By Evgeny Feldman, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=116010713
On Wednesday, the European Parliament’s Conference of Presidents (President and political groups’ leaders) made the following statement on the death of Alexei Navalny.
We the leaders of the Political Groups of the European Parliament express our outrage following the murder of the 2021 Sakharov Prize laureate Alexei Navalny in a Siberian penal colony beyond the Arctic Circle serving an unjustified prison sentence. We pay tribute to his memory and express our heartfelt condolences to his wife Yulia Navalnaya and their children, his mother, family and friends, his collaborators and countless supporters in Russia.
The full responsibility for this murder lays with the Russian state and its President Vladimir Putin in particular. Truth must be told, accountability must be ensured and justice must be served. We demand that the body of Alexei Navalny be returned to his family immediately. Any further delay increases even more the responsibility of the Russian authorities for the death of Alexei Navalny. We demand an international and independent investigation into the exact circumstances of the death of Alexei Navalny.
Alexei Navalny became the embodiment of the struggle of the Russian people for freedom and democracy. His death only underscores the importance of his fight for a different Russia. Since his arrest, he had been subjected to ill-treatment, torture, arbitrary punishment and psychological pressure. Although imprisoned in inhuman conditions, Alexei Navalny tirelessly and courageously continued his fight, denouncing the corruption of the regime.
We the leaders of the Political Groups stay united in our condemnation of this crime of the Russian regime and its imperialist and neo-colonial policies. The EU and its Member States and likeminded partners around the world must continue the political, economic and military support for Ukraine. In this light we welcome the very recent 13th package of sanctions adopted by the Council.To honour the legacy of Alexei Navalny, we must stand with independent Russian civil society and the democratic opposition, continuously calling for the release of all political prisoners.
We feel encouraged by the reports about Russian citizens paying tribute to Alexei Navalny in cities and towns all over Russia. We express our hope that similar actions will continue to show that the Russian people do not support a regime that stands for draconic repression inside the country and for a brutal war of aggression against Ukraine. Alexei Navalny’s life, political work and death are a testimony to the fight against apparent apathy, indifference and surrender. May it continue to encourage and inspire.
As the agricultural sector in France braces for the annual Salon de l’agriculture in Paris amid a resurgence of farmer mobilization and growing discontent, the spotlight often misses a critical segment of the French agricultural landscape—the overseas territories. MEP Maxette Pirbakas, herself a fifth-generation farmer from Guadeloupe, has raised her voice to ensure these regions are not forgotten.
In a powerful statement, Pirbakas highlighted the distinct challenges faced by farmers in France’s overseas departments and territories. “At a time when we are witnessing a resurgence of farmer mobilization, due to growing discontent just a few days before the opening of the Salon de l’agriculture in Paris; while the farmers’ movement currently enjoys significant public support; and farmers are courted by all political parties for political gain; it is essential not to forget the agricultural operators in the overseas territories,” Pirbakas said.
She emphasized the unique issues these territories face, which differ significantly from those on the mainland. These include unfair competition, insufficient agricultural product pricing, and an excess of norms and administrative constraints. A specific point of contention is the pricing model for sugarcane in Guadeloupe, which has remained unchanged for over 60 years, prompting local farmers to mobilize.
The geographical, climatic, and historical specificities of these territories necessitate a tailored approach to agriculture. Despite common challenges across these regions, each territory faces unique obstacles due to its specific geographical, demographic, and climatic conditions, and regional environment.
Pirbakas pointed out the multifunctionality of agriculture in overseas territories as a common factor, encompassing economic, ecological, and social components. A notable feature of agriculture in these regions is the prevalence of small and very small farms, or micro-farms, which play a crucial role in preventing urban exodus and maintaining rural activity, especially in areas with high potential.
Moreover, the larger, more productive farms in these territories, often focused on exports like sugar and bananas, face their own set of distinct challenges. These farms, along with their smaller counterparts, contribute significantly to the economy and play a fundamental ecological and social role, more so than their mainland counterparts.
Highlighting the administrative classification of these small-scale farms as “Small-Scale Bioeconomic and Agroecological Agricultures” (APEBA), Pirbakas called for the integration of practices that preserve water and soil quality, rehabilitate irrigation systems, and revise public agricultural policies and pricing norms to level the playing field with direct competitors who do not face the same obligations.
With the fragile ecosystems of the overseas territories, there is a pressing need to balance agricultural production with environmental respect. This includes addressing challenges such as climate change, which these territories face more acutely than the mainland.
