagogue and performs many healings there. Matthew gives the city its great importance and the vision that the Christian communities will have afterwards; he clearly indicates that Jesus leaves his family environment in Nazareth to settle in Capernaum with Peter and Andrew and make it his headquarters during his ministry. Many of the events that appear scattered throughout Galilee are brought back to Capernaum in Matthew. And above all, he made this residence in Capernaum the prototype of the Christian community: the private explanations of his teaching take place there and all the discourse on the rules of community life takes place there.

What about Luke and John? For them, it is a city of no particular interest, and there is no mention of Peter and Andrew having lived there with Jesus, let alone of it having been Jesus' headquarters during his ministry. At most, John places the discourse on the bread of life in the synagogue and Luke presents us with the Q document account of the healing of the centurion's slave. What does this mean? None of the writers of the final version of the gospels was an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry, so they all have to rely on various sources or traditions. The author of the primary source used by the final writer of the fourth gospel was probably a resident of Jerusalem, which explains the wealth of detail about the city and the rather sketchy knowledge about Galilee. Luke, for his part, must have judged the reference to Capernaum to be irrelevant to his Greek audience. In fact, the first time he mentions the city by taking over Mark 1:21-22, he has to add "city of Galilee," assuming that this audience had no clue on where the city might be located. Moreover, since his theological perspective is to present Jesus as the universal savior, it is possible that he wanted to remove from Jesus his overly "local" attachments.

• Thus, for example, when Mark mentions that the whole city was gathered at the door of the house where Jesus was staying (Mk 1:33), Luke eliminates this detail and writes instead: "all those who were sick with various diseases brought them to Jesus" (Lk 4:40); it becomes a scene that could take place anywhere.
• Similarly, the account of the paralytic being lowered through the roof is introduced by Mark as follows: "And he entered Capernaum again" (Mk 2:1), but Luke modifies the introduction as follows: "And he came one of these days and taught him" (Lk 5:17).
• Finally, in the discussion of the greatest among the disciples, Mark introduces this passage as follows: "And they came to Capernaum, and when he had come to the house, he asked them, 'What were you thinking about on the way? "(Mk 9:33), which makes it possible to make a link with the Christian community through the mention of the house; but Luke modifies this introduction while the disciples are still near the place of the transfiguration on a mountain and Jesus has just made his second announcement of the passion: "Then a question came to the disciples' minds: who among them was the greatest" (Lk 9:46). Clearly, Luke diminishes the impact of this question by reducing it to an inner deliberation, so that it is no longer an oral discussion, and then by avoiding associating it with the "house" of Capernaum, an inevitable link with the core of the Church. Thus, reflection on the greater becomes a normal behavior of every human being.

Here, in v. 15, Capernaum appears in a passage in the Q document where the city is associated with Chorazin and Bethsaida. If Mark and Matthew place a number of Jesus' healings there, and the Q document places the healing of the Centurion's servant there, one would look in vain for a passage that tells of the unbelief of the people of Capernaum. So why such an invective against this city? One can probably imagine that the author of the Q document intends to knock this city, associated with Jesus, Peter and Andrew, off its pedestal and denounce its unbelief, since it was a city of Jews, those Jews who, as a whole, refused Jesus' message.

Ouranou is the masculine noun ouranos in the genitive singular, the genitive being required by the conjunction heōs (until). It means: heaven. It is a very frequent word, especially in Matthew: Mt = 82; Mk = 18; Lk = 35; Jn = 18; Acts = 26; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. We can refer to the glossary where we have analyzed the cosmology of the Jewish world. Let us summarize the main elements.

In the cosmology of the ancients, the universe is divided into two main parts (Gen 1: 1 "In the beginning the God created the heaven and the earth"): the world below is that of the earth, a flat earth supported by immense columns or high mountains; above the earth, very high, there is a solid, semi-spherical vault, which rests on the edge of the horizon, the firmament, which separates the world from below from the world from above, a world inaccessible. In the world above, above the firmament, there are first the stars, then the upper waters from which the rain comes, and above these waters there is the invisible world of God who can be made up of several floors to make room for celestial beings, God of course enthroned above everything.

In the Old Testament, "heaven" is called from the Hebrew word šāmayim (heavens). Note that it is a plural masculine word. But the Septuagint translators translated šāmayim by the Greek word ouranos, but in 90% with the singular, and not by the plural as the Hebrew word required. And our bibles followed with a translation usually in the singular. And when we look at the whole of the Septuagint, we note a certain logic in the choice between the plural "heavens" and the singular "heaven".

• When the text wants to emphasize the greatness of what God created or wants to proclaim the greatness of God by all that he created, or when it refers to the abode of God which is on the top floor of the whole sky, the Septuagint uses the plural "heavens".
• On the other hand, when it is a question of putting in opposition or in contrast the two great realities that are the heaven and the earth, or speaking of a movement of back and forth between these two components of the universe, or, speaking of the atmosphere in which birds are spread, for example, the Septuagint uses the singular "heaven", often translated as "sky" in English.

Now let's look at the evangelists. What exactly do they mean by the word "heavens" or "heaven". In fact, we note that this word designates three different realities: 1) God himself designated under the term of "heaven" to avoid pronouncing his name; 2) that part above the firmament where the stars, the higher waters, spiritual beings like angels, are found, and finally God himself; 3) the atmosphere under the firmament where birds, for example, fly. We can thus establish the following table according to the realities designated by ouranos by each evangelist.

	Mt	Mk	Lk	Jn	Acts
God	37	4	6	11	0
Above the firmament	35	7	21	6	18
The atmosphere	10	7	8	1	8
	82	18	35	18	26

What about Luke specifically? First of all, let us note that of the 35 occurrences of the word in Luke, eight are a copy of the Q document, and nine a copy of Mark, leaving 18 occurrences that are his own. On the whole, we find in him the three usual meanings of heaven.

1. First, there is the meaning inherited from Jewish cosmology where heaven designates everything above the globe of the firmament, thus the pools of water from which the rain comes, the celestial bodies that are the moon, the sun and the stars, the residence of angels, the source of a divine fire that could bring destruction to the earth (as it did to Sodom), the place where the records of what humans do are kept, especially the names of those who will inherit life, a record called the "book of life" (cf. Ex 32:32; Ezek 13:9; Ps 69:29; 139:16; Dan 12:1; Phil 4:3; Heb 12:23; Rev 3:5), in short, the great divine realm beyond human control. Note that the word "heaven" is always in the singular in Luke, except for four occurrences, two borrowed from the Q document, one from Mark; the only instance in the plural that is proper to him is a reprise of the traditional Jewish expression of having one's name written in heavens, i.e., the book of life (Lk 10:20).
   • Lk 2: 15: "When the angels had left them and gone into heaven (ouranos), the shepherds said to one another, 'Let us go now to Bethlehem and see this thing that has taken place, which the Lord has made known to us.'"
   • Lk 4: 25: "But the truth is, there were many widows in Israel in the time of Elijah, when the heaven (ouranos) was shut up three years and six months, and there was a severe famine over all the land"

2. Heaven also refers to the sky, the immediate environment that surrounds us and that is above the land and the water. It is the space where the birds fly, it is the space below the vault of the firmament where the lightning flashes, it is the blue of the firmament that surrounds us and that we look at.
   • Lk 17: 24: "For as the lightning flashes from under the sky (ouranos) and lights up under the sky (ouranos), so will the Son of Man be in his day"
   • Lk 18: 13: "But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even look up to heaven (ouranos), but was beating his breast and saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!"

3. Finally, "heaven" is a euphemism for God, avoiding pronouncing his name as required by the Law.
   • Lk 15: 21: "Then the son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven (ouranos) and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son."

Here, in v. 15, we have a copy of the Q document. Note that of the eight occurrences of the Q document, six refer to the divine world (the home of the righteous and of God, the place of the ledger where human actions are recorded, the element which, with the earth, makes up the whole universe), and two refer to the space under the firmament, i.e. the environment of the birds (Mt 8:20 || Lk 9:58) and the weather (Mt 16:3 || Lk 12:56). The heaven referred to in v. 15 is the place for the righteous, those whose names have been written in the book of life. Thus, the verse denies the people of Capernaum the possibility of entering the dwelling place of the righteous in the divine world.

Hypsōthēsē is the verb hypsoō in the future passive indicative, 2nd person singular. It means: to lift up, to raise, to exalt and is not very frequent in the NT, and in the Gospels-Acts it is even totally absent from Mark: Mt = 3; Mk = 0; Lk = 6; Jn = 5; Acts = 3; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0.

In the Bible as a whole, the verb "to lift up" is rarely taken literally: we will then speak of raising the hand or raising the voice: LXX "Make the standard float on the mountain of the plain; exalt (Gr. upsoō; Heb. rûm) your voice to them, call them with your hand; princes, open your gates (Isa 13:2), or again, of the greatness of a thing: "On this point its greatness rose (Gr. upsoō; Heb. gāḇah) above all the trees of the field, and its boughs had spread out, thanks to the abundance of the waters" (Ezek 31:5). Very often the verb "to lift up" is used in a symbolic sense. When the subject of the verb is the human being and the action is addressed to the human being, it describes his pride: LXX "And you, son of man, say to the king of Tyre: This is what the Lord says, Because your heart has been lifted up (Gr. upsoō; Heb. gāḇah) and said, I am God, I dwell in the heart of the sea a dwelling of God; thou shalt see that thou art a man, and not a God; and thou hast made thy heart, as if it had been the heart of God" (Ezek 28:2). But when this action is applied to God, it describes the human being’s desire to exalt his God, to praise and glorify him: LXX (Ps 56:12) "God, be exalted (Gr. upsoō; Heb. rûm) above the heavens, and let your glory be over all the earth!" (Ps 57:11). Similarly, when the subject of the verb is God, it describes his intention to save human beings: LXX "For the Lord delights in his people, and he will exalt (Gr. upsoō; Heb. pā’ar) the meek through salvation" (149:4).

In the NT, the meaning of the verb is very much marked by the Jesus event. Thus, in Acts, the verb is used to describe the resurrection of Jesus with the idea that he was "raised" into the world of God, an idea that our Bibles translate as exaltation (Acts 2:33; 5:31). In John, the verb is used to describe both the cross, which is an elevated pole on which Jesus was nailed, and his resurrection, which is an elevation as Jesus returns to his Father, and thus becomes synonymous with his glorification (8:28; 12:32).

What about Matthew and Luke? Let us note first that the three occurrences in Matthew, and five of the six occurrences in Luke, are a copy of the Q document. In the first place ("he who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted") it is a form of proverb where the verb "to exalt" is in the active and then in the passive form: in the active form, we reach one of the meanings underlined in the OT, that is linked to pride and personal exaltation; in the passive form, the agent is God, and only he can really exalt someone, i.e. save him. This action of God also appears in a passage specific to Luke in Lk 1:52 ("The Lord has put down the rulers from their thrones and lifted up the lowly"), a prayer probably originating from Christians of Jewish origin that Luke incorporated into his childhood narrative.

Secondly, we have this other passage from the Q document in reference to Capernaum: "And you Capernaum, as far as heaven you will not be lifted up". What is the meaning of: to be lifted up? The very fact that the verb is in the passive indicates that the agent is God. And when God "lifts up" people, it is to save them. This elevation is similar to the exaltation of Jesus who entered the world of God. But here the verb is in the future tense, so it is likely that the author of the Q document is referring to the end of time, at the final judgment. This salvation is therefore linked to the fate of the righteous whose names are written in the book of life and who will reside in God's dwelling at the end of time. Now, what is affirmed here, the people of Capernaum will have no part in it.

Hadou is the masculine noun Hadēs in the genitive singular, the genitive being controlled by the conjunction heōs (until). It is an infrequent word in the Gospels-Acts and appears only in Matthew and Luke: Mt = 2; Mk = 0; Lk = 2; Jn = 0; Acts = 2; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. Elsewhere in the NT, it is only used in the book of Revelation. This Greek word is translated by our Bibles as "Hades", "Hell" or "Sheol".

The term Hades, whose popular etymology would be a-eidēs, "sightless" or "invisible", refers to a god of Greek mythology who is the son of Cronos and Rhea. After the victory of the gods over the Titans, he received the underground empire of the dead, also called "the underworld", while his brother Zeus got the sky and his other brother Poseidon the sea. By extension, the term Hades came to designate the abode of the god, i.e. the kingdom of the dead (Monloubou-Du Buit, Dictionnaire biblique universel, p. 304).

When we turn to the OT, we note that the Septuagint translators used it about a hundred times. Most of the time, it is used to translate the Hebrew term šĕ'ôl which designates the real of the dead. But sometimes its translates other Hebrew terms, such as

• mûṯ (to cause to die): Job 33:22 LXX "His soul drew near to death and his life to Hades (Heb. mûṯ, lit.: those who cause to die)
• ṣalmāveṯ (the shadow of death): Job 38:17 LXX "Do the gates of death open without frightening you? Can you sustain the gazes of the guardians of Hades (Heb. ṣalmāveṯ, lit. the gaze of the shadow of death) without dread?"
• dûmâ (silence): Ps 94 (93), 17 LXX "If the Lord had not helped me, my soul would not have dwelt in Hades (Heb. dûmâ, lit. silence)"; see also Ps 115 (113), 17 (25)
• rĕp̄ā’îm (ghost, spirit): Prov 2:18 LXX "and who forgets the divine covenant, has set his house by death, and his ways by Hades (Heb. rĕp̄ā’îm, lit. the ghost of death) with the sons of the earth
• māveṯ (kingdom of death): Prov 14:12 LXX "There is a way that to men seems straight; but it leads to the abysses of Hades (Heb. māveṯ, lit. the kingdom of death); see also Prov 16:25
• bôr (pit): Isa 14:19 LXX "But you will be thrown into the mountains like an unclean corpse, with a multitude of dead people pierced by the sword and brought down to Hades (Heb. bôr, lit. brought down to the pit); see also Isa 38:18

Conversely, the Hebrew word šĕ’ôl is always translated in the Septuagint by the Greek term Hadēs with the exception of the following cases where it is translated as:

• thanatos (death): 2 Sam 22:6: "The anxieties of death (Gr. thanatos, Heb. šĕ’ôl) have surrounded me, the inflexibility of death (Gr. thanatos, Heb. mûṯ) has overwhelmed me"; see also Prov 23:14
• bathos (abyss): Isa 7:11: "Ask the Lord your God for a sign, either in the abyss (Gr. bathos, Heb. šĕ’ôl) or in the height"; see also Ez 32:31

1. Traditional vision

   In the OT, the perception of Sheol has evolved. In the traditional and ancient view, Sheol refers to the abode of the dead. And since the dead are buried, this abode of the dead is located underground. But what is remarkable is that not only among the Jews, but in the whole of the Mediterranean basin, there is never a belief in a complete disappearance of the human being; something of the person remains. Among the Jews, what remains of the person is his shadow which continues in a larval state. This is what emerges when one reads the traditional books of the OT:

   • The thought of going to Sheol is a source of sadness Gen 37:35; 42:38; etc.
   • It is located in the bowels of the earth, and even seems to constitute the subterranean limit of the earth, its deepest place (Job 11:8, where its foundations are (Deut 32:22; Isa 14:15)
   • Sheol appears as an ogre that opens its mouth wide to devour people, without letting anyone escape (Num 16:30; Isa 5:14); it is even insatiable (Hab 2:5; Prov 30:16)
   • It is a place of decay, worms, vermin (Isa 14:11; Job 17:14), dust (Job 17:16) and darkness (Job 17:13)
   • As God is master of life and death, he is master of Sheol and it is he who leads people there (1 Sam 2:6; Tob 13:2), so that Sheol trembles at the thought of his presence (Isa 14:9)
   • In Sheol, there is no longer any possible relationship with God, and therefore one can no longer praise or bless him (Ps 6:6; 115:17), just as one can no longer rely on his mercy (Isa 38:18; see also Bar 2:17)
   • Nevertheless, Sheol belongs to God's domain and nothing escapes him from what happens there (Am 9:2; Job 26:6; Ps 139:8)
   • It seems that in wealthy circles great importance was attached to the tomb, which was often built in advance (Isa 22:16), because survival in Sheol was considered to be a weakened continuation of what happened on earth, and the shape of the tomb reproduced that of the house; therefore, when the prophet Isaiah announces that the king of Babylon will be thrown away from his tomb, he emphasizes the painful character of the stay in the world of the dead (Isa 14:19)
   • But it is a place from which no one returns, and no one can speak of it (Job 38:17)
   • The people are herded like a flock of sheep (Ps 49:15)
   • It is a place that receives several synonyms: pit (Isa 14: 19), abyss (Isa 14: 9), destruction (Prov 15: 11), silence (Ps 94: 17; 115: 17), death (Dan 3: 88), cruel reality (Song 8: 6), perdition (Job 26: 6), unfathomable depth (Prov 9: 18)
   • One of the darkest perspectives comes from Qohelet: in Sheol there is no work, no balance sheet, no knowledge, no wisdom (Eccl 9: 10); the dead know nothing at all, memory has disappeared, and with it the memory of loves, hatreds, jealousies, which removes any possibility of retribution (Eccl 9: 5-6)
   • No one can escape Sheol (Ps 89:49), but the righteous hope that God will delay that moment as long as possible (Ps 16:10; 30:4; 49:16; 86:13; 94:17
   • It is a place where there is neither joy nor suffering (Sir 14: 16; 28: 21), because the events of life, good or bad, no longer count (Sir 41: 4)

   Let us summarize these observations. According to the Jewish conception of Sheol, the human being who dies enters a form of lethargy: he feels neither joy nor sorrow, and all that his life was no longer counts, having lost the memory of everything. His environment seems dark and gloomy, and it is not clear what difference it makes to those who have had a tomb built for them rather than being put in a pit. Even if God knows what is going on, he doesn't seem to intervene except to throw the wicked in. And there is no hope of change in the future: this state seems permanent, and the number of those who live in it can only grow.

