MSB Book Notes on Luke.  Luke is the author, and the only Gentile writer in scripture.  As such, he wrote both Luke and Acts.  We know little about Luke.  Jerome and Eusebius say he lived in Antioch, possibly explaining why so much of Acts is about Antioch.  Luke spent much time with Paul.  Paul referred to Luke as a physician - hence much attention is paid to the healing ministry of Jesus.  It is believed that this book, and Acts, were written about AD 60 or 61.  This is because Luke records Jesus' prophecies of the coming destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD (19:42-44, 21:20-24), but says nothing about the actual event.  The books must have been written before that.  There are several other inferences that can be made, as listed in MSB.  
His account of the nativity is the only one that includes the unusual circumstances surrounding the birth of John the Baptist, the annunciation to Mary, the manger, the shepherds, Simeon, and Anna.  (Who would have known about all these?  Only Mary and Joseph, and Joseph was dead before Jesus died, and Luke never met Jesus.  So Luke got all these from Mary - my opinion, and I think I got the idea from something I read - maybe Ramsay's book...).  In fact, Luke is very good about recording the important roles that women played during Jesus' life, and especially on the morning of the resurrection.  
From Luke 9:51, Luke devotes 10 chapters to a travelogue of Jesus' final journey to Jerusalem.  Much of what is in this section is unique to Luke.  
MSB says Luke's writing appears to target a Gentile audience, like Mark's, and unlike Matthew's.  More than the other gospel writers, Luke brings out the universal scope of the gospel invitation.  He portrays (this is all from MSB) Jesus as the Son of man, rejected by Israel, and then offered to the world.  
 
Chapter 1
First four verses are Luke's dedication of the book to Theophilus, and statement of his purpose in writing the book.  "...that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught."
Zechariah, a priest after the order of Abijah (in ESV it is phrased "of the division of Abijah".  There has to be more to this.), and Elizabeth, from the daughters of Aaron.  So John the Baptist was born to the priesthood on both sides.  I took a quick look for Abijah, and didn't really find a former priest by that name.  There was an Abijah who was King of Judah.  Zechariah and Elizabeth have no children as Luke 1 starts.  Zechariah is chosen by lot to burn incense before the altar of incense in the Holy Place.  An angel appears to him in there, and tells him he's to have a son by Elizabeth, to name him John, and that John is not to drink wine or strong drink, and that he will be filled with the Holy Spirit from his birth.  (18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; [Eph 5:18 KJV]  I had never thought about how closely these two verses are to each other...)  He will go forth in the strength and power of Elijah.  Does not say he IS Elijah.
Zechariah questions this prophecy - like Jeremiah, he questions what he is told.  The angel identifies himself as Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God.  Zechariah is struck mute for not believing.  Perhaps the location of the angel should have made it obvious that this was genuine.  After his service, he goes home, and Elizabeth gets pregnant.
When Elizabeth is six months pregnant, Gabriel visits Mary in Nazareth.  She lived in Nazareth.  Gabriel tells her she will conceive "in her womb", perhaps an indication that this will be an unusual conception.  Gabriel tells her this son will be given the throne of his father David, and that he will reign forever.  Since God would cause this, the child would be called the Son of God, and would be holy.  So...not born under the curse of Adam, since Jesus had no earthly father.  This is why it had to be a virgin birth.  Here is the context of a verse we often hear...out of context:
"For nothing will be impossible with God", vs 37.  People often say "With God, all things are possible".  In context, it was about a formerly barren woman getting pregnant. This had many precedents.  Sarah and Samuel's mother come to mind.  Am I not saying God's miracles are limited to making barren women have babies, just that, in context, that is what this was about.
Mary goes to visit her relative Elizabeth, who lives somewhere in Judah.  When Elizabeth hears Mary's voice, the baby inside her "jumps", Elizabeth is filled with the Holy Spirit, and she "prophesies", or "preaches"....she "exclaims with a loud voice".  And what she says has to come from God, because she and Mary have not yet spoken directly to each other.  Elizabeth calls Mary "the mother of my Lord".  
Mary's reply is in verse format, and labeled "Mary's Song of Praise: The Magnificat.
Mary says God has blessed her in this, and that because of it, all generations will call her blessed.  She says she is of humble estate, and then later talks about how God will scatter the proud, bring down the mighty, fill the hungry, and send the rich away empty.  She says all this is God remembering His mercy, as He spoke to Israel, and to Abraham.  
So...looking at this wording, the implication is that Jesus is fulfilling both the Abrahamic (unconditional) and the Sinai (conditional) covenants.  Gabriel had already made it clear that this child would fulfill the Davidic covenant.  These are the three mentioned in the MSB notes in Malachi.  MSB was looking ahead.  Also, the timelines of these three covenants come together in Jesus, and then diverge again because he is rejected.  In that divergence the church arises.  The final timeline.  (((I need to put together the references for each of these covenants.  I have a book with many of them listed, but I don't think all of these are there.  Find them all.)))
Mary went to visit Elizabeth and stays for three full months.  Nazareth was a small town, and Mary's pregnancy was a local scandal, and probably very unusual in such a small community.  She likely stayed with Elizabeth so long in order to be away from the judgmental eyes of those in Nazareth.  
John is born, and both Elizabeth and Zachariah indicate that his name is John.  This was unusual because no one in Zechariah's family was called John.  Apparently, reusing family names was the order of the day.  After writing John's name, Zachariah is "unmuted", and the people wonder at what this means, and what John will be.
Now that he can speak, Zechariah prophesies:
He is first filled with the Holy Spirit, as Elizabeth had been when Mary arrived.  We change to verse format for the prophecy, as if it is a song.  
Zechariah starts by saying that God has redeemed his people.  I don't know if the theme of redemption is really new here, but I suspect it will receive much emphasis in the gospels.  vs 70, 71 are about being saved from their enemies, to show mercy as promised to the fathers (nation of Israel), and to remember the covenant.  This would be a reference to the Sinai covenant I think.  Then vs 73 brings up "the oath that he swore...to Abraham...", so that covenant is brought in.  Davidic, Sinai, and Abrahamic ALL in these verses.  In 76, Zechariah refers to John directly, saying he will be called "the prophet of the Most High".  First prophet since Malachi.  John's purpose is to give knowledge of salvation to his people.  Knowledge of how to be saved?  Or knowledge of the Messiah as to who he is, and that salvation is/will be in him?  The song ends with this phrase:
78 ...the sunrise shall visit us from on high 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." [Luke 1:78b-79 ESV]  Referring back to Malachi?:
2 But for you who fear my name, the sun of righteousness shall rise with healing in its wings. You shall go out leaping like calves from the stall. [Mal 4:2 ESV]
There is also that prophecy in Isaiah about the ones in darkness being sent a great light.  Many references – or at least it seems they were thinking of the OT when they wrote these NT verses.
So tying the OT to the NT was not left to chance.  In just this first chapter, Luke has linked three OT covenants to the birth of Jesus.  Luke is not saying that this is "a new religion", but that Jesus continues all that came before in the OT.  This is all part of what was planned before the beginning.
Also, note how much of what Luke tells us here could only have come from a few possible sources, chief of which is Mary herself.  Only Mary knew that Gabriel came to see her.  In the three months Mary was in Judah, surely Elizabeth told her that Gabriel also appeared to Zechariah, and of the circumstances at that time.  Who but Mary would have heard Elizabeth's exclamation, and surely Mary remembered her response to this.  Luke pretty much had to have interviewed Mary - many times I would say - before writing his gospel. 

Luke Chapter 2

This translation in ESV:
5 to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. [Luk 2:5 ESV]
The way this reads in the ESV says that Mary and Joseph had still not been formally married when Mary gave birth to Jesus.  They were betrothed only.  She wasn't just pregnant before marriage, she gave birth before marriage.  What a scandalous way to begin life.  But look at the old KJV.  It says Mary was his "espoused" wife.  Intended wife perhaps?  So all the translations acknowledge this, you just never hear a preacher point it out.  Here is perhaps the plainest translation:
5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. [Luk 2:5 NIV]
Another FB post for December.  He was born to an unwed mother.
2022 - I believe I found a place that makes it very clear that they were married before Jesus was born.  Looking at these verses, all say she was betrothed, and pregnant.  Not one of them says that she gave birth while betrothed.  I read between the lines to get that.  Joseph went to Bethlehem, and took Mary with him, on the trip where she gave birth in Bethlehem.  Did they get married on the way?  Why would they have waited until she was this far along?  I'm guessing it has to do with how Jewish weddings work.  Perhaps they had gone through all the ceremony required to be married, but the marriage was not yet consummated.  And until it was, they were not entirely married under Jewish law?  There's the whole thing about the bride waiting for the bridegroom and all that.  This part of the ceremony would not yet have taken place, since Mary was already pregnant.  This is a much more likely explanation for the wording of these verses.

The Christmas story, as I always read it.  I like Luke's narrative.
The  "whole world" was to be taxed.  Joseph leaves Nazareth and travels to  Bethlehem, and while there, Mary gives birth and lays the baby in a  manger.  In a manger, because there's no room in the inn.  No innkeeper  is mentioned.  At all.  Directly or indirectly.  We presume that they  had permission to sleep in the stable, that Jesus was not born as a  "trespasser".  As an unwanted "guest".  But what if he was???  Isn't  that the story of his whole life?  He was mostly unwelcome, criticized,  and threatened everywhere he went.  He himself says that he has nowhere to lay his head.  Why would the moment of his birth  have been any different.
7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn. [Luk 2:7 ESV]
This is a good post for FB during December.  He was born to an unwed mother trespassing in a barn.

16 And they went with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in a manger. [Luk 2:16 ESV]
Then  the story of the shepherds.  It starts not with a heavenly host of  innumerable angels singing in the sky, but with a single angel who gives  them a message.  The angel says a child has been born.  That Christ the  Lord has been born.  Not just some special child, but Christ has  finally arrived.  The manger is mentioned again here and is the sign that unequivocally identifies this baby as the Messiah.  Jesus is identified not by the trappings of royalty or by a golden cradle and silk coverings, but by the paucity of any indications of greatness.  He is born humblest of all.  
Another good FB post for December.  
Then,  only then, after the message is delivered, do the angels say - NOT SING  - praising God.  So the shepherds confer, and decide to go see this  child.  

And once they have, they tell everyone they see.  Must not have  been really late at night, though it was at night.
17 And when they saw it, they made known the saying that had been told them concerning this child. [Luk 2:17 ESV]
Shepherds for heralds.  Men who should have been at work.  Men with no education.  Their grammar was poor.  They didn't know any big words.  They were just bursting with the impact of the news and lacked the words to express it.  Can you imagine them as they try and convey that they have seen angels, real angels, and that the one they have awaited for centuries is over there in a manger, just a mile or so from where we stand.  The child is in a manger, born to an unwed mother, trespassing in a barn.  But angels say this is Him.  What a way to start.
Still another good FB post for the series.  This if four.  This is two weeks.  14, 17, 21, 24.

  Note this:
19 But Mary treasured up all these things, pondering them in her heart. [Luk 2:19 ESV]
She may have never told anyone about these events until she told Luke.  

Then this verse:
22  And when the time came for their purification according to the Law of  Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23  (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, "Every male who first opens  the womb shall be called holy to the Lord") [Luk 2:22-23 ESV]
How  long after Jesus was born was this required?  MSB says 40 days.  MSB  implies that they had remained in Bethlehem for that whole time, and  traveled six miles to the temple.  Their offering indicates that they  were quite poor.  I imagine so if they had moved from the stable to the  inn during this time and were having to pay for food and lodging for a  whole month.  Does this make sense?

The  story of Simeon.  The Holy Spirit was "upon" him.  Doesn't say in him.   But the Holy Spirit had told him that before he died he would see "the  Lord's Christ".  Simeon recognizes Jesus when he is brought in by his  parents.  It says he "took him up in his arms", as if the child was  walking already?  Simeon thanks God for the "salvation" he is seeing.   Then he talks specifically to Mary, telling her what Jesus will do.  

2023 - This verse:  27 And he came in the Spirit into the temple, and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the Law, [Luk 2:27 ESV].  This looks like the same phrase used in Revelation of John, in the Spirit on the Lord's day.  Note that Simeon, in the Spirit, recognized who Jesus was immediately.  So we might say this is a very "aware" state for someone to be in.

Then  Anna, a prophetess, shows up and begins to speak about Jesus to all  that were there.  She didn't hear what Simeon had said, but Jesus was  revealed to her separately.  

They go back to Nazareth.  Which they would have done no matter how old Jesus was at the time.  

We  are told that Mary and Joseph go to Jerusalem every year at Passover.   We have jumped ahead to when Jesus was 12.  Nothing about the wise men  in Luke.  Jesus is left behind at the temple, and is in discussion with  the men there, and his knowledge, as a 12 year old, astonishes them, and  his parents. 

Luke Chapter 3
Starts like Matt 3 and Mark 1 with the ministry of John.  But Luke timestamps it.  The 15th year of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and Trachonitis, Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, Annas and Caiaphas high priests. Surely this setup did not overlap for a very long time.  Should narrow it down a lot.  But...per MSB, it only narrows it down to sometime between AD 25 and 29.  

This verse:
3 And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. [Luk 3:3 ESV]
Both Mark and Luke refer to what John did as "a baptism of repentance".  Neither uses the definite article.  The way they phrase it seems to be an effort to distinguish John's baptism from other baptisms extant in that time.  Perhaps baptism had become a bit of a fad, with lots of people - preachers and such - ritualizing it to tie their followers to them.  