Referencing a 2016 Senate report titled “Agriculture in Overseas Territories: No Future Without Adaptation of the Normative Framework,” Pirbakas questioned what public authorities have done since the report to improve the situation for overseas farmers. She called on metropolitan public and union authorities not to overlook their overseas colleagues in discussions and negotiations. “We must be represented and heard,” Pirbakas concluded, underscoring the need for a united approach to address the specific agricultural challenges of France’s overseas territories.
A new piece of European legislation is steering towards a significant shift in how driving licenses are managed across the Union, sparking a lively debate among drivers of all ages. At the heart of the controversy is a proposal that could see the end of lifetime driving licenses, requiring drivers to undergo medical examinations every fifteen years to keep their licenses valid.
This proposed change is part of the 21st amendment of the European driving license directive, aiming to align with Brussels’ “Vision Zero” goal. This ambitious plan seeks to eliminate road-related deaths by 2050. While road fatalities have significantly decreased from 51,400 in 2001 to 19,800 in 2021 across Europe, progress has plateaued in recent years, prompting the need for new measures.
Currently, countries like Italy and Portugal require medical checks for drivers starting at age 50, with Spain and Greece starting at 65, Denmark at 70, and the Netherlands at 75. In contrast, France, Germany, Belgium, and Poland allow drivers to hold their licenses for life without such requirements. The new EU directive, championed by French Green MEP Karima Delli, seeks to standardize the process across member states, insisting the move is not ageist but rather a means to ensure driver fitness.
Driving instructors like Thomas Marchetto see merit in the proposal, highlighting that good health doesn’t always equate to safe driving. However, many senior drivers feel particularly targeted by the change, despite assurances that the measure aims to enhance road safety for all. Younger drivers, on the other hand, welcome the initiative, seeing it as a necessary step to assess driver reflexes and capabilities.
The debate has sparked significant opposition, with organizations such as “40 million motorists” launching petitions like “Don’t Touch My License.” These groups argue that revoking driving privileges without any infractions, solely based on medical assessments, is unfair and discriminates against drivers based on age and health.
Adding to the chorus of dissent, MEP Maxette Pirbakas voiced her concerns on Twitter, highlighting the unique challenges faced by her constituents in the French Antilles:
“In the @Europarl_EN, I co-signed an amendment to reject this excessive text that will lead to the cancellation of driving licenses of people who have committed no infractions. In my home in the Antilles, where public transport networks are embryonic, not having a car is equivalent to social death. This anti-car policy goes further and further without ever taking into account the realities of the peripheries and rural areas.”
As the European Parliament gears up to discuss the bill on February 27, following its first reading in December, the future of driving licenses in the EU hangs in the balance. The proposed legislation has ignited a conversation about safety, discrimination, and the right to mobility, with stakeholders on all sides gearing up for a heated debate.
Pirbakas’ statement underscores the broader implications of the law, especially for those living in areas where public transportation is limited or non-existent, emphasizing the need for policies that consider the diverse circumstances of all EU citizens.
In an exciting leap towards a greener future, the European Union has wrapped its arms around a game-changing plan that’s all about giving us the gift of cleaner air. Picture this: a Europe where every breath is a gulp of fresh, clean air — sounds dreamy, right? Well, it’s not just a pipe dream anymore, thanks to a heartening handshake between the Council presidency and the European Parliament.
This isn’t just any agreement; it’s a promise to chase after a future where pollution is a tale of the past, aiming for a sparkling clean 2050. And who’s leading the cheers? None other than Alain Maron, a champion for the environment in the Brussels-Capital Region, who’s all in for making sure we can all breathe a little easier.
What’s the big deal, you ask? Imagine the air around us getting a major detox, with a special focus on cutting down the nasty bits like fine particles and nitrogen dioxide that love to crash our lung parties. By 2030, the EU plans to have these uninvited guests cut down to size, making our air not just fresher but healthier too.
But here’s the kicker: if some areas find it tough to clear the air by the deadline, they can ask for a bit more time. It’s like getting an extension on a tough homework assignment, but only if you really, really need it and promise to work hard on it. And to make sure everyone stays on track, there’ll be plans and updates shared all around, kind of like keeping a group project in check.
Now, every five years, the EU will do a health check on these air quality goals, making sure they’re still in line with the latest science and what the World Health Organization thinks is best. It’s like making sure your glasses prescription is up to date — you want to keep seeing clearly, right?
And here’s something really cool: if someone doesn’t play by the rules and our air gets dirty because of it, there are ways to call them out and even get compensated. It’s about making sure there’s fairness and that everyone has a say, from individuals to big groups who care about our planet.