2. An evolution

   However, the Jewish faith in a savior and creator God, master of the universe, made the vision of the afterlife evolve. But this vision could only come about after the transformation of the perception of the human being in his social universe. Indeed, the human being was intimately linked to the society of which he was a part, and therefore his fate was not detached from the fate of his clan or his tribe. For example, when David organized a census to the great displeasure of the Lord (2 Sam 24:1-17), the whole people were punished by the plague for the sin of one man. In Sodom, even though Abraham could not find ten righteous people (Gen 18:32-33), it is nevertheless possible that some righteous people were there, but they met the same fate as everyone else when the city was destroyed by brimstone and fire (Gen 19:24). A proverb expressed this perception: The fathers ate green grapes, and the sons' teeth are chafed (Jer 31: 29; see also Ezek 18: 2); in other words, the children suffer because of the father's sin. But towards the end of the 7th century or the beginning of the 6th century BC, this perception changed so much that the prophet Jeremiah could say: "Each one will die for his own fault. Every man who has eaten green grapes, his own teeth will be chafed" (Jer 31:29); similarly Ezekiel states: "By my life, saith the Lord GOD, you shall no more repeat this proverb (about green grapes) in Israel... He who has sinned, he shall die" Ezek 18:3-4. Thus, each individual will be responsible for his own actions, and not for those of his kin or tribe.

   At the same time, we note here and there the seeds of a theological thought that would bear fruit much later. For example, it was firmly believed that God was master of both life and death, as stated in Deut. 32:39: "I (the Lord) am the one who kills and makes alive", or again in 1 Sam 2:6: "The Lord kills and makes alive, descends into hell and rises again", or again in Tob 13:2: "Blessed be the living God for ever! Blessed be his kingdom! It is he who punishes and has mercy. He brings down to Sheol, into the depths of the earth, and then brings up from great perdition. There is nothing that escapes his hand." But the consequences of these great theological insights were not yet fully understood. For example, when Sirach (48:5) refers to the prophet Elijah in these terms: "You (Elijah) have raised a dead man from death and Sheol by the word of the Most High", he does not seem to have grasped that God can raise any human being from Sheol. Even the great theological insight of the author of the book of Job does not seem to have been followed up, the one found in Job 29:25-26: "I know that my redeemer lives, that the last one will rise from the dust. And after this skin of mine has been destroyed, I shall see God in my flesh".

3. The apocalyptic context

   A radical theological transformation was to appear towards the beginning of the second century BC with the apocalyptic current. Let us remember that all the prophets never cease to proclaim that the day of God's intervention is very near, the moment when he will restore justice on earth. But that moment never came. So the idea developed that this intervention would take place at the end of human history, and at that moment the righteous and the unrighteous would be sorted out. One of the witnesses to this period is the book of 1 Enoch, which reveals to us that the deceased people inhabit four caves and await the final judgment:

   Raphael, one of the holy angels, who accompanied me, answered: "These caverns are to gather the spirits of the dead, for this very purpose they are destined; all human souls will be gathered there. These caverns are (destined) to be their prison - that is how they were created - until the day when they will be judged, until the moment of the final day, that of the great judgment which will be exercised over them." (1 Enoch 22:3-4)

   And in that judgment the righteous will be separated from the unrighteous. But even now, the fate of each group is different, anticipating the final fate:

   8 Then I asked him why all the caverns were separated from each other. 9 He answered, "These three were created to separate the spirits of the dead. Thus, the one where the source of light springs forth was reserved for the spirits of the righteous. 10 Thus, one has been created (for the spirits) of the sinners who died and were buried without having undergone any judgment during their life: 11 their spirits are set aside there to (undergo) this cruel torment, until the great day of the Judgment, of the scourging and the torment of those who are cursed for eternity; this is the retribution (due to) their spirits: they will be chained here for eternity. 12 So it has been reserved for the spirits of those who accuse, denouncing the murder of which they were victims in the time of sinners. 13 Thus, one has been created for the spirits of those who will not be saints, but sinners, and will share in the fate of the ungodly. Because they suffer here, their spirits will be punished less (severely), they will not be punished much on the Day of Judgment, but they will not wake up from here any more." (1 Enoch 22)

   According to the author of 1 Enoch, the righteous will come out of Sheol at the final judgment, while the unrighteous seem to be trapped there for eternity. Moreover, whereas previously this place was perceived as free of suffering, it is now claimed that the unjust suffer torment as a consequence of the life they have led (see also The Fourth Book of Ezra or Revelation of Ezra, ch. 7). This apocalyptic atmosphere is also found in the book of Daniel, where Daniel has this vision: "I looked, and this horn made war with the saints and prevailed over them, until the Old Man came and judgment was given in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came for the saints to possess the kingdom" (Dan 7:21-22).

   The apocalyptic tradition appeared in a context of persecution where the idea developed that, since the righteous were not able to defeat their persecutors, God himself would intervene on their behalf in a final gesture of brilliance and give them victory. This was the case with the persecution of the Jews under Antiochus Epiphanes (215 - 164 BC) where the question was asked: how could God abandon his friends who would die as martyrs? Then the great traditional ideas of God's ability to restore life to the dead reappeared. Two texts make clear reference to this:

   • Dan 12: 2: LXX "And many of those who sleep under piles of earth will wake up (egeirō), some to eternal life, others to shame and eternal confusion".
   • 2 Macc 7: 9: "As he breathed his last (this is Eleazar): 'Scoundrel that you are,' he said, 'you exclude us from this present life, but the King of the world will rise up us (anistēmi) for an eternal life, we who die for his laws." "

4. The New Testament

   This is the context in which the NT must be read. It is not surprising that the term "Hades" appears most often in the book of Revelation, which was written in a context of persecution, and where we find some traditional ideas:

   • The control of Hades, traditionally in the hands of God, is now in the hands of Jesus (Rev 1:18)
   • All die, but the punishment for some is to die sooner because of war, famine, disease and wild animals (Rev 6:8)
   • At the end of time, everyone will come out of Hades to undergo a final judgment according to their deeds (Rev 20:13)
   • After the judgment, Hades will be completely destroyed, rendered useless, and all those who were not written in the book of life will also be destroyed, a destruction implied by the fact that, being thrown into the lake of fire, they will be totally consumed (Rev 20:14-15)

   In the Gospels-Acts, the term "Hades" comes first from the Q document (Mt 11:23 || Lk 10:15) and from a quotation from Ps 16:8-11 (Acts 2:27,31); in the latter case, the psalmist rejoices that he will avoid a premature descent into Hades ("you will not abandon my soul to Hades"), but Peter in his speech sees in it David's anticipation, the author of the psalm, of Jesus' resurrection. But Matthew and Luke each make a unique use of the term "Hades". The former states that the gates of Hades will not hold against the church, i.e., the church will not disappear despite the opposing forces, and the latter places in Hades Lazarus and the rich man who died; note that in the latter case Luke takes up the idea of 1 Enoch that in Hades there is an anticipation of the final judgment, so that the rich man is already undergoing a torment.

   Let us return to the Q document which announces that Capernaum will not be lifted up to heaven by God, but will be brought down into Hades. The author of this source places us after the final judgment, when the people of Capernaum are not inscribed in the book of life, and therefore cannot enter the world of God, and are therefore cast into Hades, or rather, "return" to Hades, because they were there at the time of the final judgment. Unlike the author of Revelation, the author of the Q document seems to affirm that Hades is there forever and will be the eternal home of those who have not been written into the book of life.

What to conclude? On the whole, the NT reflects the ideas of the Jewish apocalypse of the first century CE.

• All descend into Hades at their death for an indefinite period of time, a place where all communication with God and the living seems to be broken
• All are waiting for the great day of judgment when everyone will be judged according to his works
• But for those who have done evil there is in Hades an anticipation of the final judgment by the fact that they already experience torment
• For the final judgment to take place, all must first be risen in order to be able to undergo the evaluation (Jn 5:29)
• At the end of the final judgment, those who have been written in the book of life will join the world of God
• According to Revelation, Hades will no longer exist, so they will be thrown into a lake of fire to be completely consumed (back to nothingness?); but for the Jewish Matthew, they are going to an eternal punishment, without specifying if it is a return to Hades (Mt 25: 46)

Katabibasthēsē is the verb katabibazō in the future passive indicative, 2nd person singular. It is composed of the preposition kata (which describes a movement from top to bottom), and the verb bibazō (to stretch out, to lie down), and it means: to bring down, to precipitate, and so we would have to translate literally by: you will be precipitated or you will be brought down; to translate the idea that it is God who brings down, we have opted for the translation: you will be brought down. This is a very rare word in the whole Bible, except in Ezekiel. In the NT it appears only in Luke, if we accept the textual criticism we have proposed (see our analysis).

Katabibazō is the Greek word chosen by the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew term yāraḏ, which means: to descend, to decline, to walk downwards, to sink downwards. When we look at the Septuagint, we see that the word belongs to two main contexts.

1. First, there is the context of a physical movement, such as lowering an object into a ravine, or to a river, or from a window.
   • Judg 7: 5: LXX "And he (Gedeon) brought (katabibazō) the people down to the water; and the Lord said to Gedeon, Whosoever shall lap of the water with his tongue as if a dog should lap, thou shalt set him apart, and also whosoever shall bow down upon his knees to drink"

2. Then, there is the symbolic context where one leaves the heights to join the earth, and most often to join the gloomy world of Sheol or to live a form of decay.
   • Ezek 32: 18: LXX "Son of man, lament over the strength of Egypt, for the nations shall bring down (katabibazō) her daughters dead to the depth of the earth, to them that go down to the pit"
   • Lam 1: 9: LXX "Teth. Her uncleanness is before her feet; she remembered not her last end; she was brought down (katabibazō) excessively, there is none to comfort her. Behold, O Lord, my affliction: for the enemy has magnified himself"

As we have proposed (see our textual criticism), the verb katabibazō would be the verb that appeared in the Q document: to Hades you will be brought down (katabibasthēsē). Moreover, the author of this source would have been influenced by this passage of Ezekiel 31: 15-16 where the prophet announces through the parable of a great cedar which is the image of the power of Egypt, whose top reaches to the sky, and under its branches the multitude of peoples live.

LXX 15 Thus saith the Lord God; In the day wherein he went down to Hades, the deep mourned for him: and I stayed her floods, and restrained her abundance of water: and Libanus saddened for him, all the trees of the field fainted for him. 16 At the sound of his fall the nations quaked, when I brought him down to Hades (katebibazon auton eis hadou) with them that go down to the pit: and all the trees of Delight comforted him in the heart, and the choice of [plants] of Libanus, all that drink water.

Ezekiel's parable is in line with a traditional view of the prophets: in the face of powers that believe themselves to be invincible, God intervenes to make them aware of the fate of mortal beings, and thus brings them down to Sheol, i.e. brings about their destruction. Of course, in v. 15, Capernaum is not a political power. But the inhabitants of that city could boast that it was an important scene of the prophet's activities in Nazareth. The very fact that much later a church was built over a house, probably that of Peter and Andrew, and the residence of Jesus, testifies that in the eyes of the pilgrims the city had great importance. But this importance is worth nothing if it is not accompanied by a deep faith.

Akouon is the verb akouō in the present active participle, nominative masculine singular, and agrees with the article ho (the) which plays the role of a subtantif "the one" and subject of the verb. It means: to listen, to hear, and it is very frequent in the Gospel-Acts: Mt = 63; Mk = 44; Lk = 65; Jn = 59; Acts = 89; 1Jn = 14; 2Jn = 1; 3Jn = 1. In English, to hear or listen has several meanings. It has, of course, the meaning of hearing noises, but it can also mean to be informed ("to hear news"), to pay attention to ("I am hearing"), to understand ("I hear what you say"), to refer to the activity of a judge ("a hearing"), etc. One could also make a list of the various meanings of the verb "to listen". The same can be done in the Gospels with the verb akouō.

1. The most common meaning is to hear sounds:
   • Lk 7: 22: "Then he replied to the envoys: "Go and tell John what you have seen and heard (akouō): the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear (akouō), the dead are raised, the Good News is proclaimed to the poor"

2. But akouō also intends to describe the fact that one learns a piece of news, that one is made aware of something:
   • Mt 4: 12: "Having heard (akouō) that John had been delivered, he withdrew to Galilee"
   • Mk 3: 21: And when his people heard (akouō) about him, they went out to seize him, for they said, "He has lost his senses

3. Sometimes akouō intends to mean more than just hearing a word or a piece of news, because it has the nuance of understanding:
   • Mk 4: 9: "And he said: 'Hear (akouō), who has ears to hear (akouō)!'"
   • Lk 8: 8: "Another fell into the good soil, grew and produced fruit a hundredfold." And when he said this, he cried out: 'Hear (akouō), who has ears to hear (akouō)!'"

4. Akouō sometimes also has a sense of learning or acquiring knowledge, especially when it refers to what has been received as a tradition from the past:
   • Mt 5: 21: "You have heard (akouō) that it was said to the ancestors: Thou shalt not kill; and if any man kills, he shall answer for it in court"
   • Jn 12: 34: "The crowd then replied, 'We have heard (akouō) of the Law that Christ abides forever. How can you say, 'The Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man?'"

5. As in English, akouō can express the fact that a request has been accepted, that a prayer has been answered, that a requirement has been obeyed:
   • Mt 18: 15: "If your brother sins, go to him and rebuke him, one by one. If he listens (akouō) to you, you will have won your brother"
   • Acts 7: 34: "Yes, I saw the affliction of my people in Egypt, I heard (akouō) their groaning and I came down to deliver them. Come, then, that I may send you into Egypt."

6. For the evangelist John, akouō often implies faith, so listening or hearing means believing:
   • Jn 8: 47: "Who is of God hears (akouō) the words of God; if you do not hear (akouō), you are not of God."
   • Jn 10: 16: "I also have other sheep that are not of this fold, and I must lead them out; they will listen (akouō) to my voice, and there will be one flock, one shepherd"

7. Again in John, akouō intends to translate the knowledge that Jesus has of his Father, and therefore of the unique communion that exists between the two; the verb "to hear" translates the total transparency of the Father's word:
   • Jn 3: 32: "(the one who comes from heaven) testifies to what he has seen and heard (akouō), and his testimony no one welcomes."
   • Jn 5: 30: "I can't do anything on my own. I judge according to what I hear (akouō): and my judgment is just, because I do not seek my will, but the will of the one who sent me"

8. Finally, there is the unique case where akouō refers to court proceedings where a judge hears witnesses:
   • Jn 7: 51: "Does our Law judge a man without first hearing (akouō) him and knowing what he is doing?"

The verb akouō is part of the vocabulary of the evangelist Luke, as we can see with the 65 occurrences in his gospel, and the 89 occurrences in his Acts of the Apostles. And its meaning overlaps with those we have identified as hearing what is said, learning news, understanding the meaning of a thing. But there is a particular emphasis in him where "hearing" becomes synonymous with welcoming the word, as we see in the scene of Martha and Mary: "She had a sister called Mary, who sat down at the Lord's feet and listened (akouō) to his word." In fact, he is the only evangelist to use the expression "listening to the word of God" (Lk 5:1; 8:21; 11:28), an expression that also recurs in his Acts (Acts 13:7; 13:44), and is used synonymously with "welcoming (dechomai) the word of God" (Acts 8:14; 11:1).

Here, in v. 16, the expression "who hears you, hears me" clearly means: whoever welcomes your word, welcomes my word. Although this meaning might fit well with Luke's thinking, the question arises: is this v. 16 from Luke's pen or does it come from the Q document? The question arises because Matthew also offers a similar phrase in the context of his missionary discourse (we have underlined similar words or parts of words).

Mt 10: 40	Lk 10: 16
The (one) receiving you, me he receives, and the (one) me receiving, he receives the (one) having sent me.	The (one) hearing you, me he hears; and the (one) rejecting you, me he rejects; then the (one) me rejecting, he rejects the (one) having sent me.