2022 - Here is the last part of the verse above, as it appears in the mGNT:
βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν
And here it is in the TR:

βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν

On this they agree.  As written, it would translate baptism of repentance for forgiveness of sins.
That word eis, translated "for" is the key to all the differences of opinion on baptism.  It shows up every time.  It is just a little preposition, yet it causes no end of problems.
I went to the grocery store for milk and eggs.  To obtain the milk and eggs, the trip was necessary.  This is the way those who see baptism as necessary to salvation understand the word "eis" in this phrase.  If you want milk and eggs, you have to go to the grocery store.  That's the way you obtain them.
He went to Washington DC for his term of office.  In this sense, he was elected, and BECAUSE of that change of status, he went to DC.  That's where you go to discharge your acquired responsibilities.
These two phrases are similar to an explanation I heard someplace else, but they are not exactly the same examples.  I don't remember the exact ones used, but they were better than these.  Nevertheless, these do convey the differences.  There is "for" as in "to obtain", and there is "for" as in "because of".  In this verse,  it is hard to distinguish between the two.  
I want to work on better exemplars of each use of "for", and I want to put in the wording from other places.  I think there are several where it is obvious that it is the second interpretation, the "because of" interpretation, that is obviously correct.  I could do that by looking up all the uses of baptisma.  
2022 - Later:
"34 The people of Reuben and the people of Gad called the altar Witness, "For," they said, "it is a witness between us that the LORD is God."" [Jos 22:34 ESV].
"For", as used here, surely and indisputably means "because".  It was named "Witness", because it was already a witness.
2023 - There is no definite article before baptisma.  Perhaps this is a small matter, but if baptism was necessary for salvation, if it was the only door, then wouldn't we expect the definite article???  Without the definite article, this is an unspecified baptism.  It implies that there were several things people were being baptized over at the time, and John added another.  A baptism.  It does not say that John introduced the only baptism that really did any good.  It does not call Jesus the one door and baptism the one key.  Nothing along those lines at all.  I have a hard time agreeing that this verse requires baptism for salvation.

2021 - The quote from Isaiah in vs 4 is punctuated to make it seem like it should read as "The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord."  
But in Isaiah 40:3, it is punctuated like this:  A voice cries:  "In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord".  
I guess they essentially say the same thing, but surely the emphasis is different in the two passages.  I just think it is interesting how different they seem, depending on the punctuation.  Perhaps the idea is that Isaiah, from so long ago, was telling where the message would be proclaimed, and was interested in the comparison to Elijah's ministry, though Elijah is not mentioned in Isa 40.  In the NT, the emphasis is on the message itself, and less on the location, because everyone knew where John's ministry was carried out.

And this, from John's message:
8 Bear fruits in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. [Luk 3:8 ESV]
Fruit in keeping with repentance.  Clearly, fruit does not save, but indicates salvation.  Salvation is not by works, and not by inheritance.  These two are likely what the Pharisees taught, leaving repentance completely out.

Luke also quotes Isaiah, but more extensively.  In fact, each of the last two added a little to the original quote in Matthew.  Perhaps Matthew's audience would have know the whole chapter by heart anyway!  John's message is portrayed the same as in Matthew, and a little more extensive than what Mark said.  Luke tells us that John's message included instruction on how to live their lives.  He was, after all, shunning the religious elite of the time, so the people asked him how they were to go forward.  He tells them to be charitable with their earthly goods.  Not to abuse their authority to make themselves rich.  Not to go beyond the force that is necessary to do their duty.  He tells them to be good people, and to look at others as good people.  

2021 - John's instructions on how to live life are in Luke 3:10-14.  He addresses "the crowd", and tells them to be charitable with food and clothing, that is, with life's basic necessities.  Don't let people freeze, don't let people starve.  There is nothing about everyone having a color TV, or everyone having a Lexus.  The idea was to be generous with the poor, and perhaps beyond that, to free them from worrying about freezing and starving so that some of their physical resources could be turned to finding work, to supporting themselves, and so on.  If you are worried about where your next meal will come from, you are unlikely to plan for long term housing.  This seems very instructional.  Perhaps even a FB quote.  This is very different from what socialism says.  It is very different from equality of outcome.  
Then the tax collectors are addressed.  This would seem to have been a small group, but nevertheless they are addressed specifically.  Maybe they represent those in government with much discretion.  Maybe the point is about how Christians should act on behalf of a corrupt and Godless government.  Tax collectors are not really judiciary, so perhaps we should think of them as the executive.  Their job was to see that citizens paid their taxes - supported their government financially.  I really don't think I've zeroed in on this exactly.  John's reply was that they were to bring integrity to their offices.  They were not to abuse their power.  They were not to be as corrupt as their government was, even though they could.  They were to hold to a higher standard of behavior.
Then the soldiers.  Enforcement.  This does appear to be the executive, moreso than the tax collectors.  Maybe the tax collectors are judiciary.  The potential for grave injustice was certainly in their hands.  The soldiers are law enforcement.  The message to them was also to be more honest than the government they served.  They were not to use their position of authority to extort money (like our confiscation without due process laws now encourage them to do), or to have people charged with crimes they did not commit.  These soldiers could take anyone to jail, on their word alone, and ruin lives.  You'd almost have to pay them off if they threatened, the consequences were just too severe.  John told them to reign in these temptations, to do what it took to earn their paychecks, and not be greedy for more.  My goodness!  Could our government officials use this message?  

So instead of the multiple laws that the Pharisees said they must follow, every day, John just said to be good.  This goes along with what I was thinking about the differences between Judaism as practiced in Jesus' time, and the church in our time.  The rules just went away.

2022 - This verse:
"16 ...He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire." [Luk 3:16 ESV].  Using the "to obtain" translation of for, this says only those Jesus baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire were saved.  You had to have that done in order to be saved.  Yet that happens in Acts 1 to the 12 apostles - the 11 and Matthias.  Are we to believe that none of them was truly saved until the day that happened?  They weren't saved when they went to Galilee and received Jesus' teaching?  They weren't saved when they elected Matthias to take Judas' place?  They'd have gone to hell if the Romans had found them and summarily killed them?  They had to wait for the Holy Spirit and fire to be saved?  

2022 - This verse:
"17 His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire."" [Luk 3:17 ESV]  Does this verse connect with Rev 14?
OR, is John talking about the rapture, when the saved are gathered to him in the clouds and the rest of the planet, save for the Jews who will endure that time, moves toward eternity in fire?  If so, it would not be connected with Rev 14 at all, but Rev 6.

"14 Then I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and seated on the cloud one like a son of man, with a golden crown on his head, and a sharp sickle in his hand. 15 And another angel came out of the temple, calling with a loud voice to him who sat on the cloud, "Put in your sickle, and reap, for the hour to reap has come, for the harvest of the earth is fully ripe." 16 So he who sat on the cloud swung his sickle across the earth, and the earth was reaped. 17 Then another angel came out of the temple in heaven, and he too had a sharp sickle. 18 And another angel came out from the altar, the angel who has authority over the fire, and he called with a loud voice to the one who had the sharp sickle, "Put in your sickle and gather the clusters from the vine of the earth, for its grapes are ripe." 19 So the angel swung his sickle across the earth and gathered the grape harvest of the earth and threw it into the great winepress of the wrath of God. 20 And the winepress was trodden outside the city, and blood flowed from the winepress, as high as a horse's bridle, for 1,600 stadia." [Rev 14:14-20 ESV]

This seems to show the good wheat - the fully ripe - being harvested first, and then in vs 18, the angel in charge of fire, gathers the grape harvest - a different harvest in all respects from the wheat harvest, and this receives the wrath of God.  We have not seen this metaphor previously, where wheat that is eaten is the good part, and wine that is drunk is the bad.  So it is hard to make too much of this, and we must consider that any conclusions about what this means are speculative.  BUT, we ought to give it some thought.  

Certainly this suggests a detailed look at all the "wheat gathering" references in the NT.  Didn't Jesus offer several parables about wheat?  Some 30, some 60, some a 100 comes to mind for one.

Later 2022 -
The wheat refers to those saved during the church age, mostly Gentiles.  They will be harvested at the rapture, and the tares left to be burned.  
The Jews are always the vine.  Gentiles are grafted in, but the Jews are the cultivated vine.  These Jews, like the tares, WILL go through the wrath, to be trampled and trodden, to be tested and tried, to be processed from grapes into the better product, the wine.  Note that both the wheat in Luke and the grapes in Revelation are gathered in.  But the grapes stay outside the city, because the M of L is in control of the city.  And the trodding is about the persecution of the Jews, the attempted genocide of the Jews carried out in all the world at the direction of the M of L, and very many - millions and millions - will die during the wrath of God phase of tgt.  Seen this way, John's words, as recorded in Luke, make perfect sense.

2022 - One more thought about this way of looking at things..
Gentiles are wheat, Jews are grapes.
We are the church, they are the temple.
We are the bread, they are the wine.
We are the body, they are the blood.
In the Lord's supper, we eat the body and drink the blood.
Is this in some way the explanation for why, beginning with the Lord's supper, it was ok to consume the blood of the sacrifice?  How does this all fit?
Jesus is the sacrifice, both for Gentile and Jew.  He is the one in whom the whole world is one.
The life of the flesh is in the blood.  The body - Gentiles - cannot be made alive without the blood - the Jews who came first.
We MUST drink the blood, as a way of making the flesh alive.
Hmm...some of this sounds pretty good, some seems a little sketchy.  There is a lot of truth here I think, I just don't yet quite comprehend it all.

John pulls no punches, even where royalty is concerned, and gets himself arrested by Herod the tetrarch.  
Luke has a very abbreviated account of Jesus' baptism.

Vss 23-38 are the "other" genealogy of Jesus.  This one is in reverse order, from Jesus' supposed father Joseph, all the way back to Adam.  MSB says Luke's genealogy is that of Mary, which makes it reconcilable with the one in Matthew.  

2023 - This last verse in the genealogy:  38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. [Luk 3:38 ESV].  As used here by Luke, son of God can refer to someone directly created by God.  Or perhaps to an original of its kind.  Wonder if this applies in any way to the sons of God who went in to human women in the OT?  Does this imply that God created other "humans" besides Adam's race, and it was these who had hyper-abilities?  Not angels, but not humans either.  They couldn't have been immortal or they'd still be around...Way off the subject, just an idea.

Luke Chapter 4
Here, one can see a little more time between Jesus' baptism and the temptations.  Not a lot, but some.  
There are a couple of additional things here about the temptations.  First, there is this verse:
6 and said to him, "To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will. [Luk 4:6 ESV]
Satan was in charge - or claimed he was in charge - of the goings on of planet earth.  He claimed to be able to deliver these kingdoms and all this power.  Yet we know that God holds the strings that control kings.  Satan is the accuser, and he can do things, but for him to claim ownership of the kingdoms and authority over them...wasn't that a lie?  No MSB note about that.  
(Later...7/1/20...maybe Satan did have a lot more power before Jesus' perfect life, death, and triumphant resurrection, after which all things were given into Christ's hands.  Perhaps THIS is why the activity and power of demons is so very much more limited in our time than it was back then.  Maybe that's why we don't see people every day that are possessed.  Maybe Jesus stops them, or maybe that is now off limits.)

2020-The Pinnacle of the temple, and being dared to "throw himself down", was a temptation to Jesus to prove he was really the Son of God.  Satan was saying "You're just a man, subject to all the foibles and fragility of men.  But you claim to be God.  Show me, by throwing yourself down."  He was trying to get Jesus' pride involved.  He wants Jesus to say "Watch this".  That is how this temptation is a temptation to "the pride of life".  The lust of the eyes was all the kingdoms, the riches, the "I can have all I see" temptation.  And the lust of the flesh included plain old simple hunger.  If our longing for a piece of bread gets between us and our God, then it is the flesh that is in the way.  Lust of the flesh isn't just about sex, there is a whole continuum of fleshly things that can pull us away.  What if we have cancer and have to get treatments of various kinds such that we feel like we'd be better off dead.  Wanting to die in such a case is the lust of the flesh.  

2021 - 12 And Jesus answered him, "It is said, 'You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.'" [Luk 4:12 ESV]
I now associate this passage about not tempting God with Covid 19.  If there's a deadly disease out there, and you're told to stay home and wear a mask, isn't it tempting God to go into public places without one?  How is that not tempting God?  Where in the NT did the newly formed churches take fried chicken lunches out to the local leper colony, or invite the lepers to attend their church? That would be tempting God.  I believe the key is the calling.  If God calls you to attend to the lepers, then he will protect you while you do His work, or he will use your death from leprosy to show that doing God's will is more important than life itself.  But if you are not called for such a mission, you're going to get leprosy and die because of your own arrogance, and there will be no credit from God for that.  
Possible FB post.

Second, there is this:
13 And when the devil had ended every temptation, he departed from him until an opportune time. [Luk 4:13 ESV]
So Satan has not, after all, left Jesus alone for good, but has moved away to observe and plot and plan another attempt to thwart the purpose of the incarnation.  Which is to snatch those who will be saved from Satan's power.
2022 - Isn't it interesting that Satan quotes scripture in vss 10 and 11, after the first two temptations fail.  He tries twisting the word itself into a different interpretation.  