So, what’s next? This plan needs a few more stamps of approval before it’s set in stone, but it’s on its way. It’s a big step in a journey that’s been going on for decades, making sure our air isn’t just something we have to live with, but something that helps us live better.
It’s a big, bold move for the EU, but it’s all about taking care of us and our home. Here’s to breathing easy and looking forward to brighter, cleaner days ahead!
Madrid. Santiago Cañamares Arribas, Professor of Ecclesiastical Law at the Complutense University of Madrid, delivered a thought-provoking analysis of religious freedom and equality in the European Union at the recent travelling seminar organized by the Association of Ecclesiastical Law Professors.
In this recent lecture Prof. Cañamares Arribas, a distinguished scholar in the field of religious freedom, shared his profound insights on the intricate relationship between religion and the legal framework of the European Union. The event, which marks a significant moment in the academic and personal convergence of Madrid’s universities and beyond, highlighted the evolving dynamics of religious freedom within the EU.
Prof. Cañamares Arribas began his address by expressing gratitude to the association for reigniting the tradition of such meaningful seminars, a practice once common when he was part of the Department of Ecclesiastical Law.
The crux of Prof. Cañamares Arribas’s presentation revolved around his recent research and publication on the role of religion in the European Union, a topic that has occupied his scholarly pursuits for years. He pointed out a paradox within the EU’s approach to religious freedom and equality. “While the EU legislator shows a commitment to religious freedom and equality through specific norms and exceptions for religious reasons, this commitment does not seem to be mirrored in the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU),” he observed.
Prof. Cañamares Arribas critically analyzed the CJEU’s restrictive interpretation of religious freedom, contrasting it with the broader allowances within EU legislation. He cited the recent “Commune d’Ans” case as a prime example, where a Belgian court’s question led to a ruling that has sparked further debate on the EU’s stance on religious symbols in employment settings.
The seminar delved into two major unresolved issues within EU law: the distinction (or lack thereof) between religion and personal convictions as objects of protection, and the autonomy of member states in defining their relationship with religious confessions. Prof. Cañamares Arribas highlighted the EU’s foundational economic focus but emphasized the importance of not overlooking the social and personal dimensions, including religious freedom and equality.
Furthermore, Prof. Cañamares Arribas critiqued the EU’s potential endorsement of laicism, questioning whether it aligns with the fundamental rights and values the Union purports to uphold. He referenced the “Refah Partisi v. Turkey” case by the European Court of Human Rights to illustrate the potential conflicts between certain models of state-religion relationships and the protection of fundamental rights.
Prof. Cañamares Arribas called for a more nuanced understanding and application of religious freedom and equality within the EU. He suggested that through mutual learning between the CJEU and the European Court of Human Rights, as well as the contributions of Advocates General, there is room for optimism and improvement in how the EU navigates the complex terrain of religion and law.
The seminar not only provided a platform for academic discussion but also shed light on the ongoing challenges and opportunities for enhancing religious freedom and equality in the European Union. As the EU continues to evolve, the insights shared by Prof. Santiago Cañamares Arribas will undoubtedly contribute to the broader conversation on how best to balance these fundamental rights within its legal framework.
Brussels, 20 February 2024 – The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), recognized as the EU’s nexus of organized civil society, has issued a dire warning about the escalating housing crisis in Europe, particularly affecting vulnerable groups and young individuals. During a high-level conference in Brussels, the EESC underscored the urgency of the situation, emphasizing the need for a coordinated EU-wide response to ensure access to decent and affordable housing for all.
The housing crisis, marked by a growing inability among Europeans to find affordable and adequate accommodation, is leading to a host of adverse outcomes including housing insecurity, health issues, and increased environmental damage. The EESC’s conference highlighted the multifaceted impact of the crisis, stressing that housing is not just a major expense for many households but also a critical determinant of social and territorial cohesion within the EU.
Recent studies, including one from Eurofound, reveal that the crisis disproportionately affects young people, delaying their transition to independent living and exacerbating intergenerational inequalities. Countries like Spain, Croatia, Italy, and others have seen significant increases in the number of young adults living with their parents, signaling a deepening of the crisis.
The EESC has long advocated for addressing the housing issues across the EU. In 2020, it called for a European action plan on housing, proposing measures to increase the supply of social and affordable housing and to combat homelessness. Despite housing policy being a national responsibility, the EESC’s recommendations aim to foster a collective European approach to the crisis.