As we can see, we are faced with a similar structure with verbs in the present participle on the subject of welcoming the missionary. And in both cases, the context is that of the missionary sending. In the first part of the verse, there is only one difference: Matthew uses the verb "to receive (dechomai), and Luke uses "listen" (akouō). What is the original verb of the Q document? Answering this question involves a very hypothetical element, for there is no ancient record of such a source that is based purely on the similarities between Matthew and Luke.

A first observation is that this grammatical structure of akouō in the present participle and followed by a personal pronoun is found a few times in Luke: "(Jesus) listening to them (the teachers)", Lk 2:46; "those listening to him (Jesus)", Lk 2:47; "all the people stood listening to him", Lk 19:48; "having listened to him (Apollos)", Acts 18:26; "(all those who are) listening to me this day", Acts 26:29. However, in each of these references the context is that of listening to spoken words, not that of general listening as an expression of welcome as here in v. 16. Indeed, the only other real case is that of Mark 6:11, taken up by Matthew and Luke in their own way (we have underlined the identical words or parts of words):

Mk 6, 11	Mt 10: 14	Lk 10: 10-11a
and perchance whatever place might not receive you, not even they would listen to you, departing from there, shake out the earth under the feet of you for a testimony on them.	and perchance whatever (person) might not receive you, not even would listen the words of you, going forth out of the house or that city, shake out the dust of the feet of you.	Then, in whatever city you might have perchance entered and they might not receive you, having gone forth out into the streets of it, say, And the dust the (one) having clung to us out of the city of you into the feet, we wipe out to you

What do we see? Mark uses "to receive" (dechomai) and "hear / listen"(akouō) synonymously. Matthew, for his part, in copying Mark's text, feels the need to complete "listen" by adding: "the words of you", no doubt embarrassed by the verb without a direct object complement. As for Luke, no doubt considering the verb "to listen" as redundant after "to receive", and as he did for several of Mark's doublets, he simply eliminated it (for example, there is only one feeding of the crowd in Luke). What does this mean? Neither for Matthew nor for Luke does the expression "listen to you" seem usual, and therefore does not belong to their vocabulary.

How can we explain the presence of "listening to you" in v. 16, an expression which does not belong to Luke's vocabulary, if not by the fact that he is simply copying the Q document? Then we must explain why Matthew, who also copies this Q document, would have replaced "listen" by the verb "to receive" (dechomai). The answer seems simple enough. Indeed, Matthew decided to insert this verse from the Q document in his conclusion to the great missionary discourse (Mt 10:40-42) where he insists on the reception and support of the missionary; more precisely, he inserts it just before these words of Jesus: "Whoever receives (dechomai) a prophet in his capacity as a prophet will obtain a prophet's reward, and whoever receives (dechomai) a righteous person in his capacity as a righteous person will obtain a righteous person's reward. It was therefore only natural, in order to unify its conclusion under the theme of the reception of the missionary, to modify the verb of the Q document in this way.

These arguments may seem light. But they will be supported by our analysis of the next word.

Athetōn is the verb atheteō in the present active participle, in the nominative masculine singular. In this verse we also find the word athetei, which is the verb atheteō in the active present indicative, 3rd person singular. It is very rare in the whole NT, and especially in the Gospels-Acts: Mt = 0; Mk = 2; Lk = 5; Jn = 1; Acts = 0; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. This verb basically means: to break a relationship of trust by taking certain actions; in front of a person it can mean that one does not keep one's word, that one betrays him or her, that one distances oneself from this person and pushes him or her away; in front of a rule or a commitment, it can mean that one considers it void. It is a difficult verb to translate, because it covers a wide range of realities that are expressed in other languages by different words.

In the Septuagint, the same verb atheteō was used to translate thirteen different Hebrew words.

1. Most frequently, and by far, this verb translates bāḡaḏ a verb that means: to act in a perfidious and deceitful way towards people, to betray them. For example, Jeremiah, who uses it several times, compares Israel's attitude towards God to a wife who cheats her husband. Isaiah accuses Assyria of acting treacherously towards Israel.
   • Isa 48: 8: LXX "Thou hast neither known, nor understood, neither from the beginning have I opened thine ears: for I knew that, being someone who betrays (Gr. atheteō), thou wouldest surely betray (Gr. atheteō, Heb. bāḡaḏ), and wouldest be called a transgressor even from the womb"
   • Jer 9: 1 (2): LXX "Who would give me a distant lodging in the wilderness, and I would leave my people and go away from them? Because they all commit adultery, a band of people who cheat (Gr. atheteō, Heb. bāḡaḏ)"

2. But it happens that the verb atheteō, especially in historical books, is used to translate Hebrew pāšaʿ which means to distance oneself from a person or a commitment, and therefore: to rebel, to transgress. This is how one would describe the revolt of Israel (northern territory) against Judah (southern territory), or the revolt of Moab against Israel, or its refusal to pay tribute, or Edom refusing the yoke of Israel, or Israel's revolt against its God.
   • 2 Kings 8: 22: LXX "And Edom revolted (Gr. atheteō, Heb. pāšaʿ) against the yoke of Judah to this day; then Lobna revolted. (Gr. atheteō, Heb. pāšaʿ) also at that time "

3. Atheteō is also used to translate a Hebrew verb synonymous with the previous one, māraḏ, which means: to rebel, to revolt, to be rebellious. Thus, the king of Judah Zedekiah rebelled against Assyria, then it was Yoyaqim who rebelled against the king of Babylon.
   • 2 Kings 18, 7: LXX "And the Lord was with him, and he showed wisdom in all his undertakings; he revolted. (Gr. atheteō, Heb. māraḏ) against the king of the Assyrians, and he did not remain in bondage to him.

4. Sometimes atheteō translates the Hebrew verb māʿal, which means: to act unfaithfully, to act treacherously, to transgress, to commit an offense. This action may concern God, the Law, or an anathema.
   • 1 Chr 2: 7: LXX "Son of Charmi: Achar, the disrupter of Israel, who transgressed (Gr. atheteō, Heb. māʿal) anathema".

5. We find a case where atheteō translated the Hebrew nā'aṣ (to despise, to insult).
   • 1 Sam 2: 17: LXX "The sin of the priest's sons was very great before the Lord, because they despised (Gr. atheteō, Heb. nā'aṣ) the sacrifice of the Lord".

6. We find a case where atheteō translated the Hebrew ʿāmar (bind the sheaves, manipulate, treat tyrannically).
   • Deut 21: 14: LXX "And if you do not want her, you shall send her away free, and she shall not be sold for money. You shall not treat her as a commodity (Gr. atheteō, Heb. ʿāmar), since you have humiliated her".

7. We find a case where atheteō translated the Hebrew sûr (retract, abolish, set to naught).
   • Isa 31: 2: LXX "And he, wise man, has brought evils upon them; his word shall not be set to naught. (Gr. atheteō, Heb. sûr). He will rise up against the houses of the wicked and against their vain hope."

8. We find a case where atheteō translated the Hebrew šāqar (cheat, deal falsely with).
   • Isa 63: 8: LXX "He said, 'Is it not my people? My children who do not deal falsely (Gr. atheteō, Heb. šāqar)'. And he became their salvation.

9. We find a case where atheteō translated the Hebrew ḥāmas (to do harm, to do violence).
   • Ezek 22: 26: LXX "And his priests have set to naught. (Gr. atheteō, Heb. ḥāmas) my law, and they have profaned my holy things. They have not distinguished between the sacred and the profane; they have not distinguished between the clean and the unclean; they have covered their eyes so as not to see my Sabbaths, and I have been dishonored among them.

10. We find a case where atheteō translated the Hebrew mûr (to change, to modify).
    • Ps 15 (14): 4: LXX In his sight an evil-worker is set to nought, but he honours them that fear the Lord. He swears to his neighbour, and does not annul (Gr. atheteō, Heb. mûr) his word"

11. We find a case where atheteō translated the Hebrew nô' (to hinder, to disapprove, to frustrate).
    • Ps 33 (32): 10: LXX "The Lord frustrates the counsels of the nations; he sets to nought (Gr. atheteō, Heb. nô') also the reasonings of the peoples, and the counsels of princes.

12. We find a case where atheteō translated the Hebrew kāzaḇ (to lie, to tell a lie, to be a liar, to be found lying).
    • Ps 89 (88): 35: LXX "Neither will I by any means profane my covenant; and I will not make void (Gr. atheteō, Heb. kāzaḇ) the things that proceed out of my lips

13. We find a case where atheteō translated the Hebrew šûḇ (to return, to turn around).
    • Ps 132 (131): 11: LXX "The Lord sware in truth to David, and he will not annul (Gr. atheteō, Heb. šûḇ) it, saying, Of the fruit of thy body will I set a king upon thy throne"

What do all these Hebrew words translated by atheteō? A relationship of trust existed, or at least was hoped for, and this relationship was broken by a betrayal, a deception, a revolt, a transgression, an act of contempt, a lie, the abandonment of one's word. Thus, the loss of the relationship is not only a distancing, but it is accompanied by a form of aggression.

Let us now examine the occurrences of atheteō in the NT. The fifteen occurrences can be grouped into three categories according to the object involved. Indeed, in the NT this verb is always a transitive verb, and therefore requires a direct object complement. What is this direct object complement?

1. The direct object complement can be either God's will, such as his purpose for humanity or the grace offered in Jesus, or the human will through a will; in this case atheteō expresses the action of rendering that will inoperative, not only by not trusting it, but by not doing what it asks to do. For example:
   • Lk 7: 30: "But by refusing to be baptized by him, the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected (atheteō) God's purpose for themselves.)"

2. This direct object complement can be a directive, a law (the Law of Moses), a commitment; the bond of trust is broken not only by distancing oneself from this object, but there is a form of rejection. For example:
   • 1 Tim 5: 12: "and so they incur condemnation for having annulled (atheteō) their first pledge"

3. Finally, this direct object complement can be a person. And this person is always Jesus or God, with two exceptions: first, there is the quotation from Isa 29:14 found in 1 Cor 1:19, which refers to the intelligent men whose intelligence was hidden according to the Septuagint, rejected according to Paul's version; there is also the passage from Mark 6:26 where the direct object complement of atheteō is "her", i.e., the daughter of Herodias who has just asked him for the head of John the Baptist and to whom Herod has sworn an oath to ask her for what she wants; the literal translation of atheteō here would be: "he did not want to deceive or betray her by going back on his oath. In all other cases where it is Jesus and God, atheteō not only conveys a shortcoming of the trust relationship, but carries an aggressive note expressed by verbs like "reject", "despise". For example:
   • Jn 12: 48: "The one who rejects (atheteō) me and does not receive my word has a judge; on the last day the word that I have spoken will serve as judge"

For our v. 16, most of our Bibles have translated atheteō as "reject" or "despise" or "put away" rightly expressing that it is not simply distancing oneself from Jesus, but there is an active form of rejection. And we can understand it. For the context is one of missionary preaching and evangelism, and so we are before an audience that had to make a choice. The verb atheteō clearly expresses the rejection of this word. And in rejecting this word, it is God himself who is being rejected, for this word is from God. Of course, those who reject the missionary word probably do not feel that they are rejecting God, for their view of God does not correspond to the true God. Note that in the Septuagint, when atheteō has people as its object, it means: to rebel, to revolt; we can see the same thing in the face of Jesus and his message which might appear too difficult to accept.

There is one final question. Luke seems to be quoting the Q document in v. 16, as we pointed out in the analysis of akouō. Let us review the parallel Mt || Lk.

Mt 10: 40	Lk 10: 16
The (one) receiving you, me he receives, and the (one) me receiving, he receives the (one) having sent me.	The (one) hearing you, me he hears; and the (one) rejecting you, me he rejects; then the (one) me rejecting, he rejects the (one) having sent me.

As can be seen, Matthew has only a positive part, that of the welcome, while Luke presents both the positive and the negative part, and the link with God is only in the negative part in Luke. The question is: what is the original version of the Q document, and what changes were made by either Matthew or Luke? Is the negative part from the Q document or from Luke?

A first observation is in order. This binary structure of welcoming the word/rejecting it is also found in John 12:48 ("Whoever rejects me and does not welcome my words") where we also find the verb atheteō. What does this mean? Luke and John share an ancient tradition about different attitudes toward the word, which is a clue that Luke probably did not create this negative part of v. 16 with the verb atheteō.

Moreover, when we go through the different texts attributed to the Q document, we notice that it is usual to present together the two possible attitudes towards Jesus and his message. For example:

• Mt 7: 21,24-27 || Lk 6: 46-49: Everyone who comes to me and hears my words and does them is like a man who builds a house on the rock... But he who hears and does not do them is like a man who built a house on the ground without foundations
• Mt 12:30 - Lk 11:23: "He who is not with me is against me and he who does not gather with me scatters.
• Mt 10:32-33 || Lk 12:8-9: "Whoever declares himself for me before men, the Son of Man will also declare himself for him before the angels of God; but whoever denies me before men will be denied before the angels of God.
• Mt 6:24 || Lk 16:13: "No servant can serve two masters: either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.
• Mt 10:39 || Lk 17:33: "He who seeks to preserve his life will lose it and he who loses it will save it.
• Mt 25:29 || Lk 19:26: "To everyone who has, it will be given, but to him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away.

Thus, the contrast between the one who listens to the missionary and the one who rejects him reflects the typical style of the Q document. So we think it likely that Luke reflects the Q document better in v. 16 than Matthew does. So why would Matthew not have retained the negative part? It is likely that by inserting this verse at the end of his missionary discourse (Mt 10:40) and associating it with the various ways of welcoming missionaries (as prophet and disciple, and caring for their needs) in his conclusion, Matthew could no longer mention rejection without appearing dissonant and irrelevant.

Hypestrepsan is the verb hypostrephō in the active aorist indicative, 3rd person plural. In the Gospels-Acts, it is found only in Luke: Mt = 0; Mk = 0; Lk = 21; Jn = 0; Acts = 11; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. It is formed by the preposition hypo (under) and the verb strephō (to turn), and it means: return.

The verb "to return" refers to a physical movement. But different contexts bring different nuances to its meaning.

1. Most frequently, it refers to the return home or the return to the place where you are parked.
   • Lk 1: 56: "And Mary remained with her about three months and then returned (hypostrephō) to her home"

2. Sometimes it's not about going home, but about going back to where you were before.
   • Lk 2: 45: "When they did not find him, they returned (hypostrephō) to Jerusalem to search for him"

3. The verb sometimes has a symbolic value; for turning around is representative of the metanoia, i.e. conversion or change of life, and thus turning away from one path to another, or conversely, returning to the old life.
   • Lk 17: 15: "Then one of them, when he saw that he was healed, returned (hypostrephō) back, praising God with a loud voice"
   • 2 Pet 2: 21: "For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than, after knowing it, to return (hypostrephō) back from the holy commandment that was passed on to them"

4. On a few occasions, the verb is used in a mission context to indicate that the mission is complete.
   • Lk 9: 10: "On their return (hypostrephō) the apostles told Jesus all they had done. He took them with him and withdrew privately to a city called Bethsaida"

5. Sometimes one does not specify where one is returning to, because one simply intends to mean that one is leaving a place, and from then on the verb is accompanied by the preposition apo (from) to indicate the place one is leaving.
   • Lk 4, 1: "Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned (hypostrephō) from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness"

Here, in v. 17, we are in a context of the return of the 72 apostles from their mission, and so Luke intends to signify that the mission has been completed. The fact that we are dealing with a very Lucan vocabulary is an indication that this verse is a Lucan composition. What is the purpose? Luke seems to be cloning the return of the Twelve from the mission that he presented in ch. 9. A return from the mission is a way of meditating on what that mission was. This is what the sequel will reveal.

Charas is the feminine noun chara in the genitive singular, the genitive being required by the preposition meta (with). It means: joy, and is especially used by Luke and the Johannine tradition: Mt = 6; Mk = 1; Lk = 8; Jn = 9; Acts = 4; 1Jn = 1; 2Jn = 1; 3Jn = 1. We cannot study the word "joy" without mentioning the verb "to rejoice" (chairō), but its analyss will be done with the analysis of v. 20.

What is the source of joy in the gospels? Let's take a look at each gospel.

1. Mark

   There is only one mention of the word "joy", and that is in the explanation of the parable of the sower in reference to those who receive the word with joy (4:6), and thus refers to the hearers of the gospel who react to the proclamation of the good news. For Mark, as the beginning of his gospel indicates ("Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Messiah, Son of God"), it is the good news of a messiah, the one sent by God). Otherwise, there is little room for joy in a gospel focused on the suffering and death of the messiah.

2. Q document. No mention of the word "joy".

3. Matthew

   Despite the six occurrences of the word, "joy" occupies little space in his gospel. Of the five occurrences, only two can be considered messianic or Jesus-related joy: the joy of the magi when they saw the star in heaven indicating the place of the messiah (2:16), and the women at the tomb after Jesus' resurrection (28:8). Otherwise, the word appears only in parable accounts: the joy of the one who discovers a treasure in a field (13:44), and the joy of the master who entrusted talents to servants who made them bear fruit (25:21,23).