Luke also puts the beginning of Jesus' ministry just after the temptation, but his first specific account is of Jesus' rejection at Nazareth.  Jesus reads Isa 61:1, a Messianic prophecy.  It lists things the Messiah will do:  Proclaim good news to the poor, give sight to the blind, free the oppressed, and proclaim the year of the Lords favor.  Jesus is doing all these things.  (2022 - Isn't this the same prophecy Jesus sends to John in prison when his followers come and ask?)  The connection - his meaning - would have been clear as crystal to those present.  And if it wasn't, Jesus makes it clear by saying "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing".  
They are speaking well of him, and then they note that this is Joseph's son.  Perhaps this was their denial that he is the Messiah.  He couldn't have been, he was only Joseph's son.  Then Jesus suggests that they are probably thinking that he should do the miracles there in Nazareth that he has done elsewhere.  But Jesus points out that they don't believe who he is - do not accept him as Messiah but only want the miracles without the belief - and Jesus lets them know that it is not a prophet's hometown that necessarily benefits.  In fact, hometowns reject their own.  Jesus talks of Elijah and Elisha, who took care of only one widow, and who healed only one leper - neither of whom was a Jew!  (2021 - Likely because Elijah and Elisha were in the north, and they were worshiping the two calves and to a very great extent Baal and Moloch and Chemosh and those guys.  Israel at that time was disbelieving, and because of it, no miracles were done for her own.  In Nazareth, the weight of physical evidence outweighed the spiritual evidence.  They'd known Jesus since he was a pup.  He could not be the Messiah, he was just too common.  Why, most in Nazareth came from better folks than Jesus.) They get really mad, and try to force Jesus off a cliff to his death.  But he "passes through them".
2022 - This verse:
"23 And he said to them, "Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, '"Physician, heal yourself." What we have heard you did at Capernaum, do here in your hometown as well.'"" [Luk 4:23 ESV].  First, it would be good to find out the basis of this proverb.  What is the story behind it?  Perhaps that is the key to understanding why they were so incensed?  But in a way, isn't this also what they said to him later, as he hung dying on the cross?  You healed everyone else, so let's see you get yourself down off the cross.  Let the healer heal himself.  Why would they say this to him in Nazareth, though?   What were they saying he needed to heal, his heritage?  His conception out of wedlock? Is that what he needed to heal?  This quote is right after they say "Isn't this Joseph's son?"  
2022 Later,
Heal thyself meant "take care of your own house before you go and heal Capernaum.  And Jesus answers that they don't deserve it.  That's why they got so mad.

2020-MSB says that this story is part of Luke's repeated teaching that Jesus came also for the Gentiles.  He shows here that such is not new, that in fact even in ancient times, when Israel was unbelieving in general, the miracles were done for Gentiles.  He is telling Nazareth that they are like Israel in those old dark days before Israel even had a king.  But...why should this make them so angry.  It says they were "filled with wrath".  These words about Elijah and Elisha incensed them.  Provoked them.  Why was it such an insult?  They were, after all, far up in the north, where the 10 tribes used to be.  These of Nazareth were likely imported to the region by Assyria back in the day.  It is unlikely that they could trace their history back to Jacob.  And Jesus knew them all by name, as he had grown up there.  Maybe ....ahhhh....They had said "Isn't this Joseph's son?", perhaps reminding Jesus that they knew he was born out of wedlock, just a bastard child come home, but they knew who he was.  They knew a bastard child was all he was.  So he turns the tables.  He says they are not "Jews" either, but are also putting on airs.  They are Assyrians with no history, no right to be on the promised land, and no idea who their parents are either!!!  YES!  That is why this made them so mad!  Later - maybe Jesus was also saying that in this place where you live, even back in the days of Elisha and Elijah, mostly Gentiles lived in this part of the world, and your prophets came here to escape the Jews.  Maybe you guys are descended not from the very few Jews that lived here, but from those Gentiles?  Or even more, perhaps some conquering Assyrian had his way with your ancestral grandmother, and instead of being Jewish, you are in fact descended from an Assyrian warrior?  Yes.  There could have been a lot of implications in what Jesus said.
2021 - And...I could be totally off track with this.  Still, if this is wrong, then why did Jesus' comments so incense them?  They took it personally enough to try and kill the man whom they knew to be a miracle worker, and who'd just claimed in their presence to be the Messiah.  Maybe it was just that.  Like the High Priest later, they decided he could not be the Messiah because they knew who his father was.  Was there some sort of expectation that the Messiah would just appear, rather than be born?  And here was one whose birth was questionable in the first place, claiming to be Messiah.  Perhaps they wanted to kill him for this blasphemy in their eyes.

Then Jesus goes to teach at the synagogue in Capernaum, and we have the story of the demon he casts out.  
2022 - Note this verse:    "33 And in the synagogue there was a man who had the spirit of an unclean demon, and he cried out with a loud voice," [Luk 4:33 ESV].  Sometimes, demons go to church.  It isn't like they "can't" be in a sacred place.  There can be a demon right beside you on a Sunday morning.  Listen carefully to whomever you talk with.  Think about the implications of what they say.

The narrative moves on as it did in Mark.  Simon's mother in law healed.  2020 - The verse is phrased this way:
39 And he stood over her and rebuked the fever, and it left her, and immediately she rose and began to serve them. [Luk 4:39 ESV]  He rebuked the fever, as if the fever was caused by a demon.  He had just rebuked a demon in vs. 35.  Now he rebukes a fever.  Sickness caused by demons?  The word "rebuke" is the same in both verses.  Strong's G2008.  I found it interesting is all.  Then in the very next verse, he heals by laying his hands on those brought to him.  No more rebuking?  This whole paragraph is interesting, as "demons also came out of many".  So the diseases....maybe a lot of them were caused by demons.  

It says that demons came out of many.  Why so many demons then and none now?  Are we just too "smart" to diagnose anyone as demon possessed these days, or did Jesus' resurrection put a real damper on their presence in this world?

Luke Chapter 5
Jesus begins calling the 12.  Jesus gets into Simon's boat to preach to the crowd that is pressing on him.  About to push him into the lake I would say.  Jesus preaches, then tells Simon to push out to the deep water and let down the nets.  Simon does, and the nets are filled.  This is the version in "Chosen".  It is based on Luke's account.  That makes me feel a lot better about that show.  Still don't like Mary traveling with the disciples though.  After the big catch of fish, they leave everything and follow Jesus, to become fishers of men.

Luke relates the story of the leper that is healed and told not to spread the word, but does anyway.  Word gets out and crowds begin to come to Jesus so that he has to go to desolate places to pray.

Jesus heals the paralytic let down through the hole in the roof.  He does this with Pharisees from all over present to see it.  They are first hand witnesses.  They hear him tell the man his sins are forgiven, and they get upset, because only God can forgive sin.  So Jesus contrasts forgiving sins and healing paralytics, and asks which is easier?  Obviously, one is a physical observable thing, the other is not.  It is a spiritual thing.  Jesus tells the paralytic to arise, which he does.  This is a miracle, confirming that the sins are forgiven, and so demonstrating for the Pharisees that Jesus IS God, incarnate.  First hand.

Then Jesus calls Levi, the tax collector.  Matthew puts on a banquet -since he is quite rich - and invites other tax collectors.  The scribes and Pharisees are upset by this fraternizing with sinners.  Jesus tells them that the whole have no need of physicians.  So obvious...

Some people (not specific whether it was the Pharisees or not) ask why Jesus' disciples never fast.  He tells them how inappropriate it would be for guests at a wedding celebration to fast.  But that someday, they will.
Then he tells a parable.  This is the first one we've heard, chronologically.  This is about mending new garments with old cloth, and about putting new wine in new wineskins.  It ends with "no one would drink new wine" after they've had the old, because they will say "the old is good".  Those clinging to the Mosaic law, especially the religious leaders getting wealthy off that law, will be unconvinced that this new wine - this new covenant - is better.  They will aggressively cling to the old.  Jesus is saying that no part of the old can be incorporated into the new.  No sacrifices, no dietary restrictions, no feasts...the old just will not "incorporate" into the new.  They are mutually exclusive so to speak.  The church age requires a setting aside of the Mosaic Covenant/Sinai covenant.  They cannot exist side by side.  And they don't, after AD 70.

2022 - But the way it is worded, it says that "no one" would want new wine after drinking the old.  That doesn't sound like Jesus is saying they are wrong.  Everyone feels the same way about that.  Jesus tells this same parable in Mark2:21,22 and Matt 9:16,17.  The qualitative assessment that no one would prefer the new does not appear in those other two accounts.  Only Luke includes this part.  What is common to all three is that if the new is put into the old, then both the wine and the container will be ruined.  Both.  The only way to read this, it seems, is to say that those "sot in their ways", the old hard shell types, will never prefer what is new.  They will always prefer the old ways.  And this is a huge problem if we see it as a physical parable.  But perhaps Jesus is speaking here of the spiritual.  Perhaps this is about "old things are passed away, behold all things are become new".  The gospel requires a new man, a regenerate spirit, where the new wine can be deposited without damage, and age as it should into something that gets better and better with time.  If there was no renewal of spirit, then the gospel - the new wine - would in fact be destructive.  Jesus is saying it is not possible to retain the sacrificial system, the Mosaic Law, and also embrace the gospel.  This is the point that Paul continually made to the Judaizers, who kept trying to mix the two, requiring adherence to dietary laws, circumcision and so on.  These things were "old wineskins", and trying to hold onto them, rather than moving on to the gospel, would be inevitably destructive to those who tried to combine the two.  Which also sends us back to the first part of the parable about patching old garments with new cloth.  All that does is bring harm and destruction to the old cloth.  You cannot make the gospel "fit in" to the Mosaic system.  They are incompatible.  And the natural way, the human way, of dealing with "new" things is to hold to the old, because everyone knows that aged wine is better than new wine.

Luke Chapter 6
Opens with the disciples eating corn on the Sabbath.  This account is a little more abbreviated than Matthew's account.  Perhaps because Luke is writing more to Gentiles who maybe wouldn't have though this incident was that much of a big deal anyway?

2022 - Look at the details though...They plucked and ate some grain, rubbing them in their hands.  So they were eating raw grain, as they walked along.  The Pharisees had more of a problem with the "harvesting" and "processing" of the grain on a Sabbath than they had with the fact that it was not the disciple's grain.  How is this not stealing?  But that is not what the Pharisees saw.  Perhaps the point is that they really didn't care about the ethics of the situation at all, they only wanted to discredit Jesus and his followers with respect to the Law.  They wanted to get people to stop listening to what Jesus was teaching.  They were not about "law enforcement" at all.  And Jesus' answer is not about law enforcement either.  Jesus' says that the Law was never meant to make people starve on the Sabbath.  Or even to be hungry on the Sabbath.  And then he tells them that he has the authority to break the law if he wants to anyway, just as David broke it before.

9 And Jesus said to them, "I ask you, is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to destroy it?" [Luk 6:9 ESV]
Jesus heals the withered hand.  If inaction results in evil, then action is called for, even on the Sabbath.  We are talking here about God's laws, not man's.  In man's terms, if not interfering results in a wife or a child being beaten, then we should interfere, even if we go onto another's property or into their house to stop the evil.  Similar analogy is international humanitarian aid.  But God's law...perhaps this analogy is only applicable in contrasting the Mosaic Law and the gospel.  In the church, all things are lawful, if they are not evil.  Evil is about what is in our hearts, not about the law.  This was not the case under Mosaic law.  Evil was rigidly defined, though in a limited way.  The Mosaic law did not allow for what if questions.
Good FB post.  You cannot just stand and watch evil that you could do something about.

The twelve apostles called and listed.  I think the implication here is that when Jesus told Simon and Andrew to follow him, and told James and John to follow him, they were being invited to be his disciples.  He had MANY disciples.  But this account, both in Mark and Luke, implies that it was only later that Jesus chose 12 to be his closest pupils, and titled them apostles.  And this happened only after a night of prayer.
2021 - Yes, that is surely how this reads.  They were first called as disciples, and spent time with Jesus and followed him around the country, but they were not "the twelve" until this point, after a full night of prayer.  They had seen many miracles by this time.  I would say it was only at this time that Jesus began to instruct and inform the 12 as a group apart.  He was setting them up to carry on his work after he was gone.  He couldn't do that with hundreds or even 50's.  The group had to be down to size.  

A great crowd has gathered.  Jesus finds a level place and begins healing diseases, and casting out demons.  Anyone ill who touched Jesus was healed.  They must have pressed in upon him in desperation.  
Then the sermon on the mount.  Luke's account is a little abbreviated from Matthew (which is the reading for tomorrow.)  I had not noticed before that something as important as the Sermon on the Mount comes right after the withered hand, his family thinking he'd lost it, and blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.  These are some remarkably huge lessons and events all coming in what seems to be a very short period of time.  Not all the "same" day, but in a pretty short time.
2021 - As I read vs 17, it seems almost as if Luke is purposely separating this "sermon on a level place" from the "sermon on the mount".  I won't take a dogmatic stand about it based on a single verse, but this seems very weighty to me, and Luke was a historian.  Luke would likely have found a way to emphasize that there were two such sermons, at different times and in different places.  There are notes from MSB below where he calls this the sermon on the plateau.  Apparently we don't know for sure if there were two or just one.  At this point, I am in the "two sermons" camp.