Among the proposed measures are the organization of an annual EU summit on affordable housing, the establishment of a universal right to housing through specific regulation, and the creation of a European fund for investment in affordable housing. These proposals are intended to mobilize stakeholders at all levels, from local to EU-wide, to tackle the housing shortage effectively.
The conference featured remarks from high-level speakers, including EESC President Oliver Röpke, who emphasized the role of civil society organizations in promoting affordable housing policies. European Commissioner for Jobs and Social Rights, Nicolas Schmit, acknowledged the complexity of ensuring access to affordable housing but stressed its necessity for a strong Social Europe. MEP Estrella Durá Ferrandis called for an integrated EU strategy for social, public, and affordable housing, while Christophe Collignon, Wallonia’s Minister of Housing and Local Authorities, highlighted housing as a fundamental right essential for preventing homelessness and promoting social cohesion.
The EESC plans to compile its recommendations and present them at the upcoming Housing Ministerial Conference in Liège, aiming to place the housing crisis on the agenda of the new European Parliament and Commission for 2024-2029. This initiative seeks not only to address the immediate challenges but also to lay the groundwork for long-term solutions to ensure that access to quality and affordable housing becomes a reality for all Europeans.
In a significant step towards achieving climate neutrality by 2050, the European Commission has hailed the provisional agreement on the first EU-wide certification framework for carbon removals. This landmark decision, reached between the European Parliament and the Council, introduces a voluntary framework aimed at certifying high-quality carbon removals, encompassing both innovative technologies and carbon farming practices.
The new framework is poised to play a crucial role in the EU’s ambitious climate, environmental, and zero-pollution objectives, ensuring transparency and trust in carbon removal initiatives while simultaneously opening up new avenues for business and innovation. “Our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will increasingly depend on technology and innovation in the future, and on making the best use of natural carbon sinks,” stated Maroš Šefčovič, Executive Vice-President for the European Green Deal, highlighting the importance of developing robust certification for carbon removal technologies and farming practices.
Under the provisional agreement, the certification rules will cover a wide range of activities, including carbon farming efforts like forest restoration, soil conservation, and innovative farming techniques, as well as industrial carbon removal processes such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. Additionally, the framework will certify carbon bound in durable products and materials, promoting the use of sustainable building materials and practices.
A key aspect of the agreed regulation is its emphasis on ensuring that carbon removals are accurately quantified, stored for a minimum of 35 years, and contribute to broader sustainability goals, including biodiversity enhancement. An EU registry will be established to foster transparency regarding certified carbon removals, with implementation expected within four years.
Commissioner for Climate Action, Wopke Hoekstra, underscored the framework’s potential to unlock economic opportunities across various sectors, stating, “Carbon removals and carbon farming will be an important part of our efforts to reach climate neutrality by 2050.” He emphasized the framework’s role in fostering a sustainable future where innovation meets environmental responsibility.
The regulation also aims to stimulate financial support for carbon removal technologies through innovative financing models and public sector support, recognizing the commercial and environmental benefits of certified carbon removals. This initiative aligns with the EU’s broader climate and sustainability goals, including the European Green Deal and the European Climate Law, which mandates the EU to achieve a balance between greenhouse gas emissions and removals by 2050.
With the European Parliament and Council set to formally approve the agreement, the EU takes a decisive step towards implementing a comprehensive strategy for sustainable carbon cycles and climate neutrality. This framework not only supports the EU’s long-term climate targets but also paves the way for a sustainable and innovative business environment dedicated to high-quality carbon removals.
By Prof. A.P. Lopukhin, Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament
Chapter 13. 1-9. Exhortations to repentance. 10 – 17. Healing on Saturday. 18 – 21. Two parables about the kingdom of God. 22 – 30. Many may not enter the Kingdom of God. 31-35. Christ’s words concerning Herod’s plot against Him.
Luke 13:1. At the same time some came and told Him about the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.
The calls to repentance that follow are found only in Luke the Evangelist. Also, he alone reports the occasion that gave the Lord occasion to address such exhortations to those around Him.
“At the same time”, ie. while the Lord was speaking His previous speech to the people, some of the newly arrived listeners told Christ important news. Some Galileans (their fate seems to be known to the readers, because the article τῶν precedes the word Γαλιλαίων) were killed by order of Pilate while they were offering sacrifice, and the blood of the slain even sprinkled the sacrificial animals. It is not known why Pilate allowed himself such cruel self-dealing in Jerusalem with King Herod’s subjects, but in those rather turbulent times the Roman procurator could indeed resort without serious investigation to the most severe measures, especially against the inhabitants of Galilee, who were generally were known for their wayward character and tendency to riot against the Romans.