4. Luke

   Joy plays an important role in Luke's gospel as well as in his Acts, so much so that his gospel could be considered a gospel of joy: it begins with the messianic joy around the births of John the Baptist (1:14) and Jesus (2:10) and ends with the meeting of the risen Jesus (24:41) and his departure to Bethany (24:52). In addition, there is a unique source of joy in this gospel: the joy of a sinner who returns from his error (15:7,10), a theme to which he devotes an entire chapter.

   The emphasis changes a little in Acts: it is the joy of life in faith and the Spirit (13:52), and it is the joy of the missionary or the community at the transformation brought about by evangelization and the conversion of the Gentiles (8:8; 15:3).

5. John

   Messianic joy is at the heart of his gospel. It appears in John the Baptist (3:29), it dwells in Jesus (15:11), and it is transmitted to those who welcome him (15:11; 16:20, 22, 24; 17:13).

   The emphasis changes somewhat in the Johannine letters: it is above all the joy of the missionary or pastor before the faith of the community that is emphasized (1 Jn 1:4); 2 Jn 1:12; 3 Jn 1: 4).

In the Pauline letters, joy appears above all in two contexts: that of the missionary like Paul who rejoices in the progress in faith of those he has evangelized (1 Thess 2:19-20; 3:9; Phil 1:4; 2:2; 4:1; 2 Cor 2:3; 7:4. 13; Phm 1:7), and that of life in faith, often associated with peace (Phil 1:25; 2 Cor 1:24; 8:2; Gal 5:22; Rom 14:17; 15:13,32).

Let us return to v. 17. What kind of joy is this? In Luke we have underlined the place of messianic joy. But here the motives are less noble: the seventy-two rejoice that the demons are submitted to them. In other words, they rejoice in their power. This is not unique to Luke, since he addresses the question of power in Acts (8:13-24) with the figure of Simon the magician, who asks Peter: "Give me this power," he says, "so that the one on whom I lay hands may receive the Holy Spirit," and is told to repent of his evil plan. Jesus' answer in vv. 18-20 will be less harsh, but it will correct what should be the source of joy.

Daimonia is the neuter noun daimonion in the nominative plural, the nominative being required because the word plays the role of subject of the verb which follows: to submit. It means: demon, and it appears in the four gospels, but it is in Luke that it is most frequent: Mt = 11; Mk = 13; Lk = 23; Jn = 6; Acts = 1; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. For an in-depth analysis of the term "demon", we refer to the Glossary. Let's summarize the main points.

It was the Greeks who introduced the notion of a demon (daimonion), these demigods who exert a positive or negative influence on humanity. But the Jewish world, with its faith in a unique and transcendent God, has looked upon this notion in a negative way, associating it either with pagan divinities, called idols and representing nothingness, or with the dark forces that prowl in the midst of desolation and are the source of the misfortunes of life. In the Septuagint, daimonion translates various Hebrew words: šēḏ (a foreign god), 'ĕlîl (term for the vanity of idols), śāʿîr (hairy and demonic goat that prowls in the devastated spaces).

But over time, like angelology, demonology, its antithesis, developed, especially in the apocalyptic context from the 2nd century BC onwards, as witnessed by 1 Enoch: the battle had begun between the forces of good and the forces of evil.

It is Mark, as the first evangelist, who introduced the image of Jesus as an exorcist, i.e. as a caster of demons, an image that Matthew and Luke will copy. This image is totally absent from the gospel according to John. This work of Jesus as an exorcist in Mark is so important that it allows him to summarize Jesus' activity: "And he went throughout all Galilee, preaching in their synagogues and casting out the demons (daimonion)" (Mk 1: 39). And when Jesus sends his disciples on mission, it is "with power to cast out the demons (daimonion)".

Note that the gospels distinguish between exorcisms and healings ("he healed many who were sick with various diseases and cast out many demons", Mk 1:34). In connection with the healings, we sometimes learn the name of the disease: fever, leprosy, paralysis, hemorrhages, certain diseases that lead to death, deafness, blindness, dumbness, being crippled or lame, or being hydropic.

But it is less clear when it is said that someone is possessed by the devil (daimonizomai). Two cases of possession are clear: that of the possessed man of Gerasa (Mk 5:1-20; Mt 8:28-34; Lk 8:26-39) who breaks his chains, screams and hurts himself on stones, probably a case of mental illness, and that of an epileptic child (Mk 9:14-29; Mt 17:14-21; Lk 9:37-43) who rolls around on the ground and foams. But the gospels name other cases that they attribute to the demon: the illness of the daughter of a Canaanite woman who is bedridden (Mk 7:24-30; Mt 15:21-28), the woman who has been bent over for 18 years and is unable to get up (13:10-17), a man who is mute (Mt 9:32; 12:22; Lk 11:14), and a man who is blind (Mt 12:22). What distinguishes a disease from a case of demon possession? It is therefore likely that, in the absence of extensive scientific knowledge about illnesses, they were all attributed to dark forces, which were called demons, but that certain more spectacular illnesses, such as mental illness or epilepsy, or illnesses that disturbed the social order, were more likely to evoke diabolic possession.

Let us note that John the Baptist was accused of being demon-possessed (Mt 11:18 || Lk 7:33), because his behavior did not fit the usual pattern, and therefore could appear threatening. In John's gospel, Jesus is also accused of having a demon (Jn 10:20), because people think he is crazy (mainomai). In the synoptic gospels, Jesus is not told directly that he is demon-possessed, but he is accused of performing exorcisms in the name of Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons (Mk 3:20-30; Mt 12:24-32; Lk 11:15-23; 12:10), because his success with the crowds leads to the belief that something is wrong.

What are these demons? They belong to the world of spirits, and impure spirits, and therefore in opposition to the order willed by God. Because they are spirits, they are superior to humans, and possess special knowledge: according to Mark (1:34), taken up by Luke (4:41), they know the identity of Jesus. They do not seem to be very high in the heavenly hierarchy, certainly not as high as the angels, because they need humans and animals to find a home, otherwise they are condemned to wander in the drylands (see Lk 11:24-26). They appear as an organized group under a leader, Beelzebul (Mt 10:25; 12:24,27; Mk 3:22; Lk 11:15,18-19), a name that may go back to the Canaanite god Baal.

In short, Beelzebub and his band of demons are opposed to human integrity and to the world willed by God. Jesus, by healing and casting out demons, wants to restore humanity in its integrity, in all its greatness; it is not a question of restoring the social order, but the order willed by God. His mission, and that which he entrusted to his disciples, anticipates what the kingdom of God is.

Hypotassetai is the verb hypotassō in the present tense, passive form, 3rd person singular. The subject is "demons" in the plural. So why is the verb in the singular? The subject must be considered as a group: it is the group of demons that is the subject. It is a verb that only appears in Luke's gospels: Mt = 0; Mk = 0; Lk = 3; Jn = 0; Acts = 0; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. It is formed by the preposition hypo (under), and the verb tassō (to order, to put in order), from which: to subordinate, to submit.

The word appears in various contexts. It is good to list them in order to situate the one in our v. 17.

1. Most frequently, submission is in relation to God by which one accepts his authority, the way he proposes, including the mediation of his Son. Thus submission to God becomes submission to the Son.
   • Rom 8: 7: "For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit (hypotassō) to God's law - indeed it cannot"
   • Heb 2: 8: "submitting (hypotassō) all things under their feet." Now in submitting (hypotassō) all things to them, God left nothing outside their control. As it is, we do not yet see everything submitted (hypotassō) to them"

2. The New Testament speaks a lot about interpersonal relationships and how they should be governed. Very often, one wants to respect the usual rules of society in order not to harm evangelization.
   • Titus 2: 9: "Tell slaves to be submitted (hypotassō) to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back"
   • Col 3: 18: "Wives, be submitted (hypotassō) to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord"

3. The first Christians were confronted with the usual rules of any organization and of society: in any group, there is a leader who must be respected. Among Christians, the question of respect for the political authority in place also arose. Let us note that in times of peace, submission to political authorities is recommended, but in times of persecution (see Revelation), political authority is associated with Satan.
   • 1 Cor 16: 16: "I urge you to submit (hypotassō) yourselves at the service of such people, and of everyone who works and toils with them"
   • Rom 13: 1: "Let every person be submitted (hypotassō) to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God"

4. To subdue a reality can mean to dominate it, to overcome it, to prevent it from doing harm (e.g., Ps 47:4: LXX "The Lord has subdued [hypotassō] the peoples for us, and put the heathen under our feet)"
   • 1 Pet 3: 22: "who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, having submitted (hypotassō) to him angels, authorities, and powers"

5. The verb "to submit" can simply mean to be a created being, and to participate in the laws of nature, like being submitted to the laws of gravity.
   • Rom 8: 19-20: "For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was submitted (hypotassō) to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who submitted (hypotassō) it, in hope"

6. Finally, the verb "to submit" designates the fact of mastering a reality, of exercising control, for example over oneself.
   • 1 Cor 14: 31-32: "For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged. And the spirits of prophets are submitted (hypotassō) to the prophets"

Here, in v. 17, what is the meaning of "submit"? Let us remember that the subject of the verb in the passive tense is the group of demons, therefore the evil forces. To submit means: to dominate, to subordinate, to render powerless, to defeat. Throughout the gospels, the most frequent verb in Jesus' action against demons is that of expelling or driving out (ekballō). The subjugation of demons means that they could be expelled from individuals by the Seventy-Two. And since demons are attached to a number of diseases, it means that these Seventy-Two were able to do a number of healings.

Onomati is the neuter noun onoma in the dative singular, the dative being required because of the preposition en (into, in). It means: name, and is very frequent in the Gospels-Acts, especially in Luke: Mt = 22; Mk = 15; Lk = 34; Jn = 25; Acts = 60; 1Jn = 3; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 2.

It is important to point out that in ancient times the word "name" had a greater meaning than that of a label to enumerate realities as it does today. First of all, the name of the person says something about his identity and mission, so that in Phil 2:9, which describes the resurrection of Jesus, we read: "Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the Name that is above every name". Moreover, the term "name" is often synonymous with the person himself, so that in the OT God is sometimes referred to simply as "name": "the son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name and cursed, so they brought him to Moses", Lev 24:11.

What is the function of the term "name" in the Gospels-Acts?

1. In most instances of the word, it is used to introduce the name of a person or a city or a region. Today, in everyday language, we use an expression like: "his name is Joseph". But in the NT, a typical Septuagint expression is used very often: "to call him by name (kalein to onoma)" Joseph, which translates the Hebrew: qārā' šēm.
   • Lk 1: 31: "And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name (onoma) him Jesus"

2. As we have pointed out, the name is not simply a label attached to a person, it refers to the person himself, so it is interchangeable with him. Thus, instead of using the personal pronoun "you" or "(s)he", the evangelists prefer to replace it with "name".
   • Lk 6: 22: "Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you, revile you, and reject your name (onoma) as nasty on account of the Son of Man"
   • Lk 11: 2: "He said to them, "When you pray, say: Father, hallowed be your name (onoma). Your kingdom come"

3. Using the idea that the term "name" refers to the person, the evangelists were also able to use it to state that an action takes on its meaning with reference to someone else, or that an action is done by delegation or as a representative of someone else, or in the mediation of someone else. All this is done with the help of prepositions: en (in), epi (on), eis (to), dia (through), heneka (because of). Here are several examples:
   • Mk 9: 37a: "Who welcomes in my name. (epi tō onomati mou, lit. on the basis of my name) a child like this one, welcomes me "
   • Mk 9: 38: "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name. (en tō onomati sou) and we sought to stop him because he was not following us."
   • Jn 16: 26: "On that day you will ask in my name. (en tō onomati mou) and I do not tell you that I will intercede for you with the Father"
   • Mt 18: 20: "Let two or three, indeed, be gathered in my name. (eis to emon onoma), I am here among them".
   • Mk 13: 13: "You will be hated by all for the sake of my name. (dia to onoma mou)"
   • Mt 19: 29: "And whoever has left houses, brothers, sisters, father, mother, children, or fields, for my name's sake (heneken tou onomatos mou), will receive much more and, in sharing, eternal life".

4. The name, while referring to the person himself, may also include his attributes, his particular qualities. In this case, the evangelists can use the term "name" to refer to these special qualities by using the Greek preposition en: (into, in, about)
   • Mt 10: 41: "Who welcomes a prophet in his capacity as (eis onoma, lit. with regard to the name of) prophet shall receive a prophet's reward, and whoever receives a righteous in his capacity of (eis onoma, lit. with regard to the name of) just will receive a reward for a just".

Here, in v. 17, the phrase "(the group) of demons is subjected in your name (en tō onomati sou)" is intended to express the idea that it is Jesus who actually subdues the demons, and that the disciples are merely mediators representing Jesus; they are merely conduits for a force that originates in Jesus. Given the meaning of the term "name" in the NT, it would be a mistake to think that the phrase emphasizes the invocation of the name "Jesus," which would suggest that uttering that name has a magical effect. Luke's statement is unambiguous: the Seventy-two experienced the power of Jesus against the group of demons.

The term "name" comes up again in v. 20: "rejoice that your names have been written in heaven". Here we come back to the meaning of name which is synonymous with the person himself. For the idea is not that someone has taken a pen and written the person's full name in a book in the heavenly office, but that the person belongs to the kingdom of God.

Etheōroun is the verb theōreō in the active past continuous tense, 1st person singular. The use of the past continuous tense designates a continuous action, not finished, and therefore continuing in time. The verb expresses the idea of looking at something that attracts attention, like a show, so it is translated as: to observe, to contemplate.

In the Greek text of the Gospels, there are mainly three verbs to express the action of seeing. The most frequent is the verb horaō, usually translated as: to see, to perceive; note that it is often used in the middle imperative in the form idou (behold) to draw attention to an event. But excluding this case, we get the following statistic: Mt = 76; Mk = 60; Lk = 81; Jn = 82; Acts = 72; 1Jn = 9; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 2. The other verb used is blepō, usually translated as: to look, to see: Mt = 20; Mk = 15; Lk = 16; Jn = 17; Acts = 13; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 1; 3Jn = 0. Finally, there is our verb theōreō, that means: observe, contemplate: Mt = 2; Mk = 7; Lk = 7; Jn = 24; Acts = 14; 1Jn = 1; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0.

As can be seen, theōreō is the least used of the three, except in John. In Mt, the two occurrences appear in the account of the empty tomb and are a simple restatement of Mark's text. Thus, only Mark, Luke, and John really make use of theōreō. But it should be noted that this usage does not systematically follow the definition of the verb. For example, in Mark, while theōreō sometimes conveys the idea of observing (the women observe where the body of Jesus has been laid, Mk 15:40,47; Jesus observes people depositing their change in the temple treasury, Mk 12:41), it sometimes conveys the same idea as blepō, i.e. to notice (the women notice that the stone has been rolled aside, Mk 16:4; Jesus notices the commotion when he arrives at the synagogue leader's house, Mk 5:38; the people notice that the demoniac is now clothed, in his right mind, Mk 5:15), just as it sometimes translates the same idea as horaō, i.e., to see, to glimpse (the unclean spirits, as soon as they catch sight of Jesus, throw themselves at his feet, Mk 3:11).

We discover the same flexibility in John so that in Jn 16:16 we read, "A little longer, and you will see (theōreō) no more, and then a little longer, and you will see (horaō) me "; despite our technical definition of theōreō and horaō, John uses them synonymously. But what is special about John, whether horaō, blepō, theōreō, which he uses extensively, these verbs all refer in one or another verse of his gospel to the look of faith: "Jesus answered him: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born from above, no one can see (horaō) the kingdom of God," Jn 3:3; "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but only what he sees (blepō) the Father doing : For what the Father does, the Son does likewise," Jn 5:19; "For this is the will of my Father: that everyone who sees (theōreō) the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

What about Luke? One senses in him a greater discipline in the use of the verb, so that translating theōreō as "observe" is quite justified ("Lest, if he lays the foundation and cannot finish, all who observe him begin to mock him," Lk 14:29; "Of what you are observing, there will come days when one stone will not be left upon another", Lk 21:6; "The people stood there watching", Lk 23:35; "And all the crowds who had gathered for this spectacle, watching what had happened", Lk 23:48; etc.). A good test is that of Lk 24:39, which could be translated as follows: "Look (horaō) at my hands and feet: it is indeed me. Touch me, look (horaō); a spirit has neither flesh nor bones, as you observe (theōreō) that I have." Thus, it is justified to translate horaō and theōreō differently.

What is now the meaning of theōreō in v. 17: "I was observing (etheōroun) the Satan as a lightning out of the heaven having fallen"? The use of the verb "to observe" is somewhat incongruous, for Satan is not a reality that can be seen with physical eyes. In what sense could Jesus see Satan? The answer is given to us by the Septuagint that Luke used to read the OT, and it is particularly the book of Daniel that sheds light on this. There are 14 occurrences of theōreō, and out of this number 13 refer to a vision or a dream. For example:

LXX: I was observing (theōreō) this vision (horama) of the night ; and behold with the clouds of heaven was coming as a Son of man, and he came on to the Ancient of days, and was brought near to him (Dn 7: 13).