In Luke, Jesus is starkly contrasting the present world with the world to come.  In future, we will have the opposite of what we have here.  The hungry will be filled, but the filled will be hungry.  But we aren't going to be hungry in heaven.  The poor now will be rich, but the rich will be poor.  But there won't be rich and poor at all will there?  MSB addresses this.  The account in Matthew uses the definite article - blessed are the hungry, blessed are the poor in spirit, and so on, where Luke uses a personal pronoun.  Blessed are you who are poor, as opposed to blessed are the poor.  MSB says this is about more than material wealth, and points to spiritual wealth.  I get that...but the literal is usually true also...

vss 22, 23 - we are to rejoice when persecuted for Jesus' sake.  When we are persecuted for our belief and our stance for Him.  This is not about the socially awkward.  The Asperger's people.  The class nerd, or like that.  This is about persecution for believing in and proclaiming the truth of God.

vss 24-26 state the negatives of vss 20-23.  Goes so far as to say "Woe" to you if you're rich now, because that's all you're going to get.  You're done with riches.  Sure raises some serious questions.  Will there be wealth in heaven?  What's the point of flipping everything in heaven?  Isn't salvation the same for all?  Why would you reward the poor if they are just barely spiritual?  If they are just saved, but really do nothing, don't suffer for Christ...they're just poor?  What is the basis for riches to them in heaven?  I don't get these things.

((((2020-(Copying in this note from the Matthew 5 reading in 2020.  This is the explanation, I just didn't get to it until Matthew 5).  So this year, I didn't mess up and read this too soon.  I read Luke 6 yesterday, which was his recording of this same sermon.  I had some problems with Luke 6:24-26, which are the "woes" that say woe of you are rich now, because you're done with being rich.  Woe if you are full, because you are going to be hungry.  I note now that these woes are not recorded in Matthew.  I am reminded that Matthew was there, and Luke was not.  I believe the Bible is what it should be.  I don't think you can cut out the parts you don't like and just keep the stuff you do.  But I do not understand Luke's woes.
Further information from MSB.  There, it calls this the "Sermon on the Plateau", because a different word is used.  MSB allows that this could have been preached at a different time than the one in Matthew.  Hence, not everything is the same.  Same subject matter, same outline, same beginning and ending, but Luke's is shorter and has these woes.  MSB goes on though that they are most likely different writer's recounting of the same event.  MSB says that both Matthew and Luke have translated this sermon from Aramaic to Greek.  MSB seems really sure that Jesus delivered the speech in Aramaic.  Not sure how we could possibly know that.  MSB notes that Luke leaves out parts that would only have been meaningful to the Jews - like the Mosaic law part.  BUT, there is not one thing in MSB about vss 24-26 - those three woes.  It occurs to me that the whole point of these three woes is simply that those who focus on the comforts of this world, like wealth and food and the good graces of all men, will at some point realize that these things are transient and fickle, and they will at some point seek something more lasting, more permanent, more "filling" and more "comforting".  They will realize that despite all their material wealth and goods, they are in fact still hungry, and still poor.  This is not a new idea, I've heard this all my life.  It just took a very long while for me to connect that with these woes.  Those who "have" will ultimately see the importance and significance of spiritual things.  And very likely, if they listened to this sermon and still didn't catch on, they are unlikely to catch on later, under less abundant circumstances, and so end up hungry, poor, weeping, and shunned.  That is all this means.  It is like I had a mental block about it yesterday...and last year.  Copying this back to the Luke 6 notes yesterday.
2023 - This year, I would say that those who focus on wealth, food, and the good graces of men - IN PREFERENCE TO focusing on the things of God - will end up in hell, and we might want to add hunger, lack of any kind of economy, and everybody selfish in their own suffering to the characteristics of hell.  It seems to me, this year, that Luke wasn't talking about the "future" on this earth, but about eternal things.  This too removes any "implied condemnation" of those with plenty based solely on the fact that they HAVE plenty while others do not.  This is not an advocation of socialism on Luke's part.  Also copying this over to Luke 6.)))

2021 - A little more on the "compare and contrast" idea between Matthew 5 and Luke 6, specifically Matt 5:2-11, labeled The Beatitudes and Luke 6:20-23, labeled likewise.  But the construction is very different.  Here is a comparison:
20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said: "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. [Luk 6:20 ESV]
3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. [Mat 5:3 ESV]
These are very different.  In Luke, Jesus seems to be addressing the physically, monetarily poor.  In Matthew, he is talking to the spiritually poor.   But...look at how the verse ends in Luke.  "Yours is the kingdom..."  The kingdom is not about earthly physical wealth.  That's not what determines entry.  It is where are spiritually that is important, is in fact the ONLY factor.  Seeing them side by side this way kind of pushes me back towards different versions of the same sermon.  
Luke's wording is very physical, from start to finish:
21 "Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied. "Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh. [Luk 6:21 ESV]  Luke is sticking with physical allusions and Matthew is speaking spiritually.
Here is the similar statement in Matthew:
6 "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. [Mat 5:6 ESV]
Again, it is very clear that Matthew is speaking spiritually, and Luke leaves us to figure out that he is speaking spiritually, though he uses entirely physical language.  Matthew is "helping his readers out" with the proper interpretation, Luke is expecting more from his readers.  Never saw this contrast in delivery before.  What a great study to compare Matthew and Luke in other places and see if that is a common thing between them.
And with all this in mind, we come to the woes, and seeing how Luke has used physical language just previously, though we can easily figure out that he is speaking physically, it makes very good sense to also interpret the riches and the hunger in the woes in a spiritual sense.  In fact, it would be questionable to do it any other way.  
(One other item of interest, if not of significance:  Only Luke in the NT uses this word for laugh.  He uses it in 21 and 25.  It is nowhere else in the Bible.  It is not the common word for laugh.  

vss 27-31.  Starts with this "specifier":
27 "But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, [Luk 6:27 ESV]
"you who hear...".  Is that phrase important?  Are these instructions for the literal people who were on that mountain and not for everyone for all time?  2021 - No.  It is for those who have ears to ear.  For the elect, for those whom God chooses to hear it.

Love your enemies.  Don't just love them, do good for them, don't ask for the stuff they steal from you to be returned, let them keep it.  Don't hit back.  Leave all this to God, let Him repay.  The principal is then stated.  Doing good only to those who do good to you earns nothing.  Anyone would do that.  Everyone does that.  But it is different to be merciful even to those who harm you.  God has mercy on those who sin against Him, those who disrespect and abuse His mercy.  To be like the Father, we too must forgive those who don't earn it, don't deserve it.  I don't think this is a renouncement of all our worldly goods.  But it is about not seeking vengeance.  It is about forgiving those who absolutely do not deserve our forgiveness.  We should do this, because God does this.  AND, if we can't do this for others, what right have we to expect it for ourselves from God???  (Not one word on these verses in MSB.  These verses are concerning in a time of violence, riots, looting, and increasing lawlessness.  What do I do if they crash through my front door?  Do I say - hey, why don't  you guys crash through the back door too?  Or do I open fire?  Enemies...can strangers be enemies?  If they're from a country we're at war with, sure they can.  But what about the lawless mob?  Are they enemies?  Or just a lawless mob?  What do I do here????)

2020 - The point, the principal, is that we need to behave differently than the world behaves.  We need to observe how God deals with enemies and to practice the same.  God forgives the undeserving...if they repent.  God gives many many chances to the lost.  He gives chances to nations, to families, to dynasties.  But ultimately, there is justice to all.  There is a limit.  In all the questions above, we need to be charitable, to withhold vengeance, to forgive until it hurts, and maybe until forever.  But I don't think these verses mean we're to starve to death because the neighbor asks for our last bit of food.  I don't think that.  I think you share, and you ask payment, but you don't starve.  God never ever relinquishes justice.  He never says "Ok, go ahead and worship idols if you want, I forgive you."  Never does that.  But He is immeasurably patient.  And so should we be.  Perhaps the limit of our patience is a measure of our faith, of our Christ-likeness.  But I'm not sure that drawing the line at some point is a sin at all.  That's another point.  Jesus isn't telling them "Thou shalt not..."  He is telling them "You should behave this way - this is where the bar is..."  Maybe.

2021 - You cannot take just this one passage, this one verse, and build a whole house on it.  The NT has much to say about charity, and about enemies.  Never forget that Paul talks about people earning their keep.  He talks about putting out those who will not repent and respond to church discipline.  But...none of those are enemies.  This is a very "un-worldly" passage, to be sure.  I trip over it every time because it is so difficult to think this way.  This requires practice or we will never do it.  It does seem that this is a personal behavior lesson, and not a church or nation lesson.  When they mistreat "me", I am to behave this way in return.  It is all addressed to the "singular" person.  It does not therefore prohibit taking care of your family?  Don't know.  This one is difficult every year!  Ah.  One other thought.  Vss 20-26 we have decided are all about spiritual things, though worded physically.  Vss 27-36 though, pretty much ARE about the physical.  They are not about getting along with others spiritually but daily, practically, physically.  I don't see how you can read them any other way.
Matthew 5 also speaks of loving your neighbors, but at the end of several instructions which all start with "You have heard it sad..., but I tell you...."  Divorce, oaths, lust and such things are the topics, and the last is to love your enemies, and this section in Matthew starts with that same phrase.  Luke just picked out one of those phrases in his abbreviated account.  So with the bigger context of Matthew, the point is that what the people hearing this sermon had always been taught - based on Mosaic Law - did not take into account was the heart, or the spiritual!  Under the teaching of the scribes and Pharisees, it was ok to hate those who cheated you, to lust in your heart, etc, so long as you didn't do it physically.  But Jesus' teaching in Matthew is that if you do it in your heart, you are guilty.  Same with our feelings of hatred and dreams of retaliation against "enemies".  It is not ok to hate those who abuse you, even if you don't physically do anything in retaliation.  We are to truly love them in our heart despite their abuses.  We are to take that abuse without letting it give rise to hatred inside us.  SO, though Luke appears to be talking in a purely physical sense, once again, it is the spiritual that is in view, and the physical actions called for come out of a right attitude spiritually, and attitude of forgiveness and love, not of vengeance.  Finally!  I think this is the right way to look at it.
And one more thing....
This little compare and contrast study between Matthew and Luke emphasizes the reason there are four gospels.  The most important words ever spoken by man, the words of Jesus Christ, comprise far more information than can be related by a single gospel.  The words of this man are the E=mc2 of God's word to man.  While they can be written simply, they also explode into implications for all men in all times, and can never be fully comprehended.  Having four perspectives keeps us from error on the one hand, but far more than that, shows us just how very much is actually contained in these relatively few words.  

Then he talks about generosity.  The "measure" we use to give is the same one that will be used to give back to us by God.  If we give stingily, in small measure, then God blesses us in small measure.  He still blesses...but we get what we give.  I need a lot of work on these last two.

Look to yourself, clean up your own life before starting to mess with fixing up others.  Be careful about criticizing others when you have quite a few noticeable problems of your own!!!

We are known by the fruit we bear.  The fruit tells any who observe what is really inside.  What comes out of our mouths is who we are.  We speak what we have stored up inside.  Just as in Matt.  Look back up there, it is expanded quite a bit.

Houses with proper foundations.  Surely this is about reading and studying, and not about houses.  The stream is going to rise, and the fate of the house will depend on the foundation that it is sitting on.  

So much today...I am just tired from trying to take it all in.  Point after point after point.

Luke Chapter 7
Jesus heals the Centurion's servant.  The Centurion is well liked and respected by the people.  The Centurion makes a request to the the elders of the Jews go to Jesus on his behalf, and tell Jesus that this man deserves Jesus' attention.  Look at the criteria the elders use to convince Jesus that the Centurion has "earned" a miracle:  
4 And when they came to Jesus, they pleaded with him earnestly, saying, "He is worthy to have you do this for him, 5 for he loves our nation, and he is the one who built us our synagogue." [Luk 7:4-5 ESV]  His attitude toward Israel, and his "works" in helping build a synagogue. The elders do not recognize that faith is important, even though by now Jesus has said several times that people's faith is what makes them whole.  These elders are not getting the message.

But as Jesus nears the house, the Centurion tells him not to come in, because the Centurion believes himself unworthy, but he knows that Jesus can heal without coming.  Jesus marvels at such faith, especially from a Gentile, and a soldier.  The servant is healed, and Jesus and the Centurion never meet face to face.  Isn't that how it is for us when we pray?  We won't be able to shake Jesus' hand when he answers our prayers, but we know where the answer was from.  We need faith like the Centurion had, because Jesus won't walk in our front door either.  We are not so placed in history as to have this happen.  The Centurion says he sent the elders because he is just a Gentile, and not worthy of Jesus presence.  And Jesus says he has not seen such faith in his own people.  These elders are a prime example.  This Gentile understands much better than the Jews at this point.
Good Lesson.

Jesus resurrects a widow's son in the town of Nain.  Difficult to reconcile these events into the outline of Matthew.  In Matthew, it is a ruler's daughter in Capernaum who is raised.  Here, Luke is careful to tell us the name of the town where the widow's son was raised.  Different events entirely, and only Luke tells us about this raising of the dead.  You would think all the gospels would mention the dead being raised by the touch of Jesus.  But no, only Luke tells this story...We only know that this chapter started in Capernaum with the Centurion, and now is out in the surrounding area.  Maybe the crowds generated by the two blind men forced Jesus out on the road again.  It says that a great crowd was following him already as he approached the little town of Nain.

2020-The MSB note on this event points out that touching the coffin would make a person ceremonially unclean.  But instead of the dead body defiling Jesus, his touch "undefiles" the dead son.  Another example of how Jesus is not operating as the Pharisees teach things ought to work.  MSB also says that chronologically, this is the first of three accounts of Jesus raising the dead.  