Luke 13:2. Jesus answered them and said: Do you think that these Galileans were more sinful than all the Galileans, that they suffered thus?
The question of the Lord was probably dictated by the circumstance that those who brought Him the news of the destruction of the Galileans were inclined to see in this terrible destruction God’s punishment for some particular sin committed by those who perished.
“were” – it is more correct: they became (ἐγένοντο) or punished themselves precisely by their destruction.
Luke 13:3. No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish.
Christ took advantage of this occasion to exhort His hearers. The extermination of the Galileans, according to His prediction, foreshadows the destruction of the entire Jewish nation, in case, of course, the people remain unrepentant in their opposition to God, Who now requires them to accept Christ.
Luke 13:4. Or do you think that those eighteen people on whom the tower of Siloam fell and killed them were more guilty than all those living in Jerusalem?
It is not only the case of the Galileans that can strike the mind and the heart. The Lord points to another apparently very recent event, namely, the fall of the Tower of Siloam, which crushed eighteen men under its rubble. Were those who perished more sinful before God than the rest of the inhabitants of Jerusalem?
“The Tower of Siloam”. It is not known what this tower was. It is only clear that it stood in close proximity to the Spring of Siloam (ἐν τῷ Σιλωάμ), which flowed at the foot of Mount Zion, on the south side of Jerusalem.
Luke 13:5. No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish.
“all” is again an allusion to the possibility of the destruction of the entire nation.
It cannot be inferred from this that Christ rejected any connection between sin and punishment, “as a vulgar Jewish notion,” as Strauss puts it (“The Life of Jesus”). No, Christ recognized the connection between human suffering and sin (cf. Matt. 9:2), but did not recognize only the authority of men to establish this connection according to their own considerations in each individual case. He wanted to teach people that when they see the sufferings of others, they should strive to look into the condition of their own souls and see in the punishment that befalls their neighbor, the warning that God sends them. Yes, here the Lord is warning people against that cold complacency that is often manifested among Christians, who see the sufferings of their neighbor and pass them by indifferently with the words: “He deserved it…”.
Luke 13:6. And he said this parable: a man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came to look for fruit on it, but found none;
To show how necessary repentance is now for the Jewish people, the Lord tells the parable of the barren fig tree, from which the owner of the vineyard is still waiting for fruit, but – and this is the conclusion that can be drawn from what has been said – his patience may soon be exhausted. run out and he will cut her off.
“and said”, that is, Christ addresses the crowds standing around him (Luke 12:44).
“in his vineyard… a fig tree”. In Palestine figs and apples grow in the bread fields and vineyards where the soil permits (Trench, p. 295).
Luke 13:7. and he said to the vinedresser: behold, for three years I have been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree, and I have not found any; cut it down: why should it only deplete the earth?
“I’ve been coming for three years”. More precisely: “three years have passed since I began to come” (τρία ἔτη, ἀφ´ οὗ).
“why only deplete the earth”. Land in Palestine is very expensive, as it affords the opportunity to plant fruit trees on it. “Depletes” – takes away the strength of the earth – moisture (καταργεῖ).
Luke 13:8. But he answered him and said: master, leave it this year too, until I dig it up and fill it with manure,
“dig up and fill with fertilizer”. These were extreme measures to make the fig tree fertile (as it is still done with orange trees in southern Italy, – Trench, p. 300).
Luke 13:9. and if it bears fruit, good; if not, next year you will cut it off.
“if not, next year you will cut it off”. This translation is not entirely clear. Why should a fig tree that has turned out to be barren be cut down only “next year”? After all, the owner has told the vintner that she wastes the soil in vain, so he must get rid of her immediately after the last and final attempt to make it fertile. There is no reason to wait another year. Therefore, here it is better to accept the reading established by Tischendorf: “Perhaps it will bear fruit next year?”. (κἂν μὲν ποιήσῃ καρπόν εἰς τὸ μέλλον) If not, cut it down.” We must wait until next year, however, because this year the fig tree will still be fertilized.
In the parable of the barren fig tree, God wants to show the Jews that His appearance as the Messiah is the last attempt that God makes to call the Jewish people to repentance, and that after the failure of this attempt, the people have no choice but to expects an imminent end.
But besides this direct meaning of the parable, it also has a mysterious one. It is the barren fig tree that signifies “every” nation and “every” state and church that do not fulfill their God-given purpose and must therefore be removed from their place (cf. Rev. 2:5 to the angel of the Ephesian church: ” I will remove your lamp from its place if you do not repent”).