We have something similar in the book of Tobit: "All these days I did appear unto you; but I did neither eat nor drink, but you, you have observed (theōreō) a vision (horasis)" (Tob 12: 19).

Luke refers to a vision of Jesus, which is why we have chosen the verb "to observe" for our translation into everyday language. Luke links this vision to the report of the seventy-two who testified that the demons were submitted to them. This vision is therefore an extrapolation on a large scale of what happened on a small scale with the expulsion of the demons during the mission of the seventy-two. It is the nature of a vision to understand the deeper meaning of an event that seemed limited. Demons represent evil through physical disease. Jesus sees the end of evil in general.

Satanan is the masculine noun satanas in the accusative singular, the accusative being required, because the noun is the direct object of the verb observe/contemplate. It means: satan, and is not very frequent in the Gospels-Acts: Mt = 4; Mk = 6; Lk = 5; Jn = 1; Acts = 2; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. In our glossary, we have presented an analysis of "Satan" and we will refer to it. It is sufficient to summarize the main points.

The term "satan" comes from the Hebrew word śāṭān, which means: adversary, enemy. It appears 27 times in the books of the Old Testament of which we have a copy of the Hebrew text. Most of the time, the Hebrew term was translated into Greek as diabolos (devil) in the Septuagint. But sometimes it was transliterated as such into Greek: satan or satanas. In the New Testament, both terms, diabolos and satanas, are used to designate the same reality.

In the Old Testament, the term "Satan" can simply mean opposition to some action or person, or it can be personified to mean that figure in the heavenly court who acts as a prosecutor to test humans and bring accusations (see the first two chapters of the book of Job), just as he is the one who introduces evil designs in opposition to God. The Greek translation of the Septuagint has opted for different words in the case of opposition to an action or a person, but has always opted for "devil" when referring to the heavenly figure.

As the Septuagint has always translated the Hebrew śāṭān by diabolos (devil) when it refers to this heavenly figure, accuser and source of evil, one would have expected the evangelists to do the same. In fact, they do so almost every other time, except for Mark who never uses "devil", but only "Satan". In Mark, Satan has the same features as the Devil: he is the tempter and accuser (story of the temptation of Jesus), he is responsible for the evils on this earth (associated with the demons and Beelzebub), in particular for the rejection of the word of the Gospel (story of the sower), he is God's adversary (Peter is accused of being a Satan) who seems to exercise a certain amount of control over humanity. Moreover, the fact that he uses Satan rather than Devil could explain his tendency to give an "exotic" color to his stories, as he did with Aramaic terms.

In Matthew and John, the term "Satan" appears only once. In Matthew 4:10 ("Withdraw, Satan") at the end of the temptation story, the presence of this term in Jesus' mouth is probably explained by the fact that, for Matthew, Jesus, an Aramaic-speaking Jew, could not have used the Greek term "devil" but the Hebrew term "Satan." In Jn 13:27 ("At that moment, when he had offered him this morsel, Satan entered [eisēlthen satanas eis] in Judas", John probably has recourse to an ancient tradition that is also known in Luke 22:3 ("And Satan entered into [eisēlthen satanas eis] Judas, called Iscariot, who was one of the Twelve"). Thus, although John usually uses the devil in reference to Judas (Jn 6:70; 13:2), in this particular case he is simply reproducing an ancient tradition.

In Luke there are five occurrences of the term "Satan", but only three of them are his own, since one is a copy of Mark (Mk 3:26 || Lk 11:18) and the other is an ancient tradition known also to John (Jn 13:27 || Lk 22:3). What do we see? Let us begin with Lk 22:31 ("Simon, Simon, Satan has called you [the apostles] to shake you through a sieve like wheat"). Recall that the term "Satan" belongs to the Jewish vocabulary, and it is likely to have found its way into the mouth of Jesus, so Luke is probably echoing a very ancient tradition. This is confirmed by the use of the name "Simon" to refer to Peter. As for the role of Satan, it is very clear from the image of the sieve that separates the wheat from the chaff: he is the one responsible for testing the quality of the disciple's commitment (see the account of the temptation of Jesus) and, if necessary, being able to make accusations like the prosecutor in a trial.

We can group together Lk 10:18 ("I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven") and Lk 13:16 ("And that daughter of Abraham, whom Satan bound eighteen years ago"), because the context presents many similarities. Indeed, the context is one of expulsion of demons: in Lk 10:18, the Seventy-two report their victory over demons, and in Lk 13:16 the bent woman's disability is attributed to an (unclean) spirit (13:11). However, placing Satan in this context is problematic because it confuses the role of the demons with that of Satan, two different roles if one looks at the Bible as a whole. In the gospels in particular, there is a constant where diseases, at least some of them (such as epilepsy, mental illness, sometimes blindness and mutism), are caused by demonic possession, while Satan/Devil is presented as 1) prosecutor, responsible for the trials (see the temptations account), to check the faithfulness of the human being and to be able to accuse him, 2) and he is the one who introduces moral evil in struggle against the gospel and against the kingdom of God, and thus the source of death; usually, Satan is never associated with disease, which is the specialty of demons. Moreover, demons belong to the lower spirits that inhabit people or animals (pigs), or wander in desolate places (see Lk 11:24-26), whereas Satan belongs to the heavenly spirits, on a par with the angels (see Job 1:6, where Satan participates in the Lord's audiences). What is the origin of Luke's confusion in associating Satan with the disability of the bent woman? Luke probably merges two sources, one of which, perhaps oral, would be very old around a word of Jesus that spoke only of Satan, and never of the devil or the demon. And Luke usually tends to respect the vocabulary of his sources. Thus, the usual distinction between demons and Satan would come from the evangelists, whereas in Jesus' world there was probably only Satan responsible for all evils, both moral and physical; by the way, the word "demon" comes from the Greek daimonion which has no real equivalent in Hebrew.

In short, we have here in v. 18 the resumption by Luke of an ancient tradition where Jesus alludes to his victory over evil represented by the angel responsible for bringing him to earth, Satan.

Astrapēn is the feminine name astrapē in the accusative singular, the accusative being required because the word is in apposition to "Satan" which is in the accusative. It means: lightning, and appears only in Matthew and Luke in the gospels-Acts: Mt = 2; Mk = 0; Lk = 3; Jn = 0; Acts = 0; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0.

Although the term "lightning" is not very present in the NT, it does appear in several books of the Septuagint. It always refers to this natural phenomenon that accompanies a thunderstorm. But it does so in different ways.

1. Most frequently, reference is made to thunderstorms where lightning is an element along with thunder and rain. But the interest is not that of a meteorologist, but that of the impact of this phenomenon. As today, the storm is frightening, because nature appears as a raging force. For the Israelite, it evokes the power of God, a power that he deploys in his fury to free his people.
   • At Sinai, the storm with lightning is a sign of God's presence (Ex 19:16; Ps 97:4)
   • It is God who created the storm, and it is a reflection of his enormous power, in contrast to the inability of idols (Jer 10:13; 51:16; Let Jer 1:60)
   • It is therefore worth celebrating the praise of God for the lightning and the clouds (Dan 3:73; Ps 135:7; Sir 43:13)
   • The storm and lightning are God's instrument for routing the adversary of the righteous (2 Sam 22:15; Ps 18:15; 144:6), just as he did for the crossing of the Reed Sea under the leadership of Moses (Ps 77:19)

2. But sometimes the interest is not the storm with thunder and lightning, but the lightning itself with its spectacular and frightening side, which then takes a symbolic value.
   • Ezekiel has a vision of four living beings, each with four faces, and between them a bright flame from which lightning comes out, a way of emphasizing the spectacular side of the light coming from the living (Ezek 1: 13)
   • It is known that lightning is dangerous, that it can kill; so it is used to curse one's enemy by wishing lightning to strike his house (Job 20:25); God will use lightning as an arrow to protect the righteous and punish the earth full of enemies (Wis 5:21)

3. Finally, it happens that, not only we are interested in the lightning itself, but one or another of its attributes is used as an image to understand different aspects of life.
   • One of the attributes of lightning is its dazzling brilliance. The lightning bolt is used to describe the glare of the sword or weapon used by God against his adversaries (Deut 32:41; Hab 3:11), or the glare of the chariots of the Israelites in their battle against Nineveh (Nah 2:5), or the glare of a man's face in Daniel's vision (10:6)
   • Another attribute of lightning is its suddenness and rapidity. Thus, the Lord, like an arrow that shoots out suddenly and quickly, will intervene on behalf of Israel to free them from their enemies (Zech 9: 14)
   • Since ancient times, the gap between the moment when lightning flashes and the moment when thunder is heard had been observed; so, after insisting on modesty before the great and on the obligation to let the elders speak, Sirach can use this comparison in which thunder probably designates speaking: "As lightning precedes thunder, so grace precedes the reserved man" (Sirach 32:10)

What about the New Testament? Revelation has retained above all the image of the storm with thunder and lightning as a symbol of the presence and intervention of God. The gospels, on the other hand, are more interested in the different attributes of lightning. Let's take a closer look.

1. Q Document (Mt 24: 27 || Lk 17: 24)

   Let's take the text of Luke, which usually best respects the text of the Q document: "As the lightning (astrapē) lightening (astraptō) shines out of the (side) under the sky to the (other side) under the sky, so will the Son of Man be in his day". The text in the Q document makes a pun with the noun "lightning" and the verb "to light up" to describe the moment when lightning suddenly dazzles us. The entire image mentions two attributes of lightning: it is sudden and it travels across the sky from one end to the other. These two attributes are used to describe the coming of the Son of Man, even though the word "coming" does not appear: it will be sudden, and it will be seen by the whole universe. Matthew, on the other hand ("For as the lightning goes forth from the east and appears as far as the west, so will the coming of the son of man be"), as he often does, likes to specify and clarify things when he finds them too vague: the whole sky is really covered by the lightning, from east to west, and it is precisely the coming of the son of man.

2. Matthew

   Only one occurrence is unique to him, 28:3 ("He had the appearance of lightning and his garment was white as snow") where he uses one of the attributes of lightning, its dazzling and bright side, as seen in the Septuagint, to describe the appearance of the angel of the Lord at the tomb after the resurrection. This may be an echo of Dan 10:6).

3. Luke

   The evangelist offers us two occurrences. First, there is Lk 11:36 ("So if your whole body is luminous, not having a part of anything dark, it will be luminous in its entirety, as when the lamp with the lightning illuminates you"). The context of this somewhat obscure sentence, which appears as a tautology, is that of the look of faith represented by the eye that lets the light pass through, and thus allows the whole person to lead a luminous life. The attribute of lightning that is used is that of its brilliance that illuminates everything when it flashes, applied to the oil lamp of the time: the fire of the lamp, like the lightning, is what illuminates its surroundings.

   The other occurrence is that of Lk 10:18 ("I observed Satan as lightning out of heaven falling"). Here there is an observation on the phenomenon of lightning: the discharge comes from the sky (a cloud) and strikes the ground. The discharge occurs suddenly and quickly. These attributes of lightning are used to describe the end of Satan's reign. The first thing to notice is that Satan belongs to the heavenly world like the angels. To end his influence, he must fall from heaven, as from his throne. This event is unpredictable and will be sudden. So what this verse is saying is that the expulsion of the demons by the Seventy-Two is a sign that one day the leader of the forces of evil, Satan, will lose his authority and be expelled from his heavenly throne, but that this moment is impossible to foresee and that it will be sudden, not gradual.

Pesonta is the verb piptō in the aorist active participle, in the accusative masculine singular, agreeing with the noun "Satan". It means: to fall, and is especially present in Matthew and Luke: Mt = 19; Mk = 8; Lk = 17; Jn = 3; Acts = 9; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0.

In the New Testament, it appears in four different contexts that mark its meaning.

1. First, there is a negative context where "fall" refers to a reality that physically moves up and down, and thus falls, collapses or is destroyed, whether voluntarily or involuntarily. A fall can be either physical or moral.
   • Mk 9: 20: "And they brought the boy to him. When the spirit saw him, immediately it convulsed the boy, and he fell (piptō) on the ground and rolled about, foaming at the mouth"
   • Lk 13: 4: "Or those eighteen who were killed when the tower of Siloam fell (piptō) on them - do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others living in Jerusalem?"

2. Then there is the context of falling at someone's feet or throwing oneself to the ground to express reverence or pay homage, or to express an urgent request.
   • Jn 11: 32: "When Mary came where Jesus was and saw him, she fell (piptō) at his feet and said to him, 'Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.'"
   • Lk 5: 12: "Once, when he was in one of the cities, there was a man covered with leprosy. When he saw Jesus, he fell (piptō) upon his face and begged him, 'Lord, if you choose, you can make me clean'"

3. There is also the context where something is thrown on the ground in a voluntary gesture, as it is the case in the agrarian world where the seed is thrown on the ground.
   • Mk 4: 4: "And as he sowed, some seed fell (piptō) on the path, and the birds came and ate it up"
   • Jn 12: 24: "Very truly, I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls (piptō) into the earth and dies, it remains just a single grain; but if it dies, it bears much fruit"

4. Finally, we sometimes use the verb "to fall" to express the unexpected result of an event or an action (today, for example, we would say: while doing a research "he fell" on this article, or, while entering the store, he fell on this salesman).
   • Acts 1: 26: "And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell (piptō) on Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles"
   • Jas 5: 12: "Above all, my beloved, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your "Yes" be yes and your "No" be no, so that you may not fall (piptō) under condemnation"

Here, in v. 18, the verb "to fall" is placed in a negative context: through the image of Satan falling from his home in heaven like lightning, the reality of the destruction of the source of evil is expressed.

Dedōka is the verb didōmi in the active perfect indicative, 1st person singular. It means: to give, and is the 9th most frequent word in the Gospels-Acts: Mt = 56; Mk = 39; Lk = 60; Jn = 75; Acts = 35; 1Jn = 7; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0.

One point of interest of this verb is to know who gives what in the Gospels-Acts. We propose the following table.

Source of gift	Mt	Mk	Lk	Jn	Acts	1Jn	Total
God	12	4	12	36	25	5	94
Jesus	8	9	9	23	1	2	52
Disciples /audience	8	4	7	1	6	0	26
Unclean spirit	1	0	2	0	0	0	3
Others	26	22	28	15	3	0	94
Unknown	1	1	1	0	0	0	3
Total	56	39	60	75	35	7	272

1. One of the great donors of the Gospels-Acts is God. This point is especially emphasized in the gospel of John where Jesus reveals what he has received from the Father and in Acts where the Christian community celebrates God's action in the world. Let us look at the gospels as a whole.
   • God is asked to give the daily bread (Q document: Mt 6:11 || Lk 11:3)
   • God gives good things, especially the Holy Spirit, to those who ask him (Q document: Mt 7:11 | Lk 11:13)
   • It is God who gives the knowledge of the mystery of the kingdom to whom he wishes (Mk 4:11)
   • It is God who gives us what to say when we are on trial (Mk 13:11)
   • It is God who gives men the power to forgive sins (Mt 9:8; 10:19)
   • It is God who gives the ability to understand celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of God (Mt 19:11)
   • It is God who takes the kingdom of God away from those who refused it and gives it to a people who will make it bear fruit (Mt 21:43)
   • It is God who gives power in heaven and on earth to the risen Jesus (Mt 28:18)
   • It is God who gives Jesus the throne of David, who gives the conditions of peace to worship (Lk 1: 32,73)
   • It is God who gives the kingdom to the disciples of Jesus (Lk 12:32)
   • God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son (Jn 3:16; 1Jn 3:1) and put everything in his hands (Jn 3:27), especially the commandment of what he should do (Jn 12:49), the judgment (Jn 5:22), the ability to have life in himself (Jn 5:26), the works he should do (Jn 5:36; 17: 4; 18: 11), all the words spoken (Jn 17: 8), to be the center of attraction (Jn 6: 37,39,65; 10:29; 17:6,9; 18:9), and even his identity (Jn 17:12), his glory (Jn 17:22)
   • God grants everything that Jesus asks for (Jn 11: 22; 15: 16)
   • It is God who gives the Paraclete (Jn 14: 16) or the Spirit (Acts 5: 32; 11: 17; 15: 8; 1Jn 3: 4)
   • It is God who gives eternal life to all who believe in Jesus (Jn 17:2; 1Jn 5:11,16)
   • It is God who gives political power to rulers (Jn 19:11)
   • In the history of Israel, God is the main agent: He gave the manna (Jn 6:32), he gives wonders and signs (Acts 2:19), he gives his saints not to know corruption (Acts 2:27; 13:35), he gave his people the land of Israel (Acts 7:5), he gave the covenant of circumcision (Acts 7:8), he gave Joseph wisdom (Acts 7:10), he gave the people judges (Acts 13:20), kings (Acts 13:21)
   • It is God who gives the apostles in the period of the Church to announce the gospel with confidence (Acts 4: 29)
   • It is God who gives the risen life to Jesus (Acts 5: 31; 10: 40)
   • It is God who gives the repentance that leads to salvation (Acts 11: 18)
   • It is God who supports his missionaries with signs and wonders (Acts 14:3).