John sends two of his disciples to ask Jesus if He is the One.  John is in prison at the time.  Before answering, this verse:
21 In that hour he healed many people of diseases and plagues and evil spirits, and on many who were blind he bestowed sight. [Luk 7:21 ESV]
Jesus would only "demonstrate" like this for someone like John.  Jesus sends the messengers back as first hand witnesses of the fulfillment of Isa 35:5,6 and 61:1.  Interesting that this last ends with "...and the opening of the prisons to those who are bound."   John was in prison...but Jesus didn't open the prison for him.  Might he have gotten the idea he was to sit tight and wait for Jesus to release him?  He was released by death, and went to heaven.  That would have probably not been the conclusion jumped to by the verses quoted.  Be careful even when you think you've received a direct answer.  The answer may not mean what you think it means...What Jesus meant to do was leave no doubt with John's two messengers as to who he is.  He is the One spoken of by Isaiah.  He is the Messiah.  That was the crux of the message.  Further, Jesus did not quote the last line of Isa 61:1 when he gave them his reply to John's questions.  Perhaps we too should remember that we don't always receive "the whole verse".

After they leave, Jesus tells the crowd - who apparently all knew of John - that John is the greatest man ever born of a woman.  But the least in the kingdom of God is greater than John.  MSB note at Mt 11:11 explains this last statement.  John was greater than the OT prophets because he prophesied of the Messiah and saw him with his own eyes.  The OT prophets longed for this, but it was John who received it.  In the same way, though John's disciples also saw Jesus, it was only after the atonement accomplished by Jesus' death and resurrection that full understanding of the OT prophecies, and of the life and work of Christ could be fully comprehended.  It is given to us, since that time, to understand fully what is going on.

Vss 29, 30, in parentheses are pretty interesting.  They highlight the contrast between how Jesus words about John are taken by the common people and "sinners", vs how it was taken by the Pharisees and lawyers.  The rank and file understood who John was - that he was from God and that he was the forerunner, and they had already believed John's message and been baptized by him.  But the Pharisees still rejected this interpretation, because it did not jibe with their brilliant notions of what prophesy meant.
2022 - There are no parentheses around these verses in the NASB.  The MSB says that the sinners recognized that God's message came from God - not just from John - and they had been baptized by John.  This baptism showed their agreement with John's teaching, it identified them with John and what he taught and stood for.  The Pharisees did NOT buy into the message of John, and they attributed it only to John.  To them, it was not God's message through John, but was only John's message.  In rejecting John's message, they were also rejecting God's message of repentance.  We see this later, when Jesus asks the Pharisees this question point blank.  Even then, they refuse to acknowledge that God was speaking through John.

vss 31-35...Jesus points out the hypocrisy that characterizes those who are rejecting him.  They said John had a demon, because he wouldn't eat bread or drink wine.  But when Jesus came after, and did these things, they accused him of being a glutton, a drunkard, and a friend of sinners.    Jesus point is that they won't accept God when He is offered as austere, even severe, and with almost offensive directness, as by John, nor will they accept God when he is offered by one eating, drinking, feasting, and with joy and happiness, as by Jesus.  They look only to themselves, and refuse to heed any message.  He concludes with this verse:
35 Yet wisdom is justified by all her children." [Luk 7:35 ESV]  
MSB note says this means that true wisdom is vindicated by its consequences.  The results of the Pharisees "wisdom" will be that they were wrong, woefully, horribly wrong.  The changed lives of those who believe will testify to the wisdom of that choice.
Good Lesson here.  2020 - Given the information in the parentheses, Jesus then goes on to say that these lawyers and Pharisees - and all those like them - refuse to believe anything they don't come up with themselves.  They are not looking for any messenger, and their claims to be watching and waiting for Messiah are flawed, in that they they leave out important prophesy, and they believe only themselves.  They cannot be "told" anything at all.

Jesus is invited to a Pharisee's house, and while eating, a sinful woman washes his feet with her tears and hair, and then anoints his feet with ointment.  The Pharisee's name turns out to be Simon.  The facts of this story are very different from the story later, as Jesus goes to Jerusalem to be crucified.  That one focuses on the value of the ointment, this one on the value of the annointer.

Jesus tells them a parable, about two debtors, and asks which should be more grateful for their forgiveness.  Jesus tells the woman, who has many sins, that they are all forgiven.  The point is that she sees herself as a sinner in great need, and because Jesus fills this need, she loves him much.  But Simon sees himself as almost, or completely without sin, under the law.  So he has little need of Jesus forgiveness, and therefore very little love for Jesus.  He is just a dinner guest.  Repentance is what is missing from Simon's attitude.  
Good Lesson.  How much do we love Jesus?  The honest answer tells us how much we think he's forgiven us.

And again, those present question the authority of Jesus to forgive sins.

Luke Chapter 8
The video's about "The Chosen" are again vindicated here.  It specifically says that Mary Magdalene traveled with Jesus and the twelve, and three other women are mentioned also.  That series was right when it showed Mary traveling with them!  I had never seen that before.  I think that runs me completely out of criticisms of that show.  There is speculation in it, but so far there is nothing that contradicts the Bible.  2020 - Luke says they were all traveling around through the cities and towns of the area.  So perhaps Matthew picked out the scene with Jesus preaching from the boat as kind of idyllic, and representative of the whole sequence, even though these parables may have been told in many places over many days.  That would explain how the parable of the sower was explained to the apostles at one place and the parable of the weeds at what seems to be another place entirely.

The parable of the sower.  A little different here.  More explanation about the seed that falls on the path.  But the principal is most certainly the same.  Jesus explains why he speaks in parables - same explanation as in Matthew, but a little abbreviated.  Then he explains the parable of the sower, in the same way he did in Matthew.  

(These notes are the first I made about the sower.  This parable has always troubled me:
Therefore take heed how you hear. For whoever has, to him more will  be given; and whoever does not have, even what he seems to have will be  taken from him.”
Luke 8:18 NKJV

This is in Matthew and Luke both.  I don't understand it.
-  Dake's had something to say on these verses.  He says this is about continuing to work without distraction in your sanctification.  Least I  think that's what he's talking about.  He says that the more you focus  on the things of God, the more God will reveal to you about the things  of God.  This is consistent with many verses in Proverbs.  The verse  also says that if you get complacent and or lazy or decide that you'll be OK as you are without further work, that what you have learned to  that point, what progress towards sanctification you've made, will be  undone and taken from you.  This is pretty much the same as we might say  about physical exercise.  The more you lift, the stronger you get.   Then if you lay off for a while, get lazy, get interested in something  unrelated, your muscles will deteriorate.

I  can see how some might use this same analysis and say the verse is  about salvation, and not sanctification.  They might say that works -  study, devotion, and so on - are required to maintain and advance your  salvation.  Have to remember that in both cases this verse comes right  after the parable of the sower.   Is that parable about salvation or  sanctification?  It seems to be about salvation, where only those who  receive the word with a noble and good heart (NKJV, Luke) keep the word  to the bearing of fruit.  The unsaved bear no fruit, all their works are  corrupt.  Only the saved can bear fruit.

(2022 - Technically, the statement above isn't really true.  God can use anyone to deliver a message that blesses those God intends to bless.  Perhaps Balaam is the best example.  The point then, is that the fruit produced by the unsaved is not credited to their account.  This is what is really being said  Not that God cannot use the unsaved to accomplish any purpose - even a truly good purpose - but that such people are not "enriched" by what they do if unsaved.  Just like in Ezekiel.  If you're lost, none of your good deeds are counted to your favor.  But if you change, and are saved, then those old good deeds are retroactively counted toward your favor.  And the converse is also true.)

In  both versions of the parable, the seed that falls by the way is said not  to be saving.  They don't understand the word, and the devil is  therefore able to snatch it away.  The last three groups all sprout.   Among rocks and briars they sprout and the seed never accomplishes the  end to which it was sown.  Only the last group was able to reproduce.   But all sprout.  Does this mean that some, when confronted with  confession of faith and persecution vs silence and status quo, choose  not to speak up, though they are saved?  They are like Peter when he  denied three times, but unlike Peter they never produce?
And  the rocky seed...Those who are saved, but don't make God's work priority  and instead get caught up in jobs and riches and fleshly cares.  Are  they saved, but of little use to God?  The last group reproduces,  certainly the preferred result of the sowing.

This  seems to hold up.  No reason to think all four groups are either saved  or unsaved.  If only the last three are saved then each of them is saved  - each sprouts - with the potential to bear fruit, and this only the  saved can do.  But for those who get scared off by hardship or who  devote their attention to this world and not so much the next, never  reach that potential, and as time passes while they amble along, what  they could have accomplished lessens.  The crown they might have gotten  shrinks.  But to the one who starts strong and continues, more potential  for fruit is added.  Not all the apostles yielded the fruit that Peter  did.  Not all apostles did what Paul was able to do.  Judas was never  really saved.)

2021 - Here is something I had not noticed before in Luke's account:
12 The ones along the path are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved. [Luk 8:12 ESV]
Look at that last phrase.  So they won't believe AND be saved.  This settles the argument then about whether or not these are saved and then grow complacent, as some in Corinth did.  This parable is about salvation.  That last phrase is aorist tense, and the explanation says that the time of this action is not really fixed at all.  So "may not be saved" means they weren't saved before, aren't saved when they hear this word, and and won't be saved in future.  The devil snatches the word from their hearts.  He is active and often successful in populating hell.   Most importantly though, after these many confusing years, there is only one way to read this parable.  The first three groups are lost forever, the fourth is saved.  The saved bear fruit.  In this context then, the verse about those who have little losing even what they have fits perfectly with the parable of the sower.  They heard the word, they maybe even sprouted towards salvation and toward bearing fruit.  But when they did not continue to salvation, even the thrill of sprouting in the word is taken away.  Perhaps they even forget entirely the recognition of where they once were, of how close they once were to salvation, and so never try to go back and complete that journey.  This is what it is about.  This is very sad.  This now puts me in step with the MSB notes on these passages.  Perhaps I didn't want this to be the right translation because of it's terrible implications.

2022 - This verse:
15 As for that in the good soil, they are those who, hearing the word, hold it fast in an honest and good heart, and bear fruit with patience. [Luk 8:15 ESV].  Hold it fast.  This seems to say...no...like it or not, this says that those who go through the motions, those who do not hang on all the way through, were not saved at all.  I think there is a fine line here between those few people we all know who were saved young and followed and grew in the Spirit their whole live and those in Corinthians who fell for the false teaching, who came into the church with exhilaration and then participated in pagan orgies because they were "immune" to them.  I believe that some who did this were saved, and were poorly taught...and that the test is whether they ever repented of that and followed the true teaching of God.  In their day, there was no NT, there was OT, and there was Paul.  To them, not as much was given, and their standard was perhaps a bit different.  But look at us today.  We have OT, NT, Nave's Topical, all kinds of study bibles, on line data bases, YouTube gives us access to countless preachers of the word.  With all this available, will God cut us any slack for softening, modifying, even ignoring the clear teaching of scripture?  It is available to us ALL, and we can even study the Greek words from numerous sources to determine what is really meant.  Some things God has made absolutely clear to us, things that fly in the face of our enlightened and brilliant culture.  If we ignore God's clear word, and instead do otherwise, aren't more accountable?  To us more was given.  Our standard is higher.  
You know, there were people in Corinth and people in Ephesus - people INSIDE the church - teaching absolute heresy.  Yet how rarely does Paul urge those churches to kick those people out - and he NEVER urges those who disagree with the heresy to change churches - but to teach, to instruct, to disagree, to debate, to STAND UP AND BE COUNTED as one who wants to get it right - to "hold it fast in an honest and good heart".  "It" is the word, the truth, the seed that God sows.
Can I make a FB post of this?  Surely I can...but it will be pretty long.

Luke also talks about those who already have being given more, but he precedes that statement by saying no one puts a lamp under a jar.  Once we know, we are to use the light to see, to live, to work.  This light should guide all that goes on with us, AND it says that light we have should also be light for others.  And it says there will ultimately be no secrets.  So be careful - or take care - how you hear.  MSB says this means we won't have a chance later to embrace the truth.  It matters now, and there are no second chances.  2020-Could also be about hearing, and rejecting, and so bringing greater judgement on yourself than you'd otherwise have had.  Some keep going to church even when they know something is wrong.  They hear, time and again, and reject, time and again.  Jesus could be warning them about that also.  2021-see the 2021 paragraph above.

Luke tells us about Jesus' family coming to see him, and Jesus response when told.  BUT, Luke does not mention, as Mark does, that they had come to take him home and nurse him back into his right mind.  They were actually there to stop him, and those around him were there to hear his words.  For that reason, those close by were more representative of family than his earthly family was at this time.
2021 - Mary is here with the family.  Luke makes it clear that she was with them.  Matthew makes it clear they were there to collect him because they believed he'd lost his mind.  Mary believed that.  Wonder if the Catholics ever talk much about this?

2022 - 21 But he answered them, "My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it." [Luk 8:21 ESV].  Does it not stand to reason that we should treat our brothers and sisters - who hear the word and do it - differently than we treat all others?  There are people in the church who do not do the word.  Wouldn't I behave differently toward them than toward those who obey ALL the commands?  And...who am I to decide which ones ought to be emphasized...

vs 22 starts with "one day..."  Seems that there is no effort here to say this is in chronological order.  Jesus calms the storm, after the disciples wake him up.  Even after he does this, they are asking each other who He can be?  How could they not know?

Jesus heals the Gadarene with many demons.  This is a more detailed version than given previously.  The events don't really start with the demon saying "What have you to do with me".  Luke says Jesus had already told the demons to leave and they don't want to go - fear of the abyss maybe - and so they argue.  Why must they go?  What difference will it make?  The demons call themselves Legion.  Jesus converses with the demons.  They know who he is, and they don't try to defy him.  But they do ask for mercy.  Even the demons ask Jesus for mercy.  They want to go into the pigs rather than to the abyss.  But then the pigs go and drown themselves.  We aren't told what fate this brings for the demons.  The local people come out to see what's going on after this, and they see this wild man who could break chains sitting at Jesus feet, clothed, and in his right mind.  But they are all afraid, and ask Jesus to leave.  Perhaps seeing they don't see, and hearing they don't want to hear?  They were likely Gentiles, and perhaps it was not their time yet.  