Moreover, in the intercession of the vinedresser for the fig tree, the fathers of the Church see the intercession of Christ for sinners, or the intercession of the Church for the world, or of the righteous members of the Church for the unrighteous.
As for the “three years” mentioned in the parable, some interpreters have seen in them a signification of the three periods of the Divine household – the law, the prophets and Christ; others have seen in them a signification of the three years’ ministry of Christ.
Luke 13:10. In one of the synagogues He taught on the Sabbath;
Only the evangelist Luke tells about the healing of the weak woman on Saturday. In the synagogue on the Sabbath, the Lord heals the stooped woman, and the head of the synagogue, although indirectly in His address to the people, blames Him for this action, because Christ broke the Sabbath rest.
Then Christ rebukes the hypocritical zealot for the law and his ilk, pointing out that even on the Sabbath the Jews made their cattle drink, thus violating their prescribed rest. This denunciation made the opponents of Christ ashamed, and the people began to rejoice at the miracles that Christ performed.
Luke 13:11. and here is a woman of infirm spirit for eighteen years; she was hunched over and couldn’t stand up at all.
“with feeble spirit” (πνεῦμα ἔχουσα ἀσθενείας), i.e. demon that weakened her muscles (see verse 16).
Luke 13:12. When Jesus saw her, he called her and said to her: woman, you are freed from your infirmity!
“you break free”. More precisely: “you are freed” (ἀπολέλυσαι), the impending event being represented as having already taken place.
Luke 13:13. And laid His hands upon her; and immediately she stood up and praised God.
Luke 13:14. At this the leader of the synagogue, indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, spoke and said to the people: there are six days during which one must work; in them come and be healed, not on the Sabbath day.
“the ruler of the synagogue” (ἀρχισυνάγωγος). (cf. the interpretation of Matt. 4:23).
“being resentful that Jesus healed on the Sabbath.” (cf. the interpretation of Mark 3:2).
“said to the people”. He was afraid to turn directly to Christ because the people were clearly on the side of Christ (see v. 17).
Luke 13:15. The Lord answered him and said: hypocrite, does not each of you untie his ox or his donkey from the manger on the Sabbath and lead it to water?
“hypocrite”. According to the more accurate reading “hypocrites”. Thus the Lord calls the head of the synagogue and the other representatives of the church authorities who stand next to the head (Evthymius Zigaben), because under the pretext of observing exactly the Sabbath law, they actually wanted to shame Christ.
“doesn’t it lead?” According to the Talmud, it was also permitted to bathe animals on the Sabbath.
Luke 13:16. And this daughter of Abraham whom Satan has bound for eighteen years, should she not be freed from these bonds on the Sabbath day?
“that daughter of Abraham”. The Lord completes the thought expressed in the preceding verse. If for the animals the strictness of the Sabbath law can be violated, even more so for the woman descended from the great Abraham, it is possible to violate the Sabbath – in order to free her suffering from the disease that Satan caused her (Satan is represented as having bound her through some of her employees – the demons).
Luke 13:17. And when He spake this, all that were against Him were ashamed; and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious works which he did.
“for all the glorious works done by Him” (τοῖς γενομένοις), by which the works of Christ are signified as continuing.
Luke 13:18. And He said: what is the kingdom of God like, and what can I liken it to?
For an explanation of the parables of the mustard seed and leaven cf. the interpretation to Matt. 13:31-32; Mark 4:30-32; Matt. 13:33). According to the Gospel of Luke, these two parables were spoken in the synagogue, and here they are quite appropriate, since in verse 10 it is said that the Lord “taught” in the synagogue, but what His teaching consisted of – that is not what the evangelist says there and now compensates for this omission.
Luke 13:19. It is like a mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his garden; it grew and became a great tree, and the birds of the air made their nests in its branches.
“in his garden”, i.e. he keeps it under close supervision and constantly takes care of it (Matt.13:31: “in his fields”).
Luke 13:20. And again he said: to what shall I liken the kingdom of God?
Luke 13:21. It looks like leaven that a woman took and put in three measures of flour until it all soured.
Luke 13:22. And he passed through cities and villages, teaching and going to Jerusalem.
The evangelist again (cf. Luke 9:51 – 53) reminds his readers that the Lord, passing through towns and villages (most likely the evangelist is referring here to the towns and villages of Perea, the region beyond the Jordan, which is usually used for traveling from Galilee to Jerusalem), went to Jerusalem. He finds it necessary to recall here this purpose of the Lord’s journey because of the Lord’s predictions of the nearness of His death and of the judgment upon Israel, which, of course, are closely connected with the purpose of Christ’s journey.