2. Jesus' role as giver is more limited than that attributed to God. It is in John's gospel that this role is the greatest, but most of the time it is a question of Jesus giving what he has received. Let us look at the gospels as a whole.
   • Let us note first of all that in the Q document there is no passage where Jesus gives something
   • Jesus gives the Twelve power over unclean spirits when he sends them on mission (Mk 6:7)
   • In the two scenes where he feeds the crowd, Jesus blesses and breaks the bread and gives it to his disciples (Mk 6:41; 8:6); similarly, he will give the bread and the cup of wine at his last meal with his disciples (Mk 14:22)
   • Jesus cannot give James and John a seat on his right and left in the kingdom, for that is a matter for God alone (Mk 10:37,40)
   • Jesus gives his life as a ransom for the many (Mk 10:45)
   • Jesus will give Peter the keys of the kingdom to bind and loose for the time of the Church (Mt 16:19)
   • Jesus gives the son he has just revived to his mother (Lk 7:15)
   • Jesus gives authority to the 72 to trample on snakes, scorpions, and all the power of the enemy (Lk 10:19)
   • Jesus gives the ability to be a child of God to those who receive him (Jn 1: 12)
   • Jesus gives a water of life through which one is no longer thirsty (Jn 4: 10-15)
   • Jesus gives a food to be sought after (Jn 6:27), a bread that gives life to the world (Jn 6:33), which is in fact his flesh for the life of the world (Jn 6:51)
   • Jesus gives eternal life to his sheep (Jn 10:28; 17:2)
   • Jesus gives an example by washing the feet of his disciples (Jn 13:15)
   • Jesus gives Judas a bite to eat (Jn 13:26)
   • Jesus gives the commandment to love one another (Jn 13:34)
   • Jesus gives his peace (Jn 14: 27)
   • Jesus gives the words he received from his Father (Jn 17, 8.14) and the glory (Jn 17: 22)
   • The risen Jesus gives bread and fish at a meal with a group of disciples (Jn 21:13)
   • In the time of the Church, it is faith in the risen Jesus that gives full health to a lame man (Acts 3: 16)

3. The giver can be a disciple, or the audience of the gospel. Very often it is Jesus who asks to give.
   • Jesus asks his audience to give to those who ask (Q document: Mt 5:42 || Lk 6:30)
   • Jesus' audience knows how to give good things to his children (Q document: Mt 7:11 || Lk 11:13)
   • In front of a large crowd, Jesus asks the disciples to give them something to eat (Mk 6:37)
   • Judas had given the Jewish authorities a sign to locate Jesus (Mk 14:44)
   • Do not give what is "holy" (i.e. what comes from God) to dogs (unbelievers) (Mt 7:6)
   • What has been received freely (ability to heal) must be given freely (Mt 10:8)
   • Peter is asked to give the money needed for his and Jesus' taxes (Mt 17:27)
   • John the Baptist gives his people the knowledge of salvation (Lk 1:77)
   • Jesus asks his audience to give, for by the measure of which one measures one will measure for oneself in return (Lk 6:38)
   • Jesus asks to give to the poor, which is more important than all the purity rites (Lk 11:41)
   • Jesus asks us to give ourselves time to settle conflicts before facing the courts (Lk 12:58)
   • When Judas leaves the Last Supper, the disciples think that he may have gone to give money to the poor from the common purse (Jn 13:39)
   • In the time of the Church, Peter, lacking money, gives the lame beggar to be healed in the name of Jesus (Acts 1: 26)

4. A potential giver is the unclean spirit or devil, for he seems to be in control of all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor, and is therefore able to give them to whomever he wants (Q document: Mt 4:9 || Lk 4:6)

5. The verb "to give" appears in a great many scenes where the subject who gives can be a character in the Gospel or in a parable, or even an inanimate object. Let us give some examples:
   • A master places over the people of his house a faithful and wise servant to give them food in due time (Q document: Mt 24: 45 || Lk 12: 42)
   • A master who had entrusted his money to his servants withdrew it from the one who had done nothing to give it to the one who had done the most (Q document: Mt 25: 28 || Lk 19: 24)
   • David is said to have eaten the meat loaves from the temple, which is only allowed for priests, and to have given some to his companions (Mk 2:26)
   • The seed gives or does not give fruit (Mk 4:6-8)
   • For whoever has something (who has opened himself to the gospel), more will be given to him; but whoever has nothing (who has closed himself to the gospel), even what he has will be taken from him (Mk 4:25)
   • Herod promised to give the head of John the Baptist to the daughter of Herodias (Mk 6:22-28)
   • Giving money: a rich man is invited to sell everything and give the money to the poor, to follow Jesus (Mk 10:21); in front of the woman who pours expensive perfume on Jesus' head, there is indignation saying that this perfume should have been sold and the money given to the poor (Mk 14:5); the chief priests give money to Judas so that he will hand Jesus over to them (Mk 14:11; Mt 26:15); a master of the vineyard gives as much to the workers of the last hour as to those of the last hour (Mt 20:4-14) a master gives talents to his servants so that they may make them bear fruit (Mt 24:45); the chief priests gave a large sum of money to the guardians of the tomb to spread the news of the theft of Jesus' body (Mt 28:12); the good Samaritan gives two days' wages to the innkeeper so that he may take care of the victim (Lk 10:25); Zacchaeus gives half of his possessions to the poor (Lk 19:8)
   • Giving responsibilities and tasks: the owner of a vineyard kills the rebellious vinedressers and gives the vineyard to others (Mk 12:9); a master on a journey empowers his servants, each one with his task (Mk 13:34)
   • He who divorces his wife must give a certificate of divorce (Mt 5:31; 19:7)
   • On the cross, Jesus is given something to drink (Mk 15:23)
   • A criterion for the great judgment is to have given food to the hungry (Mt 25:35)
   • A man, awakened in the middle of the night by a friend, will give him everything he needs because of his impudence (Lk 11:7-8)
   • The father gives his share of the inheritance to the younger son (Lk 15:12), and when the latter returns repentant, the father gives him a ring (Lk 15:22)
   • Moses gave the Law (Jn 1:17; 7:19), as well as circumcision (Jn 7:22)
   • Jacob gave the well of Shechem (Jn 4:12)
   • The guards give slaps and beat Jesus (Jn 18:22; 19:3)
   • There is more joy in giving than in receiving (Acts 20: 35)

6. Let us point out the case where the giver is not named: "Who gave you this authority to do this (cleansing of the temple)" (Mk 11: 28 || Mt 21: 23 || Lk 20: 2)

In short, the great number of occurrences of the verb "to give" is explained by the fact that it is part of everyday life: we give money, we give tasks or responsibilities or a form of authority, we give food and drink, we give gifts, we give knowledge; all of this belongs to interrelational life. Theologically, God is the source of everything: he alone can give his Spirit who allows one to open up to the kingdom and he gives this kingdom to whomever he wants, he is the one who transforms hearts for repentance, he is the one who gives his son to be the light and life of humanity, he is the one who sustains missionaries with signs and wonders, he is the one who raised Jesus; from a Christian perspective, the gift of God is given through the mediation of the risen Jesus, so that the knowledge of God is given through him, to cling to God is to cling to him, and the authority of God is given to the missionaries through him.

Here, in v. 19, it is Jesus who gives authority over the opposing forces. Luke then takes up a statement from Mk 6:7 which concerned the Twelve: "He called the twelve disciples and began to send them out two by two. He gave them authority over the unclean spirits". The idea is the same: one cannot send someone on a mission against evil without giving some form of authority over evil. And the word "give" expresses delegation: Jesus' authority over evil is now delegated to the missionary. All this places us in the time of the Church. For, during his public life, Jesus attributes his authority over evil to God: "But if by the finger of God I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come to you" (Lk 3:26). It is only after his resurrection that the Christian community will understand that this authority of God passes through the mediation of Jesus, so much so that an evangelist like Matthew can put in the mouth of Jesus this sentence: "All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth" (Mt 28:18). It is this authority that is now delegated to the missionary.

Exousian is the feminine noun exousia in the accusative singular. It appears sometimes in the Gospels-Acts, especially in Luke: Mt = 10; Mk = 10; Lk = 16; Jn = 8; Acts = 7; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0. It has the same root as exestin (it is proper, it is permitted) and means: authority, power. In Plato, in classical Greece, exousia is the faculty of doing a thing; in Demosthenes, the word refers to "license", the negative form of freedom; in Aristotle, the word refers to the authorities of the Roman magistracy (André Myre, Nouveau vocabulaire biblique, p. 305).

If exousia refers to the authority to do a thing or the authority over a reality, the question remains: of what action or reality are we talking? When we go through the Gospels-Acts, we can distinguish different contexts.

1. In many cases, the context is that of a military, legal, religious or political authority, where someone is in a position to make arrests, or to exercise coercion by compelling or preventing an action.
   • Lk 12: 11: "When they bring you before the synagogues, the rulers, and the authorities (exousia), do not worry about how you are to defend yourselves or what you are to say"
   • Acts 26: 10: "And that is what I did in Jerusalem; with authority (exousia) received from the chief priests, I not only locked up many of the saints in prison, but I also cast my vote against them when they were being condemned to death"
   • Mk 11: 28: "and said, 'By what authority (exousia) are you doing these things? Who gave you this authority (exousia) to do them?'"

2. The context is regularly that of the forces of evil represented by the unclean spirits or demons responsible for both physical and mental illness. Authority is the ability to overcome evil by healing. Note that forgiveness of sins belongs to the same context, because in the popular mentality of the first century, illness was linked to sin (see "who sinned so that he or his parents were born blind?", Jn 9:2); therefore, to heal someone meant to forgive his sins.
   • Mk 6: 7: "He called the twelve and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority (exousia) over the unclean spirits"
   • Mt 9: 6: "'But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority (exousia) on earth to forgive sins' - he then said to the paralytic - 'Stand up, take your bed and go to your home'"

3. Another context Mark introduces in the gospels is that of Jesus' teaching. What does it mean to teach with authority? The answer is given by contrasting it with the teaching of the scribes: the latter commented on Scripture, merely interpreting it, whereas the teaching of Jesus is not a commentary on anything, but originates with Jesus himself; he is the author.
   • Mk 1: 22: "They were astounded at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority (exousia), and not as the scribes"

4. Another dimension of authority is the ability to give the life that comes from God, the life in the Spirit
   • Mt 28: 18: "And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority (exousia) in heaven and on earth has been given to me"
   • Jn 1: 12: "But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave authority (exousia) to become children of God"

5. Authority can sometimes refer to free will, that capacity of the human being to act as he pleases, to be free of his choices.
   • Acts 5: 4: "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were it not in your authority (exousia)? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You did not lie to us but to God!"

6. The authority can also designate any reign, a world governed by a vision of the things.
   • Lk 22: 53: "When I was with you day after day in the temple, you did not lay hands on me. But this is your hour, and the authority (exousia) of darkness!"

7. The role of judge implies a form of authority, as it is the ability to decide a dispute and determine who is right and who is wrong.
   • Jn 5: 27: "and he has given him authority (exousia) to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man"

8. The authority can be simply administrative: one cannot entrust a responsibility without entrusting at the same time the rights relative to this responsibility.
   • Mk 13: 34: "It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and gives authority (exousia) to his slaves each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to be on the watch"

9. Finally, God would have a unique authority in exercising control over the events of history and in determining the stages.
   • Acts 1: 7: "He replied, 'It is not for you to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority (exousia)'"

Here, in v. 19, authority refers to the ability to overcome evil symbolized by the serpent, the scorpion and the enemy. Evil is seen as a force in the world. And so authority over the forces of evil is the ability to confront and eliminate it. Note that, fundamentally, only God has this ability. But this ability is now delegated to missionaries.

Patein is the verb pateō in the active present infinitive. The infinitive is ordered by the fact that the verb makes explicit the definition of authority. This verb appears only in the Gospel of Luke (Mt = 0; Mk = 0; Lk = 2; Jn = 0; Acts = 0; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0), and elsewhere in the NT, only in Revelation. It means: to trample, to tread (underfoot).

Because of the few occurrences in the NT, let us turn to the Septuagint for a better idea of its meaning. The translators of the Greek version used pateō to translate various Hebrew words, first and foremost: dāraḵ (to tread, to walk), the source of the word dereḵ (path, road), but also : rāmas (to trample, to tread on), dûš (to trample, to beat, to be crushed), bûs (to trample, to reject, to tread on), hālaḵ (to go, to walk, to come), and yāraḏ (to go down, to walk down, to flow down). Pateō is thus not a technical word with a single definition. Although it always implies movement of the feet, it takes on a variety of meanings depending on the context that can be grouped as follows:

1. In more than half of the cases, pateō appears in a context where one simply treads on a piece of land to walk it.
   • Deut 11: 24: LXX "Every place whereon the sole of your foot shall tread (Gr. pateō, Heb. dāraḵ) shall be yours; from the wilderness and Antilibanus, and from the great river, the river Euphrates, even as far as the west sea shall be your coasts"
   • Isa 42: 5: LXX Thus saith the Lord God, who made the heaven, and established it; who settled the earth, and the things in it, and gives breath to the people on it, and spirit to them that tread (Gr. pateō, Heb. hālaḵ) on it"

2. But the verb is also used to describe the event of trampling the grapes with bare feet into a vat that serves as a press to make the juice flow. And of course, this event can take on a symbolic value, since the juice of the vine can evoke blood and the gesture of treading the grape can evoke being crushed.
   • Jer 48: 33: LXX (31: 33) "Joy and gladness have been utterly swept off the land of Moab: and though there was wine in thy presses, in the morning they trod (Gr. pateō, Heb. dāraḵ) it not, neither in the evening did they raise the cry of joy"
   • Lam 1: 15: LXX "SAMECH. The Lord has cut off all my strong men from the midst of me: he has summoned against me a time for crushing my choice men: the Lord has trodden (Gr. pateō, Heb. dāraḵ) a wine-press for the virgin daughter of Juda: for these things I weep"

3. Finally, the context can be clearly that of crushing an enemy by trampling him, a symbol of victory.
   • Isa 25: 10: LXX "God will give rest on this mountain, and the country of Moab shall be trodden foule (Gr. pateō, Heb. dûš) down, as they tread the floor with waggons"

In the NT, the text of Revelation offers us both the context of the wine press (Rev 14:20; 19:15) and the one where, even though it seems to refer to treading on the ground, it is a question of the Gentiles conquering the holy place (Rev 11:2). What about Luke?

The text of Lk 21:24 ("and Jerusalem shall be trodden down [under foot] under [hypo] the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled") is similar to Rev 11:2 ("for they have given it [outer court of the Temple] to the Gentiles: they shall tread down the Holy City for 42 months"). This is a reference to the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans where the Jewish rebels were crushed.

The text of Lk 10:19 presents a similar context, but this time the roles are reversed: the emphasis is no longer on the defeated, but on the victor. Whereas in Lk 21:24 the verb pateō was in the passive tense (to be trodden on, trampled on), followed by the preposition hypo (under), in Lk 10:19 the verb is in the active tense (to tread on) followed by the preposition epanō (over, on). Thus, Luke places the missionary on the winning side, a victory over evil. And so pateō can take on the sense of crushing, as one crushes an enemy.

Note that it is difficult to determine the origin of the image used by Luke. The meaning of pateō as victorious action is found in Isa 25:10 and 26:6, but no animals are crushed there. Let us discard the scene in Gen 3:15, which in its Hebrew version is translated: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your offspring and her offspring. This one shall bruise (šûp̅) your head, and you shall bruise (šûp̅) her heel," and in its Greek version, "I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your offspring and her offspring; he shall watch (tēreō) your head, and you shall watch (tēreō) her heel"; it is impossible to make a connection at the level of vocabulary. It is likely that Luke’s image comes from observation of everyday life.

Epanō is an adverb which means: above, on, over. Evangelists use it only rarely, except Luke, and especially Matthew: Mt = 8; Mk = 1; Lk = 5; Jn = 2; Acts = 0; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0.

It is found in three different contexts.

1. A physical context where an object is on top of another object. For example:
   • Mt 21: 7, "they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he (Jesus) sat on (epanō) them".

2. A symbolic context to signify that an object is superior (above) to another object. For example:
   • Jn 3: 31, "The one who comes from above is above (epanō) all; the one who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks about earthly things. The one who comes from heaven is above all."

3. A mathematical context where one number is greater (above) than another. For example:
   • Mk 14: 5, "For this ointment could have been sold for over (epanō) three hundred denarii, and the money given to the poor." And they scolded her."