Jairus, the ruler of the Synagogue, begs Jesus to come to his house and heal his daughter.  Jesus goes with him, but on the way the woman with the bloody issue is healed.  Mark and Luke call the man Jairus, Matthew just calls him a ruler.  This verse:
46 But Jesus said, "Someone touched me, for I perceive that power has gone out from me." [Luk 8:46 ESV]
Almost as if Jesus healed people even without meaning to do so.  Was that His doing, or the faith of the one who secretly touched him?  I wouldn't be surprised if Jesus was looking right at the woman when he asked the question.  Jesus tells her it was her faith that made her well.  
He continues to the  home of Jairus, and though his daughter has already died, Jesus raises her from the dead.  It says "her spirit returned".  Like Paul says happened to him maybe.  He was in the third heaven, perhaps she was also.  Jesus tells those who saw this happen to keep it quiet.  Lest he be swamped by the crowds I imagine, or lest people go dig up their dead relatives and bring them to Jesus.

Luke Chapter 9
2021 - In 8, we had the parable of the sower, an explanation of the reason for parables, and Jesus' family coming to take him home.  Jesus heals the man with Legion, and restores Jairus' daughter.    Then we start 9....

The twelve are sent out.  Luke's account is very nearly just like Mark's, far more brief than Matthew's account.  
2021 - This is the "sending" when they were to take nothing.  This verse:
1 And he called the twelve together and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases, [Luk 9:1 ESV].  Over ALL demons, and to cure diseases.  The implication here is that only the 12 were sent out, not a ton of disciples but only the apostles.
1 And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction. [Mat 10:1 ESV]  Here is the corresponding verse in Matthew. The twelve were sent out.  It must be another place where he "sent them out by twos".  What a thing to forget.  I need to identify both of these "sendings" and compare and  contrast.
Here is an interesting thing though.  These accounts in Matt 10 and Lk 9 seem unarguably about the same event.  In Matthew, they could heal EVERY disease.  In Luke they have power over ALL demons.  Jesus truly equipped them for a powerful demonstration, and powerful sign that the one they followed was no ordinary prophet, as of old, but something entirely new, qualitatively different.  In hindsight it is obvious.  The Pharisees surely should have recognized that something new was going on.

2022 - This verse:
6 And they departed and went through the villages, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere. [Luk 9:6 ESV]
With all the healing that Jesus was doing, and now the 12 going all over the place healing and casting out demons, and then the 70 sent out by twos healing and casting out demons, wouldn't there be a population explosion?  So many people who would have died young live on to an old age.  Is there any possible way to document such a thing?  Roman census seems the only way...when were they?  Do we have a before an after?  What do they show?

2022 - The Christology book makes the case that by this time, the title of "prophet" in Israel was associated with a single, future prophet who would appear - as possibly Elijah - and be associated with expected eschatological events.  They no longer expected prophets in every other town, or whole schools of prophets as we see in I Sam - 2 Chron.  Isaiah and Jeremiah were not the only prophets of their times either, but there were many others.  But by NT times, they are only looking for one, and his appearance will signal the end times.  This adds considerable significance to the appearance of John the Baptist and of Jesus saying that he is, in fact "an" Elijah, but that Elijah still will come.  A still future Elijah.  And when we see the power that Jesus bestows/infuses here as to the 12, we see why the interpretation of many would have been that Jesus was not A prophet, but THE expected prophet that would restore Israel to the promises.  My goodness, here we are again - the more we learn the more completely and precisely everything falls into place and makes sense. This verse:
7 Now Herod the tetrarch heard about all that was happening, and he was perplexed, because it was said by some that John had been raised from the dead, 8 by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the prophets of old had risen. 9 Herod said, "John I beheaded, but who is this about whom I hear such things?" And he sought to see him. [Luk 9:7-9 ESV]
Note in each case that it was not a "resurgence" of prophets in the land that people thought was happening, but a single prophet reappearing.  
I note also this time that the way Luke writes it, Herod did not think Jesus was John the Baptist come back.  Herod knew he'd killed John, so he eliminated him, and wondered if this was Elijah or maybe another OT prophet.  

Luke tells us that Herod wanted to see Jesus.  In this account, Herod knew he'd beheaded John, and didn't know who Jesus was.  Nothing here implying fear on Herod's part.  We might allow that Herod wanted to see Jesus to see if he indeed looked like John the Baptist.  That would be a good way to know if John was indeed alive again.

Luke says when the 12 returned, they retired to Bethsaida - which is where Mark told us the disciples were going in the boat that night.  So the guess above, that they retired to a place somewhere near Bethsaida but not actually on the shore there, seems correct.  The boat was to go on to Bethsaida, but the wind was strong and stormy from the West.  Luke's account does say that the healing of the crowds and such was done in a desolate place.  Maybe they'd gone out of Bethsaida for quite a ways, and the boat had followed along the shore.  They weren't really far from there, and that's how Jesus could see them from the top of the mountain?  Luke also says that twelve baskets were taken up.  As Matthew said.

Luke recounts Jesus' asking the disciples - when they are all alone - who the crowds say he is?  They tell him of the three opinions that were circulating, that even Herod had heard.  Then he asks who they say he is.  Peter answers "The Christ of God".  Before, in Matthews account of calming the wind, they had called him the Son of God...but I'm not sure they knew what that really meant.  Peter calls him Christ.

2022 - Maybe the true implications of these two titles will be more clear as I keep reading this Christology book.  Does this mean that the disciples had not yet put together that the Son of God was necessarily the Christ?  That these two HAD to be combined in one person?

These verses:
22 saying, "The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised." [Luk 9:22 ESV]
This is the first time recorded of Jesus foretelling his death.  He tells them to keep quiet about it all.  Very specific though, that he would be killed, and on the third day raised.

In the next verse, Luke tells us that Jesus said to "all", that they should take up their cross and follow him.  So he predicts his death, and then a reference right after to the cross.  In Luke.  In this same discourse, Jesus talks about how he will be ashamed before His Father of those who are ashamed of Him on earth.  It will be too late for them.  

2022 - This verse in particular:
26 For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. [Luk 9:26 ESV]
One has to wonder "when" this references.  Is the Son of Man the one judging, or is he vouching for some and not for others.  The Son of Man comes in his glory at the beginning of the Millennial.  He comes with his angels.  And then there is a judgment of the living, of the survivors of t/gt.  This seems to me to reference that judgment, the sheep and goat judgment.  Those of whom he is ashamed are cast into hell, and those of whom he is not ashamed go into the Millennial to rule and reign with him.  So I think this verse - this passage - is about the pre-Millennial judgment.  And then we move on to 27...  

Then Jesus says some standing there will still be alive and see the kingdom of God.  MSB explains this reference in the note at Matthew 16:28- which I haven't gotten to yet.  MSB says kingdom was maybe better translated "royal splendor" of God.  (I wonder if it is the same word used when the apostles were sent out at Matt 20:23?  Does not seem to be phrased nearly the same.  In Matthew it is Strong's G2064.  This can mean "make one's appearance", and is sometimes used metaphorically...So that does not eliminate the possibility that here also Jesus was talking about the transfiguration.  The words here in Luke 9:27 seem quite different.  At least so far as a layman unfamiliar with Greek can tell.)  The transfiguration before Peter James and John occurs only a few days later.  MSB says this transfiguration is what Jesus was referring to.  I suspect there are a lot of other interpretations.

Luke moves next to that very thing.  The transfiguration coming sequentially in the narrative does tend to show that Jesus first predicts this unprecedented event, and then it actually occurs.  This makes a lot of sense.  
2021 - Reading it this year, there seems little doubt that Jesus was referring to the transfiguration.  One must wonder though, if "see the glory" was a better translation, then by the time we get to the ESV, why wouldn't they translate it that way?    Interlinear says Luke uses Strongs G932, basileia.  It is used 162x in the KJV.  In all but 18, it is it translated as some form of kingdom.  There are 18 miscellaneous translations of the word, but they are not listed.  Would need to look them all up to see what is there.  If you already "know" this reference is to the transfiguration, then the sequence going from Jesus words about the kingdom to the transfiguration in the next sentence makes it clear.  But from the words themselves, we have to conclude that Peter, James, and John saw the kingdom.  I just cannot get to "royal splendor".  Looked at the MSB note again.  It refers back to the note in Matt 16:28.  It reads like this:
28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." [Mat 16:28 ESV]  The word for kingdom here is also G932.  Kingdom.  However, in Matthew the subject is seeing the Son of Man, where in Luke it is seeing the Kingdom itself.  In Matthew, I can just get to "seeing the Son of Man as he will be when his kingdom comes".  These verb tenses and qualifiers are not in the text, just saying that I can interpret the meaning of the text, so that it fits the events described, if I use this phrasing.  And that is enough about that for today...

2022 - In vs 26, "glory" is Strong's G1391.
   In vs 31, the "glory" of Moses and Elijah is Strong's G1391.
   In vs 32, the "glory" of Jesus is Strong's G1391.
Surely Luke's use of the same Greek word in all three of these verses is a strong argument that Jesus WAS referring to the coming transfiguration back in vss 26. 27.  Or at least that Luke understood it that way when he wrote these verses.  This seems quite compelling.
Or...maybe not.  Jesus said they'd not see death until they saw the "kingdom", the "basileia" of God.  Jesus DID NOT SAY here in Luke that some would see his glory, Jesus said they see the kingdom.  Jesus was using 1391 to refer to his second coming.  So the only way we make vs 27 about the transfiguration is to see the transfiguration as a preview of the glorified Christ, and make his reference to the kingdom equivalent to his glorified appearance.  Sort of a "some of you - in fact, you three guys right there and no one else - will see me appear in a week or so exactly as I will appear at the Millennial sheep and goat judgment when I come back to earth from heaven.  What is common to the coming of the kingdom and the mount of transfiguration is the physical appearance that Jesus will had and will have.  Jesus looked "glorified" to Peter, James and John on the Mt of Transfiguration, and he will look this same way for ALL to see when he comes again.

2022 - I have still more speculation about what this meant in one of the other gospels.  I would guess it is in either Matt 14 or Mark 6.  I really ought to consolidate the three in a separate note and so have it all available in one place...and maybe, with notes from all three, be able to reach some final consensus of what this is about.  

Luke adds some detail to the transfiguration, saying not only that Moses and Elijah were there, but they spoke of his departure.
Some interesting details.  Apparently the three were nearly asleep when this all starts, and they wake up and see it just at the end.  They offer to build three tents.  This is taken by Luke as quite a faux pas on their part.  
2021 - I don't get the faux pas.  The MSB note says that Peter was referring to the Feast of Tabernacles, or Booths.  During this feast, worshipers would set up tents on the roof or the garden and stay in them to remind them of the time in the desert.  So MSB says what Peter was saying was that he wanted to stay in that place.  Perhaps - though it is not clear - this occurred during the week of that feast.  But...if that is what it is about, why is it such a faux pas.  Luke's opinion is that Peter didn't realize what he was saying, that is, didn't realize his mistake.  So.  MSB does not help to clarify the situation.

2022 - I wonder if the faux pas was that Peter saw this glorified appearance of Jesus and of Moses and Elijah as the immediate establishment of the Millennial Kingdom?  Peter perhaps thought Moses and Elijah were here to stay, and that Jesus glorification was not a preview of things to come but a "here and now" establishment of the kingdom.  And if that's what this was, and the feast of tabernacles was imminent, wouldn't they all need tents?  And then the cloud came, after Peter's offer, and they heard God speak, and they heard God equate Jesus with his Chosen One...and I can't wait to see what the Christology book makes of that term "Chosen One", making it clear that Peter was mistaken about the significance of what he had seen.

A cloud comes and overshadows them, and they are afraid to enter the cloud.  The voice from the cloud identifies Jesus as "My Son, my Chosen One", and tells them to listen to him.  
2021 - This verse:
35 And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, "This is my Son, my Chosen One; listen to him!" [Luk 9:35 ESV]  This is almost like a definition.  This is my Son.  Son = Chosen One.  These are one and the same.  Islam refuses to accept that Jesus is the "Son" of God because they believe that requires that God have intercourse with Mary, which they just cannot believe.  This verse though, tells them how to understand what is meant by Son.  It means Chosen to carry out God's will.  It means one purposed to a task.  This would be a position normally reserved for one's Son.  This definition lets us know for certain that Jesus was not physically His son in the human sense, but His Son as to purpose.

Then a funny thing - Luke says the three kept quiet about this for a long time.  They told no one.  Were they embarrassed?  Unsure of what they'd seen?  Why keep quiet about this???? (2021 - I seem to recall in a different gospel Jesus tells them to keep it quiet until after he is gone.  They were following orders.  No real mystery here.)

Jesus heals a boy of an unclean spirit.  This spirit is said to "hardly leave him".  As if the demons do occasionally  have to leave.  Maybe this ties to the part about the demon leaving, and coming back with seven more?

Jesus again predicts his death.  He phrases it that he "is about to be delivered into the hands of men".  

I am out of time...will just read the last of the chapter.