Luke 13:23. And someone said to Him: Lord, are there few who are being saved? He said to them:
“someone” – a person who, in all probability, did not belong to the number of Christ’s disciples, but who came out of the crowd of people around Jesus. This is evident from the fact that in answering his question, the Lord addresses the crowd as a whole.
“are there few who are saved”. This question was not dictated by the strictness of Christ’s moral requirements, nor was it simply a question of curiosity, but, as is evident from Christ’s answer, it was based on the proud consciousness that the questioner belonged to those who would surely be saved . Salvation here is understood as deliverance from eternal destruction through acceptance into the glorious Kingdom of God (cf. 1 Cor. 1:18).
Luke 13:24. strive to enter through the narrow doors; for I tell you, many will seek to enter, and will not be able.
(cf. the interpretation of Matt. 7:13).
The evangelist Luke reinforces Matthew’s point because instead of “enter” he puts “strive to enter” (ἀγωνίζεσθε εἰσελθεῖν), implying the serious effort that will be required to enter the glorious Kingdom of God.
“many will seek to enter in” – when the time for the home building of salvation has already passed.
“they will not be able” because they did not repent in time.
Luke 13:25. After the master of the house gets up and shuts the door, and you who are left outside, start knocking at the door and crying: Lord, Lord, open to us! and when He opened you and said: I do not know you where you are from, –
Luke 13:26. then you will begin to say: we ate and drank before You, and in our streets You taught.
Luke 13:27. And He will say: I tell you, I do not know where you are from; depart from Me, all ye that work iniquity.
Announcing the judgment of the entire Jewish people, Christ represents God as the master of a house waiting for his friends to come to dinner. The hour comes when the doors of the house must be locked, and the master himself does this. But as soon as he locks the doors, the Jewish people (“you”), who have come too late, start asking to be admitted to the dinner and knocking on the door.
But then the householder, ie. God, will tell these tardy visitors that he does not know whence they come, ie. what family they are from (cf. John 7:27); in any case they do not belong to His house, but to some other, unknown to Him (cf. Matt. 25:11-12). Then the Jews will point out the fact that they ate and drank before Him, ie. that they are His close friends, that He taught in the streets of their cities (the speech clearly already passes into a picture of Christ’s relations with the Jewish people). But the Host will again tell them that they are strangers to Him, and therefore they must go away as unrighteous, i.e. wicked, stubborn unrepentant people (cf. Matt. 7:22 – 23). In Matthew these words mean false prophets.
Luke 13:28. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourselves cast out.
The conclusion of the preceding discourse depicts the sad condition of the rejected Jews, who, to their greatest chagrin, will see that access to the Kingdom of God is open to other nations (cf. Matt. 8:11-12).
“where” you will be banished.
Luke 13:29. And they will come from the east and the west, and the north and the south, and they will sit at the table in the kingdom of God.
Luke 13:30. And behold, there are last who shall be first, and there are first who shall be last.
“last”. These are the Gentiles whom the Jews did not consider worthy to be admitted to the kingdom of God, and the “first” are the Jewish people who were promised the kingdom of the Messiah (see Acts 10:45).
Luke 13:31. On the same day some Pharisees came and said to Him: get out and leave here, because Herod wants to kill You.
The Pharisees went to Christ to warn Him of the plans of Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee (see Luke 3:1). From the fact that later (v. 32) the Lord calls Herod a “fox”, i.e. cunning being, we can safely say that the Pharisees came by order of Herod himself, who was very displeased that Christ had been in his dominions for so long (Perea, where Christ was at that time, also belonged to the dominions of Herod). Herod was afraid to take any open measures against Christ because of the respect with which the people received him. Therefore Herod ordered the Pharisees to suggest to Christ that he was in danger from the tetrarch in Perea. The Pharisees thought it best to persuade Christ to go quickly to Jerusalem, where, as they knew, He would certainly not be pardoned.
Luke 13:32. And he said to them: go and say to that fox: behold, I cast out demons, and I heal today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will finish;
The Lord answers the Pharisees: “Go, tell this fox” who sent you, i.e. of Herod.
“today”. This expression signifies a definite time known to Christ, during which He would remain in Perea, in spite of all the plans and threats of Herod.
“I will finish”, (τελειοῦμαι, which is everywhere in the New Testament used as a passive participle), or – I will come to the end. But what “end” does Christ mean here? Is this not His death? Some teachers of the Church and ecclesiastical writers (the blessed Theophylact, Euthymius Zigaben) and many Western scholars have understood the expression in this sense. But, in our opinion, the Lord here undoubtedly speaks of the end of His present activity, which consists in casting out demons from men and healing diseases, and which takes place here in Perea. After that, another activity will begin – in Jerusalem.