In Luke we find five occurrences of epanō. Let us begin with Lk 19:17,19 where the good servant who has made the master's assets bear fruit is given authority over (epanō) ten and five cities respectively: the meaning of "over" is symbolic, since the adverb designates the extent of the servant's power. The meaning of the adverb in Lk 11:44 ("Woe to you, who are like the tombs that nothing signals and on [epanō] which one walks without knowing it!") is clearly physical. The case of Lk 4:39 is interesting, for Luke writes, "Leaning over [epanō] her, he threatened the fever": why does Jesus need to be over Peter's mother-in-law? The answer is given by the following: Jesus treats the fever as a demonic possession, and so to expel the demon, he "threatens" it. Being above the sick person symbolizes that he dominates the force of evil. All of this is similar to what is offered in Lk 10:19 where Jesus empowers the Seventy-Two to tread/walk heavily over (epanō) serpents, scorpions, and all the power of the Enemy. The meaning of epanō is physical, as it describes the foot over the snake, scorpion, and the Enemy (lying on the ground). As in the story of the healing of Peter's mother-in-law, being above an object also has a symbolic significance, for it means: to dominate it, and thus announces victory over evil.

Opheōn is the masculine noun ophis in the genitive plural, the genitive being required by the preposition epanō (on, over). It means: snake, and is not very present in the Gospels-Acts: Mt = 3; Mk = 1; Lk = 2; Jn = 1; Acts = 0; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0.

In Hebrew, the serpent appears primarily as nāḥāš, but a few times as śārāp̅ and peṯen, all translated in the Septuagint as ophis. In the OT as a whole, three scenes have given the serpent some notoriety. First, there is the scene in the Garden of Eden (Gen 3:1-15) where the serpent is presented as a cunning being (in Hebrew ʿārûm, translated by the Septuagint as phronimos [cunning, shrewd]). Being shrewd (ʿārûm) is a quality, it is even a quality of God in the face of those enemies (Job 5:12), it is a quality of the wise man in the face of the fool (Prov 12:16). But this quality is used to deceive Eve into making a bad choice that will not only be disobedient to God, but cause death. Hence the reputation of the serpent as a deceiver, the father of lies. The end of the story attributes to this event the fact that the serpent now crawls on the ground (as if it had legs before) and that it is in constant conflict with the human being represented by the woman. This is an etiological account, i.e. from contemporary observations (the snake crawls, and it is in conflict with the human who wants to destroy it), one tries to deduce the cause from a mythical past. This scene is echoed in 4 Macc 18:8 which speaks of the destructive and lying serpent.

Then there is the story of the people of Israel, on their way to the promised land (Num 21), who lose heart and complain about the lack of water and bread, and begin to criticize God. Then "the Lord sent fiery serpents against the people, which bit them, and many people died in Israel" (Num 21:6). When the people repented, Moses interceded for them with God, who asked him to make a bronze snake and attach it to a rod, so that if a snake bit a man, he would only have to look at the bronze snake to save his life (Num 21:9). This scene was well known in Israel, so much so that the people of Judah at the end of the 8th century BC worshipped a replica of the bronze serpent, which was believed to be that of Moses, forcing king Ezekiel to destroy it in view of the danger of idolatry (2 Kings 18:4).

Finally, there is the scene where Moses must influence Pharaoh, and in a setting where magicians had an important place in Egypt, God teaches Moses this magic trick: to transform a stick into a snake, then the snake into a stick (Ex 4:3-4). And it is a snake transformed into a stick that will be used to strike the Nile so that it turns into blood (Ex 7: 14-22).

The snake is part of the fauna of Israel: there are said to be about thirty species (Xavier Léon-Dufour, Dictionnaire du Nouveau Testament, p. 492). Unlike the Hellenistic world where the snake is associated with Aesculapius (or Asclepius), a healing god (this symbolic snake appears today on some ambulances or pharmacies) or Egypt where the female cobra, the uraeus, has the function of protecting the pharaoh against his enemies; it is also a powerful goddess, mainly embodied by Ouadjet. Pharaohs wore a replica on their heads as a symbol of protection. In Israel the serpent was feared and is associated with a plague. In Jer 8:17, to punish his people, God sends snakes that bite. In Am 15:9 the threat of the serpent is on the same level as the lion and the bear. When Zofar in the book of Job wishes that the wicked would one day be eliminated, he says: "May the tongue of serpents destroy him" (Job 20:16). The serpent is so frightening that Sirach can write: "Flee from sin as from a serpent, for if you come near it, it will bite you."

But apart from the fear of the snake, it is certain features of its anatomy and behavior that are remembered and used as an element of comparison. The snake moves quietly, so one speaks of Egypt slithering away like a snake (Jer 46:2; LXX: like a snake on the sand) from the Babylonian invader. The snake moves with its head in the dust, and this serves as an image to describe the defeated enemy who licks the ground like snakes crawling in the dust (Mic 7:17). The snake is devious: it knows how to hide and strike without warning, as one who breaks down a wall suddenly discovers (Eccl 10:8; LXX: a hedge). The movement of a snake is unpredictable and somewhat irrational, and serves as a comparison to the man's approach to the young woman (Prov 30:19). To express the consequences of the words of the liar or the actions of the violent man, they are compared to the venom of the serpent (Ps 58:5; 140:4). The snake watches its prey for a long time before attacking, which is what the Sadducees do when they want to take over someone else's house (Ps 4:9).

While the majority of references to the serpent are in a negative framework, there are a few rare cases where this is not the case. For example, according to Jacob, the tribe of Dan is called to play the role of protector of its Jewish brethren like a serpent on the road (Gen 49:17), while Isaiah dreams of the day when the serpent will eat the earth like bread, next to the lion eating straw like the ox, and next to the wolves and lambs grazing together (Isa 65:25).

This is the setting within which we enter the NT. Outside the gospels, references to the serpent are limited. First there is Paul who alludes to the bite of the serpents in the desert in the episode that brought the brazen serpent (1 Cor 10:9), an invitation not to play with fire with the participation in pagan banquets, and then to the story of Eve and the serpent (2 Cor 11:3), an invitation not to be enticed by people who preach a different gospel from his own. Then there is the book of Revelation where the serpent represents Satan / the devil and bears the many traits of the serpent of the OT: he does harm (Rev 9:19), as with Eve, he deceives the world (Rev 12:9) and is in conflict with the Church represented by a woman (Rev 12:14-15). The fact that he is also called "Dragon" evokes Isa 27:1: LXX "On that day God will draw his holy sword, his great and strong sword, against the dragon, a fleeing serpent, against the dragon, a crooked serpent, and he will kill the dragon." This fleeing serpent is Leviathan, according to the Hebrew text, a sea animal that is part of the myth of the primordial battle between the Creator and the marine forces personifying Chaos. For Revelation, as the Creator defeated chaos, so God will defeat the dragon/devil/serpent.

What about the gospels? In John's gospel, the reference to the bronze serpent in the desert, which healed those bitten by snakes (Num 21:9), evokes the lifting up of Jesus on the cross for the salvation of all (Jn 3:14: "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up").

In the Q document (Mt 7:10 || Lk 11:11: "Which of you is the father to whom his son will ask for a fish, and instead of a fish he will give him a snake?") the snake represents mortal danger and is contrasted with the fish, the basic element for survival in Palestine: never would a parent give his child that which causes death instead of that which causes life.

In Matthew, we find two references to the serpent that are specific to him. First, Matthew 10:16 ("Be wise as serpents and candid as doves") emphasizes one of the qualities of the serpent, its shrewdness (phronimos), the same quality emphasized by Genesis 3 for the serpent in his encounter with Eve, a quality that the missionary should have. Then there is Mt 23:33 ("You serpents, you brood of vipers, how can you escape the condemnation of Gehenna"), the meaning of which is not obvious: why are the scribes and Pharisees associated with serpents? In the preceding verses, they are continually accused of being hypocrites. But never in the Bible are snakes considered hypocrites; they may be devious, but they are not hypocrites. The answer probably comes from the following: "Behold, I am sending prophets, wise men and scribes to you. You will kill them and put them on crosses, and scourge them in your synagogues, and chase them from town to town"; in other words, they are killers like the serpent.

The text of Mk 16:18 does not belong to the original gospel of Mark (the gospel ends with Mk 16:8) and was probably written either by Luke or by someone from his school. It belongs to the group Mk 16:9-20, which summarizes the accounts of the appearance of the risen Jesus and gives the signs that will accompany the missionaries, and one of these signs is that they can take a snake in their hands without danger. This is the idea that the forces of death will have no hold on the missionary. It is also an echo of Acts 28:3-6 where a viper clings to Paul's hand while he was putting wood on the fire, but it did not harm him.

Lk 10:19 should be understood in the same way as Mk 16:18, perhaps by the same author: the serpent is presented along with other opposing and dangerous forces such as the scorpion and the enemy, and the same statement is made: the opposing forces will not have any hold on the missionary.

Skorpiōn is the masculine noun skorpios in the genitive plural, the genitive being required by the preposition epanō (on, over). It means: scorpion, and appears in the NT only in Revelation and Luke: Mt = 0; Mk = 0; Lk = 2; Jn = 0; Acts = 0; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0.

In Hebrew, the scorpion is called ʿaqrāḇ. It is abundant in Palestine where about ten species exist (Xavier Léon-Dufour, Dictionnaire du Nouveau Testament, p. 487). Unlike many snakes, its bite is rarely fatal, but it is very painful. This is what we know about this animal, which only appears in a few texts of the OT.

Deut 8:15 repeats the episode of the biting serpents that decimated part of the people in the desert and led to the creation of the bronze serpent (see Num 21), but to the biting serpents it adds scorpions to give more impact to God's punishment.

The accounts of 1 Kings 12: 11,14,24r and 2 Ch 11:14 refer to the same event of the meeting between Rehoboam, son and successor of Solomon, and Jeroboam, which led to a schism in Israel in the 10th century BC: when Jeroboam returned from exile following his revolt against Solomon, he asked Rehoboam to lighten the yoke that had been imposed on him and on the people, to which he was told: "My father chastised you with whips; I will chastise you with scorpions"; here, scorpions are whips ending in small metal hooks like fish hooks.

In Ezekiel (2:6), the word "scorpion" appears in a word from the Lord who warns the prophet that he will have to proclaim the word to a rebellious generation, and so he will be in the midst of scorpions. The animal is associated with an opposing force, and one can imagine that the rebels will unleash arrows at the prophet with their word that will hurt like the scorpion's sting.

In Sirach, the scorpion appears in two different contexts, first (26:7) that of a marital relationship where the wife is wicked, and trying to control her is as delicate and dangerous as handling a scorpion, then (39:30) that of a list of God's punishments for the ungodly, and scorpions appear in this list along with ferocious beasts, vipers, and wars (the sword).

In short, the references to the scorpion are very few and all appear in a negative frame: it is a dangerous animal, which hurts and which one wants to avoid.

What about the NT. Let's start with the book of Revelation. In the three references to the scorpion (Rev 9, 3,5,10), the animal is mentioned only as an image of that which hurts without killing: the locusts released from the pit of the abyss were given the power to hurt those who do not bear the seal of God on their foreheads, but without killing them, like the scorpion; their tails were like those of scorpions, armed with stings, in order to harm men.

Luke presents us with two references to scorpions. In Lk 11:12 ("Or if he asks for an egg, will he give him a scorpion?"), we may be surprised to see the scorpion compared to an egg; indeed, a still scorpion may have a whitish color that could be mistaken for an egg. But the idea is the same as the previous verse with the fish and the snake: never would a parent give his child what harms instead of what nourishes. Finally, with 10:19, Luke includes the scorpion in the list of opposing forces along with the serpent and the enemy. It is possible that it was the mention of the snake that led to the idea of the scorpion, perhaps suggested by Deut 8:15. In any case, it is a strong image to evoke the opposition that awaits the missionary.

Echthrou is the adjective echthros in the genitive masculine singular, the genitive being required by the preposition epanō (on, over). It means: enemy, hostile, and appears sporadically in the Gospels-Acts, especially in Matthew and Luke: Mt = 7; Mk = 1; Lk = 9; Jn = 0; Acts = 2; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0.

In the NT, what exactly do we mean by the enemy? The answer varies greatly.

1. In about half of the cases, it is the enemy in general, without naming a specific individual or group.
   1. Regular reference is made (8 times) to Ps 110:1 ("The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet'"), a royal psalm that has become a messianic psalm: it is used to describe the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus, and the mention of the enemies, originally the enemies of the king, became in a generic way all the enemis of Jesus in his ministry.

   2. In Israel, the enemies were the foreign peoples who invaded the country, condemned them to servitude, and even prevented them from exercising their worship. From then on, salvation consisted in regaining their independence and peace. We have an echo of all this in the Benedictus (Lk 1:71: "to save us from our enemies and from the hands of all those who hate us"; see also Lk 1:74), the prayer of Zechariah at the birth of John the Baptist, a prayer which Luke probably takes up from Jewish Christian circles (on the subject, see R.E. Brown).

   3. Matthew's Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:43) alludes to the enemies in general who were to be hated in Israel (according to Ps 31:7, hatred is directed at those who do not rely on God; according to Ps 139:21, hatred is directed at those who hate God). But this allusion to enemies is only meant to put forward the love of enemies: "Love your enemies and pray for your persecutors" (Mt 5:44). Luke does the same thing: "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you" (Lk 6:27; see also Lk 6:35). At most, we can say that the enemy is the one who persecutes or hates Christians. The same idea is found in Paul ("If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink", Romans 12:20).

   4. Being an enemy of someone or having enmity is part of the catalog of works of the flesh that should no longer be part of the Christian life according to Paul, just like debauchery, idolatry or jealousy (Gal 5:20).

2. Sometimes a specific enemy is designated, so that particular individuals or groups can be identified.
   1. According to the letter to the Ephesians, there was a hatred between Jews and Gentiles, so that there was an impassable wall between them. And it is the work of Christ to have broken down this wall: "For he is our peace, who has made the two peoples one, breaking down the dividing wall between them, removing the enmity in his flesh" (Eph 2:14; see also 2:26).

   2. By one's behavior, one can become an enemy of the cross of Christ, as Paul states (Phil 3:18), probably referring to the conflicts and rivalries that existed in the community of Philip.

   3. A number of people or groups are named as enemies of God. This is the state of all people before the reconciliation brought about by the death-resurrection of Christ (Rom 5:10), assuming that all Gentiles do evil deeds and have wrong thoughts (Col 1:21), so that friendship for the world becomes enmity against God (Jas 4:4); this is the state of the Jews who have not believed in Christ (Rom 11:28); it is also the state of all those who, even though they have become Christians, do not live according to the Spirit, but according to the flesh (Rom 8:7).

   4. In the book of Revelation, the enemies are those who oppose the testimony of the Church, a Church represented by two witnesses called to prophesy (Rev 11:5,12).

   5. The devil belongs to the group of enemies. Matthew tells us a parable of a man who sowed wheat in a field, but an enemy came by night and sowed tares (Mt 13:25); the enemy is identified as the Devil (Mt 13:39). Thus, the Devil is the enemy of the evangelizing mission. It is the same enemy that is identified in Acts 13:10 when Elymas the magician, who opposed the preaching of Paul and Barnabas, is called: "son of the devil, sworn enemy of righteousness". This is probably how we should interpret Lk 10:19, where Jesus gives the Seventy-two power over the enemy, after the missionaries have told of their success in expelling demons; the enemy is the forces of evil.

   6. Finally, various people are identified as enemies: members of his own family who oppose the Christian faith (Mt 10:36), the Romans who encircle Jerusalem (Lk 19:43), Pilate and Herod before their reconciliation (Lk 23:12), Paul for some of the Galatians (4:16), the subjects of a highborn man (perhaps Herod Archelaus) who had sent an embassy so that he would not rule over them (Lk 19:27)

Here, in v. 19, there are few clues as to who the enemy is; it is simply "the power of the enemy". But the fact that the word is in the singular and associated with a power, after the mention of the serpent and the scorpion, especially after Jesus interprets the exorcisms of the Seventy-two as the beginning of the fall of Satan, points us to the forces that oppose the gospel, the devil or Satan, the enemy par excellence.

Adikēsē is the verb adikeō in the active aorist subjunctive, 3rd person singular, the subjunctive indicating that we are only facing a possibility. The verb literally means: to be without justice; it is formed from the root dikaios (just), which, with the privative "a", becomes adikos (unjust). But to be unjust towards someone is to harm him, hence the translation we have adopted. It is very often translated as "to mistreat someone". It is a very rare verb in the gospels: Mt = 1; Mk = 0; Lk = 1; Jn = 0; Acts = 5; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0.

In the Gospels-Acts, the verb is always in a negative form, with the exception of the reference to that scene in the Exodus (Ex 2:11-14) in Stephen's speech where an Egyptian mistreats a Hebrew, and two Hebrews mistreat each other (Acts 7:24-27): the owner of a vineyard did not harm his worker by giving the agreed sum (Mt 20:13), the forces of evil cannot harm the missionary (Lk 10:19), Paul affirms that he did not harm anyone (Acts 25:10-11).