2022 - This verse:
48 and said to them, "Whoever receives this child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me. For he who is least among you all is the one who is great." [Luk 9:48 ESV].  Look at the progression:  receive a little child - receive Christ - receive God.  Least will be greatest.  How do these fit together at all???  I note that neither Christos or Theos appear in this sequence.  Jesus uses a personal pronoun for himself and calls the one who sent him "apostello".  I think "receives my sender" is what it means.  This comes right after the voice of God has identified Jesus as the Chosen One.  The Chosen One was sent.  God sent him since God chose him.  But I still don't see how to connect all this together.  And this "receiving" that we are to do?  Is that a natural consequence of salvation?  Because it is worded more like a precondition FOR salvation.
Ohhh!  Maybe we are indirectly still talking about the sheep and goat judgment.  Child is not literally child, but Jesus is using the child as a "visual aid" for what he is about to say.  This little child represents the children of God.  The child represents the saved.  At the sheep and goat, all those who gave a little child food or water gave Christ food and water.  How one treats Jesus' children is how you are treating Jesus, and by extension, how you are treating Jesus' father.  Jesus is a child just as the child on his lap is a child.  
This could be correct...but if it is, shouldn't we wonder why the premillennial sheep and goat judgment gets so very much attention here in this chapter???  After all, as I understand it, it concerns only the people living at the end of t/gt, and those will primarily be converted Jews and those who instead followed Antichrist through this 7 years.  Certainly important from an eschatological perspective, but is it a reason for the apostles to stop arguing about who is greatest?  Only if we assume that Jesus was operating under the assumption that the s&g judgment might well be in the lifetime of these apostles.  Is that a reasonable way to think of this???  It surely goes against my grain to think of it that way.  The rapture comes well before the S&G.  I won't be judged at the S&G.  So to whom is Jesus talking?  The MSB notes are very unsatisfactory here.

2022 - And then vs 49, which is phrased as if John's admission of trying to stop one casting out demons was a direct response to what Jesus had just said about little children???  Or..maybe John's concern was that the one casting out demons was in fact a child of God also, and John had treated him shabbily, not at all in keeping with how Jesus had just said the saved ought to treat the saved?  That idea, at least, does seem to work out.

In vs 51 of Luke 9, Jesus is about to head for Jerusalem for his crucifixion.  This seems very early in the book.  

2022 - Vss 57-62.  Three people.  One said he'd go with Jesus, and Jesus says he has nowhere to go.  So this first one thought to "gain" materially by accompanying Jesus?  Note that this one asked to go.
The second one, Jesus tells to follow him, but this one makes an excuse.  He is "held" by the life he is living.  Some say he wanted to wait until he inherited materially the inheritance of his father.  He'd be more secure on the road with Jesus if he had a little bank account of his own to fall back on.
The third one it looks like asked to go with Jesus, but wanted to first provide long term support to his family.  This might take some time.  Again, the concern of the person was material first, and then to follow.  Jesus answer seems to say "Your commitment to me must be primary.  You cannot first take care of earthly business and then follow me.  That is unworthy of the kingdom".
Possible FB post.

Chapter 10
ESV says Jesus appointed 72.  Other manuscripts say seventy.  Either way, this is about 70 or so people besides the 12.  The 12 had been sent out previously, and only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. In Lk 9:51-56 Jesus had sent people ahead of him to a Samaritan village that would not receive him, since he was on his way to Jerusalem.  It seems this "sending out" was more similar to those sent to the Samaritan village than to the 12 who were sent out.  This is many more, sent out generally.  Jesus sent them ahead of him, to towns he was planning to visit very soon.  They were to go two by two.  Many of the instructions to these sound just like those to the 12.  They were to go out empty handed, depending entirely on God for support.  They were lambs going out amongst wolves, as in these verses:
3 Go your way; behold, I am sending you out as lambs in the midst of wolves. 4 Carry no moneybag, no knapsack, no sandals, and greet no one on the road. [Luk 10:3-4 ESV]  2021 - Jesus makes a point here that he is sending them out defenseless into a dangerous environment.  Jesus had reasons for this.  Surely one of those reasons was to show the extent to which God can and will protect those called for his purpose.  They needed to worry about nothing at all.  No extra clothing, no money, not even extra shoes.  I don't understand about greeting no one on the road - they were sent to the towns along Jesus' path to Jerusalem.  Not wide dispersal.  Laser dispersal.  

They were to stay in one place, not move from house to house.  In vs 9 he tells these 72 to heal the sick, and then to say that the kingdom of God has come near.  Only healing is mentioned here.  Not raising the dead and casting out demons.  For the towns so visited, rejection has terrible consequences.  Sodom will come off better than the towns that reject the 72.  Then Jesus speaks of specific towns that have already rejected.  Among them Chorazin,  Bethsaida, and even Capernaum.  This verse:
15 And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades. [Luk 10:15 ESV]  Capernaum where Jesus lived much of his life during his ministry.  Where tourist still go to see where Jesus lived.  And yet that town was scorned by Jesus because they had him right there, and yet they did not believe.  

When these get back from their journey (we're not told how long they were gone) they are excited and joyful, saying even the demons obeyed them in Jesus name.  So it was more than just healing.  These must have been given power very much like the 12.  Jesus says he saw Satan fall from heaven.  Well in the past?  Or just then?  

(2021 - MSB says the meaning here "might" be that since Jesus had seen Satan thrown out of heaven, it is no surprise that his minions are thrown out of earth.  Or could also have been a reminder, per MSB, that Satan's pride got him thrown out of heaven, and the pride they are feeling in themselves about throwing out demons is the same sort of dangerous pride if allowed to run free.  Jesus is the one with the authority.  It is coming from him, and  him alone.  So if these interpretations are correct, Jesus is referring to Satan's getting thrown out of heaven in the remote past, before the creation of the world.  I say this because he was already at "war" with God in the Garden of Eden.)  

((11/5/21 - Rummage's sermon on 10/31/21 included this passage.  Here is how he explained it:  "I saw Satan..." is better translated "I was watching...".  He says that as the 72 were out doing what they were doing, that is when Satan's dominion over the earth cracked and began to fall apart.  Christ began to win, to defeat Satan at this point.  Christ was overcoming, even at this time.  I want to compare this passage in Luke with the passage in Isaiah where Satan falls.  Is the passage in Isaiah a prophesy of this statement by Christ?  Here is the passage:
12 "How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! 13 You said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north; 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.' 15 But you are brought down to Sheol, to the far reaches of the pit. 16 Those who see you will stare at you and ponder over you: 'Is this the man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms, 17 who made the world like a desert and overthrew its cities, who did not let his prisoners go home?' 18 All the kings of the nations lie in glory, each in his own tomb; 19 but you are cast out, away from your grave, like a loathed branch, clothed with the slain, those pierced by the sword, who go down to the stones of the pit, like a dead body trampled underfoot. 20 You will not be joined with them in burial, because you have destroyed your land, you have slain your people. "May the offspring of evildoers nevermore be named! [Isa 14:12-20 ESV]
It is pretty long and involved.  Not going to be a short study.))
2023 - This year though, the two passages seem to fit together.  This would explain all the questions I've had about where the demons went after Jesus' time.  I think the best interpretation is that at this time, when Jesus sends out the 70, they had delegated power that would oust Satan's demons from their positions, and Satan was helpless to do anything about it.  Perhaps there are a few of them still in the world - the kind that can only be evicted by prayer and fasting - but mostly, they've been run off, banished to the pit until the time of the end.

Jesus tells them he has given them authority over ALL the power of the enemy.  I think this power was to those 72 only, not to all believers.  And he tells them that having their names written in heaven, as are all the saved, is a bigger deal than this power they've been given.  

2020 - Vss 17-20 are quite interesting.  This is part of it:
19 Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you. [Luk 10:19 ESV]  First point is that here, and with the 12, it looks like the power they were given was more or less permanent.  Second, this reads like those last few verses in Mark about snake bite not being a problem.  Not sure why Mark would have put it where he put it, but this is the same sort of thing quoted from Luke in a different place, and thereby corroborating that those who were given this power directly from Jesus were immune to snakes and scorpions, could heal, and could cast out demons.  I don't think this is a "general" power that the saved get.  The saved get gifts, but not really like this.  But I am glad to see a section of those so-called "tagged on" verses verified in other scripture.  Mark - or whoever added those verses - was not in error about this.  We just need to read it as something those called and chosen were given - truly supernatural immunity to natural dangers - whether we are reading in Mark or in Luke.  These verses in Luke, in my opinion, amplify and clarify what we see in those last verses of Mark.  These powers are not universal.
2021 - I note also that this power was given to the 12, and then to the 72.  These were called for a special mission, a task set by God for them to do, and they were given power and divine protection from normal natural mortal hazards because of their calling.

2020 - This verse, part of Jesus rejoicing that same hour:
21 In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. [Luk 10:21 ESV]
This seems to say that God chooses the ignorant, the unlearned.  But I don't think this verse is about education.  It is about mindset.  God chooses those with receptive hearts not those with high IQ's.  That is the right phrase!  God doesn't care about IQ, He cares whether we love Him or not, believe what He says as revealed in scripture, by faith.  He chooses those who take His word over the world's version.  He does NOT take those who are just too intelligent to allow the supernatural into their thinking.  No creation by a Word, that is supernatural.  Creation by Big Bang is more tolerable.  Same with evolution, Noah's flood, languages at the Tower of Babel....The "intelligent" don't believe these things.  They make them stories and fables and archetypes.  But those like little children believe these things are real because the Bible says they are real.  Wow.  I finally understand this passage.

Then this verse, which Luke tells us was in the same hour as the talk with the returned 70:
22 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, or who the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." [Luk 10:22 ESV]  MSB note here refers to the note in Mt 11:25, 26.  But it is Mt 11:27 that corresponds directly to this verse, and it is only mentioned in passing.  I would like more understanding of how only the Father knows the Son?  Didn't those who recognized Jesus as Messiah know who he was?  How can we believe on one we do not know?  Isn't it clear that we are to believe in Jesus?  We are to believe in the only Son, not the Father - and I'm not saying you can believe in one and not the other - but belief in and confession of Jesus is the way of salvation.  How can it say that only the Father knows him?  And why does MSB not even address this statement?  2020 - Matt 11:27 corresponds to Luke 10:22.  The MSB notes in both Luke and Matthew say nothing of this "Only the Father knows the Son" passage.  MSB ignores it both places. So I will have to figure it out from elsewhere.  The way 22 starts, you know this is about authority.  Does it mean that the Pharisees didn't have a clue that though Jesus would die in this appearance, he still had already been given all authority - and that since the foundation of the world - to exercise, to enforce, to carry out - the very will of Almighty God?  One thing that is in the notes is that only God can perfectly carry out the will of God, and so these statements may be a convoluted way for Jesus to say that he is man, but He is also God?

2023 - This also fits with the interpretation that Satan's dominion has been taken from him and handed over the Jesus by this time.  It says specifically that in vs 22.  It is at this point that Christ's Kingship over the spiritual kingdom of earth comes about.  It is a spiritual kingdom, and that is why it is spiritual beings that are being evicted - those who do not follow the King.  The power is spiritual power, from Christ, applied to spiritual evil in the world.  THIS is the power we have as Christians. It doesn't mean we have power to win physical wars against earthly tyrants.  The power we pray for is the power to defeat Satan's angels.

In the next few verses, Jesus tells his disciples privately that they are very lucky to see and hear what they are seeing and hearing, because Kings and Prophets longed for it, but it wasn't revealed to them.  Maybe this is what the part about only the Father knowing the son refers to.  At this time in history, the true meaning of the prophecies about a suffering servant coming in the first advent, and the conquering king in the second advent, was not recognized and appreciated.  The people in Jesus time looked only for the conquering king.  But the Father knew that Jesus must first suffer and die as a lowly servant.  In that sense, even the 12 did not yet fully recognize who Jesus was.  This makes sense.  This answers my question.

A lawyer questions Jesus, trying to trap him.  Instead, Jesus tells the parable of the Good Samaritan.  The man is traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho, so away from any temple goings on.  It says the priest was going "down" the road, implying that he too was leaving Jerusalem.  This sort of refutes the idea that the priest and the Levite avoided the injured man because to get his blood on them would have made them ceremonially unclean for the duties they were going into Jerusalem to perform.  I don't think we can really tell for positive which way they were headed.  BUT, it seems to me to make the best sense that they were all going toward Jericho.  That would mean the priest and the Levite were coming from the temple, from worshiping, and yet they felt no obligation to help this injured person.  Perhaps that is part of the lesson - that going to "church" wasn't helping these two at all.  

Mary and Martha, at Martha's house.  We find in other places that these are Lazarus' sisters.  Martha embarrasses herself by trying to get Jesus to send Mary away from him to help Martha with the food.  Jesus says food can wait.

Chapter 11
(2021 - The reading plan this year is in chapter order, where in the chronological plan, Luke 11 comes much earlier.)
I note that in the chronological bible, Luke 11 comes before Luke 9 and 10.  In my Harmony, it does not.  The Harmony seems to use Mark as the "base", and then links the other gospels to the Mark Chronology.  Even so, Luke 9-11 occur  in order in the Harmony.