Luke 13:33. but I must go to-day, to-morrow, and other days, for a prophet should not perish outside Jerusalem.
“I have to go”. This verse is very difficult to understand because it is not clear, first, what “walking” the Lord is referring to, and, second, it is not clear what this has to do with the fact that prophets were usually killed in Jerusalem. Therefore, some of the more recent commentators consider this verse to be structurally incorrect and suggest the following reading: “Today and tomorrow I must walk (i.e. perform healings here), but the next day I must go on a journey further away , because it does not happen that a prophet perishes outside of Jerusalem” (J. Weiss). But this text does not give us any reason to think that Christ decided to depart from Perea: there is no expression “from here”, nor any hint of a change in Christ’s activity. That is why B. Weiss offers a better interpretation: “Certainly, however, it is necessary for Christ to continue his journey as Herod wishes. But this does not in the least depend on Herod’s treacherous designs: Christ must, as before, go from one place to another (v. 22) at a fixed time. The purpose of His journey is not to escape; on the contrary, it is Jerusalem, for He knows that as a prophet He can and must die only there.”
As for the remark about all the prophets perishing in Jerusalem, this is of course hyperbole, as not all prophets met their death in Jerusalem (e.g. John the Baptist was executed at Mahera). The Lord spoke these words in bitterness because of the attitude of the capital of David towards God’s messengers.
Luke 13:34. Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you! How many times have I wanted to gather your children as a hen gathers it’s chickens under her wings, and you didn’t cry! (Cf. the interpretation of Matt. 23:37-39).
In Matthew this statement about Jerusalem is the conclusion of the rebuke against the Pharisees, but here it has a greater connection with the previous speech of Christ than in Matthew. In the Gospel of Luke, Christ addresses Jerusalem from a distance. It is probably during the last words (of verse 33) that He turns His face toward Jerusalem and makes this mournful address to the center of the theocracy.
Luke 13:35. Behold, your home is left to you desolate. And I tell you that you will not see Me until the time comes for you to say: blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!
“I tell you”. In the evangelist Matthew: “because I say to you”. The difference between the two expressions is as follows: in Matthew the Lord predicts the desolation of Jerusalem as a consequence of His departure from the city, while in Luke the Lord says that in this state of rejection in which Jerusalem will find itself, He will not come to its aid , as the inhabitants of Jerusalem might expect: “However sad your situation may be, I will not come to protect you until …” etc. – i.e. until the whole nation repents of its unbelief in Christ and turns to Him, which will happen before His Second Coming (cf. Rom. 11:25ff.).
Brussels, February 19, 2024 – The European Sikh Organization has issued a strong condemnation following reports of excessive force used by Indian security forces against farmers protesting in India since February 13, 2024. The farmers, who have been demanding the implementation of Minimum Support Prices (MSP) for their crops, reminiscent of the widespread 2020–2021 Indian farmers’ agitation, have reportedly faced severe and violent crackdowns.
In a distressing turn of events, it has been reported that the use of pellet guns by Indian forces has resulted in severe injuries among the protestors, with at least three farmers being blinded. This method of crowd control, previously seen in the contentious regions of Kashmir, marks a troubling use of lethal force against civilians voicing their dissent.
The European Sikh Organization, representing the Sikh community in Europe, has taken swift action by bringing this issue to the forefront of the European Parliament. The organization plans to engage with Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to highlight the severity of the situation and advocate for the rights of the Indian farmers within the broader framework of the European Union’s commitment to human rights.
Expressing solidarity with the farmers, the European Sikh Organization emphasized the stark contrast between the handling of farmer protests in Europe and India. In Europe, farmers’ rights to protest and advocate for their interests are often met with dialogue and negotiation, rather than violence and suppression. This disparity highlights a significant concern over the treatment of Indian farmers and the need for international attention to ensure their fundamental rights are protected.
The support from the farming community in Belgium towards their Indian counterparts is a testament to the global nature of the issue, underscoring the universal right to peaceful protest and the importance of government accountability in addressing citizens’ grievances.
As the situation develops, the European Sikh Organization’s efforts to bring international scrutiny to the use of force against Indian farmers are a crucial step in advocating for justice and human rights. The organization’s call to action within the European Union represents a broader plea for global solidarity with those fighting for their livelihoods and rights, against disproportionate use of force and suppression.