In the Pauline letters considered authentic by the majority of biblical scholars, it is also the negative formula that dominates:

• In Galatians 4:12 Paul states that the Galatians did not harm him personally, even though he reproaches them for distorting the gospel he preached to them;
• In Phlm 1:8 Paul imagines that the slave Onesimus did not harm Philemon, but if he did he takes responsibility for it;
• In his second letter to the Corinthians, Paul believes that he has not wronged anyone (7:2), especially by not asking for money, but he has been wronged (7:12), probably by a stubborn person who questioned his authority;
• The first letter to the Corinthians offers a particular setting, since it deals with trials between Christians in the civil courts, which arouses a sense of shame in Paul, and leads him to ask them to stop harming each other in this way (6: 7-8), and even to accept, as it were, to suffer injustice rather than go to the civil courts.

In the letter to the Colossians and the second of Peter, the situation is different. In the first case (Col 3:25), master-slave relationships are spoken of, and the verb adikeō belongs to the conclusion ("whoever is unjust will certainly be paid for what he has been unjust") is of a very general order, without any indication of what particular injustice or wrong on the part of the master. In the second case (2 Pet 2:13), the false teachers who harm the Christian community are spoken of), and adikeō (to be unjust, to do harm) summarizes what their work constitutes and explains why their fate will be to rot as the beasts rot, which is typical of the wages of injustice; we know at least that the harm caused is doctrinal.

Revelation is in a class by itself, if only because of the number of occurrences (11). But one of the peculiarities of this book is that it places the ability to do harm in the hands of characters in the service of God, an end-time scenario: four angels harm the earth and the sea (Rev 7:2), but not the greenery and the trees (Rev 9:4), and these four angels have horses whose tails resemble serpents and thus can do harm (Rev 9:19). Such a use is surprising when we know that the verb literally means: to be unjust. But it should be noted that the author of Revelation, a Jewish Christian, does not seem to have a complete command of the Greek language (on this topic, see R.E. Brown who states: "The Greek of the work, which is the poorest of the NT to the point of being ungrammatical, probably reflects an author whose native language was Aramaic or Hebrew"). But on the other hand, locusts, coming from the bowels of the earth, have the ability to harm men with their tails (Rev 9:10). Thus, the angels of judgment and the forces of evil can do harm, while no one can harm the two witnesses of the Christian community (Rev 11:5). Again, the expression "harm" or "do wrong" remains very vague without any indication of what it refers to, except in Rev 2:11, which refers to the "second death" in a context where bodily death is followed by the judgment that sends some to eternal life and others to final death: those who have kept the faith in the midst of persecution will not be affected by the second death.

What to conclude? The verb "to do wrong" remains a general verb that does not designate a specific wrong. It is revealing that Luke, in Acts, while taking up the account of Ex 2:11-14, where an Egyptian mistreats a Hebrew, and two Hebrews mistreat each other, does not take up the Septuagint word typtō (to strike) as it stands, but prefers adikeō (to do wrong), which is much more generic than "to strike." This is probably how to understand his choice of adikeō in Lk 10:19 in the context of missionaries and the forces of evil. As the gospels as a whole affirm, the missionaries will experience persecution, trials, imprisonment and even death. But the forces of evil will not succeed in winning them over to their side, their faith will remain unshaken; in this sense, they cannot harm them, or to use the literal meaning of the verb: cannot make them unjust, i.e. embrace the world of injustice.

Chairete is the verb chairō in the present active imperative, 2nd person plural. It means: to rejoice. As we noted for noun "joy" (chara), the verb is most prominent in Luke and John, who are responsible for over 80% of the occurrences: Mt = 6; Mk = 2; Lk = 12; Jn = 9; Acts = 7; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 3; 3Jn = 1.

Note first that the verb is also used to express greeting in Greek, i.e., "rejoice" which is usually translated as "greeting," the equivalent to the Hebrew šālôm (peace). For example, "And immediately he came to Jesus, saying, ’Greetings (chairō) (lit. rejoice), Rabbi,’ and he gave him a kiss." (Mt 26:49).

What are we rejoicing about in the gospel tradition? We must distinguish two groups, those for Jesus and those against him:

Those who are on the side of Jesus

• The Magi, at the sight of the star indicating the home of Jesus (Mt 2: 10)
• The disciples, because of the inheritance of the Kingdom (Q document: Mt 5:12 || Lk 6:23; Lk 10:20)
• The disciples should rejoice to see Jesus return to his father (Jn 14:28)
• The disciples rejoice after the resurrection of Jesus (Jn 16:20,22; 20:20)
• The disciples, for having been judged worthy to suffer for Jesus (Acts 5: 41)
• The crowd and the multitude of disciples, in front of the marvelous things that are realized by Jesus (Lk 13:17; Lk 19:37)
• The shepherd, to find what was lost (Q document: Mt 18:13 || Lk 15:5)
• Many will rejoice at the birth of John the Baptist (Lk 1:14)
• John the Baptist, in fromt of the manifestation of Jesus (Jn 3: 29)
• The sower (Jesus) rejoices with the reaper (disciples) over the harvest (Jn 4:36)
• Abraham, knowing the coming of Jesus (Jn 8:56)
• Jesus, faced with the prospect of bringing Lazarus back to life and bringing the disciples to believe (Jn 11:15)
• The eunuch of Ethiopia, after his baptism by Philip (Acts 8: 39)
• Barnabas, to see the grace of God at work in Antioch (Acts 11: 23)
• The Gentiles, to see that the good news is also addressed to them (Acts 13: 48)
• The church of Antioch, to be no longer bound to circumcision (Acts 15: 31)
• The author of the Johannine epistles, before the members of the community who live in the truth and bear witness to it (2 Jn 1:4, 3 Jn 1:3)

Those who oppose Jesus

• The chief priests rejoice at Judas' betrayal (Mk 14:11)
• Herod, faced with the possibility of seeing Jesus perform miracles (Lk 23:8)

As can be seen, for the disciple the reasons for rejoicing vary greatly, but they are concentrated around the person of Jesus, his coming, the fruitfulness of his mission, the wonders of what he has achieved, his continuing presence through his resurrection, and the possibility of sharing in the Kingdom. For the believing community, it is the prospect of forgiveness and of regaining those who were lost, of the universal opening of the good news and of the easing of religious rules. At the root of all this joy is the gift of God everywhere, insofar as one is open to it.

As we mentioned in the analysis of the word "joy," the theme of joy is a major theme in Luke: his gospel begins in joy with the birth of John the Baptist and Jesus, and ends in joy with the appearance of the risen Jesus and his ascension. Of the eight occurrences of chara (joy), seven are unique to him, and of the 12 occurrences of chairō (rejoice), nine are unique to him. In our pericope, the theme of joy was introduced in v. 17 as the disciples joyfully announce that the demons are subject to them. Such a source of joy is unusual for Luke, as in his gospel the real reasons for joy are the birth of John the Baptist and Jesus, the wonderful things that are done through Jesus, the repentant sinner, but never having any power. So it is not surprising that in v. 20 Jesus corrects what should be the source of joy: that their names are written in heaven. What does this mean? Here we find a statement from the Q document in the context of the persecution faced by the disciples: "For behold, your reward is great in heaven" (Mt 5:12 || Lk 6:23). In other words, the source of joy is not what one possesses, but what one receives from God, the only true source of joy.

Pneumata is the neuter noun pneuma in the nominative plural, the nominative being required because it plays the role of subject of the verb "to be submitted". It means: spirit or breath, and it is very frequent in the Gospels-Acts, especially in Luke: Mt = 19; Mk = 23; Lk = 36; Jn = 24; Acts = 70; 1Jn = 12; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0.

For a presentation of pneuma, one can consult the Glossary. Let's summarize the main points. The word is derived from the verb pneō which means: to blow, to exhale a smell, to breathe. In classical Greek authors, the neuter noun pneuma refers first to the breath of the wind, then to breathing, breath or the smell of perfume. In the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, called the Septuagint, pneuma translates the Hebrew word rûaḥ which refers to

1. sometimes the puff of the wind,
2. sometimes the human being who is alive by his breathing,
3. and sometimes God in his power of action.

In the latter case, if we rely on the book of Wisdom, human beings are able to grasp God's intentions, because they have received from him this immaterial and dynamic reality: "And your breath (pneuma) incorruptible is in all beings" (12: 1).

In the Gospels-Acts-epistles of John, it is a frequent word, especially in Luke: Mt = 19; Mk = 23; Lk = 36; Acts = 24; Acts = 70; 1Jn = 12 (more than 240 occurrences in the entire New Testament). When we go through the Gospels-Acts, the word pneuma is used to designate three different realities.

1. It most often refers to the Holy Spirit or the Spirit of God. For example:
   • Lk 4: 1: "Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit (pneuma), returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit (pneuma) in the wilderness"
   • Acts 10: 44: "While Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit (pneuma) fell upon all who heard the word"

2. Sometimes it designates a spiritual force, external to the person; more often it is an evil force, called: unclean spirit. For example:
   • Lk 4: 33: "In the synagogue there was a man who had the spirit (pneuma) of an unclean demon, and he cried out with a loud voice"
   • Acts 19: 16: "Then the man with the evil spirit (pneuma) leaped on them, mastered them all, and so overpowered them that they fled out of the house naked and wounded"

3. Finally, it can designate the human being who lives thanks to this breath of life, and this breath of life allows him to feel emotions, to think and to act. For example:
   • Lk 23: 46: "Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit (pneuma)." Having said this, he breathed his last"
   • Acts 19: 21: "Now after these things had been accomplished, Paul resolved in the Spirit (pneuma) to go through Macedonia and Achaia, and then to go on to Jerusalem. He said, "After I have gone there, I must also see Rome."

In Luke, the term pneuma mainly refers to the Holy Spirit (17 occurrences out of a total of 36). But the reference to pneuma as a spiritual force external to the person is quite frequent (14 occurrences), especially since half of them are his own. What is such a spirit?

Let us begin with the account of the appearance of the risen Jesus (Lk 24:36-43): "They were frightened and afraid and thought they saw a spirit." This meaning is peculiar to Luke in the gospels. For it is not an evil or unclean spirit as is usually the case, since reference is made to the risen Jesus, but a kind of spectre. It is surprising that Luke did not use a word like phantasma (appearance, ghost). Mark (Mk 6:49 || Mt 14:26) used this word in his account of Jesus' walk on the waters to describe what the disciples saw, a word taken up by Matthew; Luke preferred to ignore this account altogether. It is not always easy to understand Luke's choices. One possible explanation is that for Luke the word pneuma covers a wider range of meanings than for the other evangelists. Thus, in his Acts we learn that in Philippi there was a young servant girl who had a spirit of divination that brought her masters great gain (Acts 16:16). Or, the Sadducees opposed the Pharisees who believed in the possibility of resurrection, angel, and spirit (Acts 23:8-9); in this case, the spirit is part of the same world as the angels. Another explanation is that the term phantasma has a negative connotation, perhaps on the level of a hallucination, which would remove all credibility from the scene of the risen Jesus.

In most cases, Luke joins Mark in referring to an evil spiritual force, called "unclean spirit," i.e., a force that threatens the integrity and health of individuals and society in the Jewish world. But since Luke is addressing a Greek audience with whom the Jewish notion of clean and unclean is probably less familiar, he repeatedly replaces the word "unclean" with "evil" (Lk 7:21; 8:2; Acts 19:12,13,15,16). Moreover, since Greek culture is familiar with the notion of demon, he makes sure to identify the unclean spirit with the demon, so he modifies the tradition he receives from Mark accordingly. Examples:

Mark 1: 23	Luke 4: 33
And immediately there was a man in their synagogue in unclean spirit and he shouted	And in the synagogue there was a man having the spirit of an unclean demon and he cried out
Mark 5	Luke 8: 29
8 For he said to him, "Come out, unclean spirit, of the man." [4 because he had often been bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been broken by him, and the fetters broken, and no one could tame him.]	For he commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man. For many times it had taken hold of him, and he was kept bound with chains and fetters, and breaking the bonds, he was dragged by the demon into the deserts.
Mark 9	Luke 9: 42
20 And they brought it to him. And when they saw him, the spirit immediately shook him... 25 Now Jesus... commanded the unclean spirit... 27 (taking him by his hand) straightened him out and he stood up.	While he was still approaching, the demon threw him (to the ground) and (shook him). Now Jesus commanded the unclean spirit and healed the child and delivered him to his father.

It is the same association between spirit or unclean spirit and demon that is found here in 10:20; indeed, in v. 17 we have the phrase "even the demons submit to us," and now in v. 20 where Jesus revisits this statement, we have instead the phrase: "do not rejoice that the spirits are subject to you." Thus, "demon" and "unclean/evil spirit" are equivalent in Luke.

Whether in the Jewish world or the Greek world, the ancient world shared the idea that our universe was inhabited by certain spiritual forces that intervened in people's lives, and this provided an explanation for the problem of evil and evil events. The good news is that God intervenes through his envoys to check these evil forces.

Engegraptai is the verb engraphō in the passive perfect indicative, 3rd person singular. The perfect tense indicates that the past action is over. The singular may be surprising, but Luke probably considers all the nouns as one entity. The verb is formed from the preposition en (in) and the verb graphō (to write), and thus means: to write in, or inscribe. It is very rare in the whole Bible, and in the Gospels-Acts it appears only in Luke: Mt = 0; Mk = 0; Lk = 1; Jn = 0; Acts = 0; 1Jn = 0; 2Jn = 0; 3Jn = 0.

When we look at the few biblical texts which display this verb, we notice that it always concerns people: for Paul, it is the members of the Christian community who are written in his heart (2 Cor 3:2); in Ex. 36:21 it is the members of the twelve tribes of Israel; in the book of Daniel (12:1) it is the members of the people written in the great heveanly book; in the first book of Maccabees (13:40) it is certain members of the Jewish nation who are fit to enroll in the army. Our v. 20 is no exception: it is the Seventy-two.

But what does it mean to have one's name written in heaven? This refers to the fact that, in the Jewish imagination, there is a heavenly accounting where all human actions are noted and which allows God to determine who will be part of his house at the end. This heavenly accounting is done through a book, very often called: book of life. Let us consider a number of references:

• Ex 32:32: "(This is Moses speaking) But now, if you would remove their sin... If not, then blot me out of the book that you have written"
• Ezek 13:9: "they (false prophets) shall be absent from the council of my people, they shall not be written in the book of the house of Israel and shall not enter the land of Israel."
• Ps 69:29: "Let them (my enemies) be blotted out of the book of life, let them not be written with the righteous!"
• Ps 87:6: "The Lord writes in the book of the people: 'In this place was born such a man'"
• Dan 12:1: "At that time your people will be delivered, all those who are written in the book"
• 1 Enoch 81:1-2: "He (Uriel) said to me again, "Look, Enoch, at these heavenly tablets, read what is written there and learn all the details." I looked at the heavenly tablets, read everything that was written and learned everything. I read the book of all the acts of men, of all the children of the flesh (living) on the earth, until the final generation."
• Odes of Solomon 9:11-12: "Lay the crown on the true covenant of the Lord; all who overcome shall be written in his book, for their book is the victory that is yours; it sees you before it, and it wants you to be saved."
• Phil 4:3: "And you, true Companion, I ask you, help them, for they struggled with me for the sake of the Gospel, along with Clement and all my other co-workers, whose names appear in the Book of Life.
• Rev 3:5: "So the overcomer will wear white garments; I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life, and I will answer for it before my Father and his angels" (see also Rev 13:8; 17:8; 20:12.15; 21:27)

As can be seen, this is a theme that runs through the whole Bible, and is particularly present in the apocalyptic tradition (Ezekiel, Daniel, 1 Enoch, Revelation) when the judgment and discrimination between those who will enter God's dwelling place and those who will be excluded is mentioned. And in accordance with Jewish tradition, the criterion for inclusion in this book is the conformity of one's actions to what God requires, and that is why it is human actions that are inscribed in this great heavenly book. There is of course a form of anthropomorphism in the image of the book, as if God had no memory and needed the support of a book where everything was recorded. But behind all this there is the idea that no human action is forgotten before God.

Why does Luke refer to this book of life in connection with the Seventy-two? It is a traditional way of talking about eternal life in God's world. And surprisingly Luke uses the noun "heavens" in the plural as in the Jewish tradition (the Hebrew name šāmayim for heaven is a plural), while he always uses the singular for the noun "heaven." The only other exception is in the account of the rich man whom Jesus asks to sell everything to follow him, an account he copies from Mk 10:17-22 and which ends: "and you will have treasure in heavens" (Lk 18:22); why the plural (as in Matthew the Jew), when Mark's text has the singular? The context of Lk 10:20 and Lk 18:22 is the same, because to speak of the treasure in heaven is to speak of the book of life, a heavenly accounting that displays the wealth of each person. It is therefore possible that Luke either gives us an echo of an ancient tradition that goes back to the time of Jesus, or intends to reproduce the Jewish atmosphere of Jesus' milieu.

Why does Jesus refer to eternal life? V. 20 intends to redirect the source of joy of the Seventy-two, which should not be their power over evil forces, but the fact that they have been chosen by God to be his co-workers and part of his family in the house of eternal life. In fact, the control of evil forces has only one purpose: that the world of God may come. Thus, we must not confuse the means with the end.