This chapter opens with the disciples asking Jesus to teach them to pray as John taught his disciples.  Surely there is an implication here of a memorized prayer that John had taught.  I noticed also that Jesus is asked this right after he himself has prayed.  Luke gives us a shorter summary of the lesson than Matthew does.  Luke only touches on addressing our prayers to God and according to His will, about our daily needs, and about forgiving others.  
Luke tells us more about what prayer does than about how to pray.  Jesus talks about the neighbor knocking on the door in the night, wanting to borrow bread for his unexpected friend who has arrived, and for whom he is unprepared.  The point is that the needy neighbor will keep pestering his friend until he gets what he needs.  So we are to "pester" God with our own prayers.  
11 What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent; 12 or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? [Luk 11:11-12 ESV]
Then Jesus talks about how much "better" God is at responding to prayers than men are.  Even men, who are evil, don't respond with cruelty to those they love.  God gives better answers than we can even ask for.
2021 - Or maybe the point of this part is that men don't give "anti-gifts" to those they love.  They don't give snakes when fish were requested, nor scorpions for eggs.  It does not say that men always give the gift requested, it says men don't get it so wrong as to be cruel and mean.  Even men don't do this.  There is nothing here about men saying no, as God sometimes says no.  The point is that gifts from God will never be mean, even though the answer might be no.  Whatever the answer, it will be better for us than men would give.
Possible FB post here.

Jesus casts out a demon that had kept a man mute, and then the man speaks.  "The people marveled".  Apparently the man had never spoken.  But some said this was done by the power of Satan.  Others keep quiet to test him, seeking a sign?  
MSB says this was all about the "fake" exorcists that existed at this time, with the approval of the doubters.  Jesus didn't have a "permit" from the Pharisees to throw out demons - and they were the ones dispensing God's power.  Therefore, he must be casting them out on some other authority.  Jesus demolishes their reasoning with the divided kingdom analogy.  Why would Satan permit such a thing?  And if they are wrong, then their rejection of Jesus is tantamount to rejecting the kingdom.  Then Jesus tells them that a real exorcist must be more powerful than the demon he is trying to throw out.  Jesus is saying that the exorcisms he performs are genuine because he is stronger than they are.  Greater than they are.  Then in vs 23, he challenges the detractors to choose - with the consequences of their choice clearly laid out.  

2021 - This verse:  21 When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe; 22 but when one stronger than he attacks him and overcomes him, he takes away his armor in which he trusted and divides his spoil. [Luk 11:21-22 ESV]
There is no implication here at all that guarding your house against robbers is wrong.  This is stated as the most obvious thing in the world to do.  You protect what is yours...but you can still be overcome.  
Is there a post here?

Then Jesus continues with the part about the unclean spirit going out, but later returning with seven others, making the latter situation far worse than the former.  MSB says this is what would happen with the fake exorcists.  The demon they "cast out" would return after a while.  This is because the fake exorcists had no power to keep the demon away, nothing to fill the open house, and keep it guarded from such a return.  Maybe the fakes had enough power to insist that the demon leave, but lacked the power to lock the door behind it.  Jesus' eviction notice stayed in force.  
We just don't know - or at least I don't - what demon possession in those days was really about.  It could be that we still have possession going on, but we interpret it as other things.  It never occurs to us that some behavior is caused by demons.  Maybe that's what serial killers and active shooters are motivated by?  The demons today have better tools to use for evil than they had in those days, or their tactics have shifted with the times.  I don't see any reason to believe that they have stopped what they were doing.  
The resurrection defeated death.  All power was given to Jesus - and that even before he died.  Perhaps Satan had a free reign on earth before Jesus arrived, since no one had the power to keep the demons away, but after his resurrection, restrictions were placed on what the demons could do?  I have no idea.  I've not heard of a book on the subject that I would read.   Wow...actually did just find a John MacArthur sermon called "Demons and Magic" online.  Both audio and text.  Bookmarked it.  (Later....watched this sermon.  It was from the 70's.  Didn't really address the questions I had.)

Note also that these verses - 14-26 - correspond to previously read verses, Matt 12:22-45 and Mark 3:19-30.  But this Chronological Bible I am reading moves this later.  I do notice also, however, that In the Harmony, Luke 11 is many sections later than the accounts in Matt and Mark.  So neither of these puts Luke's account with the other two synoptics.  In both, the Luke account comes later.  BUT, the accounts are very similar, both in the demon being cast out, those present attributing it to Beelzebub, and Jesus' answer to these.  The part about the demon returning after a time is in two of these places.  The Harmony puts the Luke account by itself.  The clear implication is that the Harmony believes these to be two separate occasions.  In Harmony's Mark account Jesus is hard pressed by the crowd, and his "friends" come to get him, saying he is out of his head.  The account does not talk about any demon being cast out   But it does recount the Pharisees saying that Jesus is casting out demons by Beelzebub.  In Matthew, (Remember that both Matthew and Mark were written before Luke), the demon cast out is both blind and dumb.  The one in Luke is only said to be dumb.  So possibly a different demon.  Matthew, in chapter 12, does not mention the crowd around the house, nor even a house.  

In all three accounts, when accused of casting out demons by Beelzebub, Jesus' first reply is that a house divided against itself cannot stand.  But there are variances...but even with the Harmony sitting here I can't get a clear picture.  THIS IS A GOOD STUDY, these three passages.  They can be printed out, in order, and laid side by side and the wording matched or NOT-matched as the case may be.  The Harmony puts Luke 11 way down the line from the Matt and Mark passages.  The Chronological Bible puts Luke 11 well down the line from the Matt and Mark accounts also.  Matt 12 and Mark 3, though, were read the same day in the Chronological.  So...back tracking some...Both the Harmony and the Chronological agree that the Luke 11 account takes place later than the Mark and Luke accounts - though much that is the same is discussed!!!!  Where the Harmony and the Chronological disagree is in putting Luke 11 before Luke 9 and 10.  The Chronological does this, the Harmony does not.    

2022 - These verses:
21 When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe; 22 but when one stronger than he attacks him and overcomes him, he takes away his armor in which he trusted and divides his spoil. [Luk 11:21-22 ESV].  These seem to be driving home the point in another way that Jesus is not casting out demons by Beelzebub.  Satan is, I think, the strong man here.  Satan wishes to maintain his hold on the world, and is armored up and standing guard over his kingdom on earth.  BUT, Jesus is now on earth, and the stronger, and is about to kick Satan out of his palace, and take to himself those whom he has chosen.  The spoil are those who would have been lost had not Christ come into the world.  That is us he's talking about.

Never noticed these verses before:
27 As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, "Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!" 28 But he said, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!" [Luk 11:27-28 ESV]
Jesus says those who follow him of their own will are more blessed than the woman chosen to bear and nurse him.  He uses "rather", not saying that Mary is not blessed, but that others are equally blessed.  It is not a contest, and Mary is the same as all others in this.  She is not "special".  She was chosen, as all who come to God are chosen.

The sign of Jonah.  It seems that the majority of those who came to see and hear Jesus were there to see the miracles.  They had no real belief in him, nor did they care about the kingdom aspects of his message.  They were there for a show, for a spectacle.  Very jaded and worldly.  Jesus says that Nineveh and Sheba had better attitudes, and had their hearts changed by far less, than what these people are seeing, and yet the crowds weren't changing.  They were unaffected in their souls.  Like those who go and see magicians?  They wanted to be thrilled and amazed, but they already know that they are seeing tricks and not real magic.  These people were seeing the power of God, and put it in the same category with the fake exorcists maybe?

Jesus talks about the eye as the lamp of the body.  If the eye is "good", it lets in the light.  There is plenty of light.  For the people Jesus is addressing, He is the light, and the power of God is daily demonstrated to confirm who He is.  Yet their eyes are bad, and don't let the light in.  Their "insides" are not illuminated in their souls, because the light is stopped at the eye, and doesn't come in and light the whole body - complete salvation.   Not quite...MSB note says that the point is that the problem isn't with what they are seeing, but with the eyes that see it.  They see, but do not perceive.  They don't believe that the miracles are divine evidence of the Messiah, and so they miss the person - the Messiah and the truth that he brings - though it is right in front of them.  Because their eyes are the problem.  MSB says the metaphor in 34 is different than the metaphor about the basket.  That first one - which was also in Matt 8, is that there is sufficient truth here to light the whole house, and Jesus is NOT trying to hide it or give it only to the elite disciples.  The light is on a stand, for ALL to see and understand.  Hmm...even Gentiles can see this light.

2022 - Though I am only 30 pages into "The Christology of the New Testament", I can make a case that Jesus is also talking here about who he is in terms of Jewish belief at the time.  He is trying to tell them that the miracles - predicted in Joel - are proof that this is the time Joel was speaking about.  He is the one who was to come.  The evidence - no...the PROOF...of who he was was right there before them, and if they would only accept that proof, then the light would enter and they would be changed.  But their "eyes are bad" and they are not seeing correctly but shutting out the light, and so missing the whole point of who Jesus really is.
Look at this verse:
20 But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. [Luk 11:20 ESV].  This verse is directly connecting the reappearance of "a prophet", perhaps "the prophet" with the prophesy of Joel and others that when this starts up again, it means the end is here.  We explain that the events of Revelation did not immediately appear because the Age of the Gentiles had yet to play out.  Israel had to receive justice for killing all the prophets, as we see later in this chapter.  So the kingdom was offered, the price was paid, but things did not progress to the time of the end - to the 70th week if you will - because besides the events of the Babylonian captivity and 70 AD, the Jews have to suffer, as it turns out for thousands of years, before the promises can be fulfilled.  Can we say that since the Jews did not "earn" the promises - the conditional promises - they instead have to pay the consequences before the promises are fulfilled.  Hmm...think of this in binary.  God made provisional promises to Israel about the land and their place in the world among the nations and the throne of David and so on.  These conditional promises were along the lines of "If you are faithful, if you take the faithful route, then all will go well and you will receive.  BUT, if you choose the other way, and decide NOT to obey and not to be faithful, then there will be all these punishments and lots of darkness and mistreatment by the world, and once the just punishment is absorbed, once the time has been served, then the promises will be received.  Looked at this way, the appearance of Jesus, offering the Kingdom, and restoring the faith, and doing the miracles that signal the end - the Millennial fulfillment of the promises - offered Israel an end to the suffering started at the Babylonian captivity from which they had not yet recovered.  But their rejection of Christ - the "the prophet" foretold, stopped (there has to be a better word than stopped) the progression to fulfillment of the Millennial and in fact brought on another sequence of punishment on Israel, worse that anything they'd previously endured - because they rejected the Son this time, not just the messengers and servants of the owner of the vineyard.  
Could this be right?  Is this the way to think about that appearance of prophets and miracles and why it was cut short?  Hmm...but it continued, it expanded even with the coming of the Holy Spirit in Acts!  They'd rejected Christ, why did the miracles get another entrance into the world?  A different kingdom?  A Gentile Kingdom?  Hmm.  If the first part of this is right, then there should be a parallel with the church.  Least I think there should.
Along the same line, vss 29-32.  A greater than Solomon, a greater than Jonah is here.  A great prophet,  The one who was to come.  Jesus is telling them to open their eyes and ears and understanding and see that he is the prophet to prepare them for the kingdom of God, if they will only see and listen and understand.  This makes John the forerunner of the Messiah, the forerunner of "THE Prophet".  Oh my!  Is this why Mohammad called himself the Prophet?  To try and insinuate himself into Jewish theology?  Is that the kind of deception Satan was going for when he elevated Mohammad to success and power and spread his "teaching"?  I have never heard Islam characterized in this way, but it does make some sense.  Enough sense to explore further.

This next section is titled "Woes to the Pharisees and Lawyers", and comes right after the lessons of Jonah, the Queen of Sheba, and the bad eyes.  Jesus has already contrasted his audiences' refusal to believe what they see - they doubt their own eyes - and has told them the fault is not what they see but the eyes that see it!  Oh my!  Posted this on FB today.

2022 - Are the eyes here being used as a metaphor for understanding?  For thinking about what they see in relation to the scripture available to them?  It is almost like Jesus is saying their minds do not correctly process the information before them.  They aren't making the right connections.  There is nothing "wrong" with the truth as it is presented to them.  It is clear what these events mean.  There is nothing wrong with what is "behind the eyes".  They have souls and they can be saved by acceptance of what they see.  There is nothing wrong with the outside, and nothing prohibitive about the inside.  But the eye - or maybe the mind - is in between.  This "in between" is where the problem lies.

A Pharisee invites Jesus to dine with him, but is astonished (maybe appalled is a better word?) when Jesus doesn't wash before eating.  Jesus uses this attitude to reveal just what is wrong with the Pharisees.  He tells them that they are so very careful with appearances, with what they do before others, yet they give no thought at all to what goes on in their heads.  He gives tithes as an example.  The Pharisees are careful to tithe even the practically valueless common herbs that they grow, but they let injustice flourish all around them and do nothing.  They leave the poor to their own devices rather than showing them the love of God.  They are hypocrites.  Shiny on the outside, filled with sewer.

Then a lawyer (scribe?) who is present gets offended because those who hear the condemnation of the Pharisees might think it applies to scribes also.  Like us, this scribe is quick to jump on board the condemnation of others, but rather than examine himself, he wants to distinguish that he is not a Pharisee.  He misses the bigger picture.  Just the question shows how divisive his attitude is.  Jesus answer is not subtle.
46 And he said, "Woe to you lawyers also! For you load people with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers. [Luk 11:46 ESV]
To the heart of the matter.  The scribes are aloof, looking only to the nuances and finding fault in the smallest matters, with no thought of the bigger picture.  Little rules everywhere, making it impossible for "normal" people to get them all right, but making themselves "sinless" by their own standards.  Rules that they can obey, but no one else can.  Using religion to separate, rather than to unite.

Many MSB notes through here.  Building tombs for the prophets was telling the lawyers that far from honoring the prophets who wrote the scriptures in their requirements for applying them, they are perverting them and rejecting them the same as their father's despised the actual prophets who wrote them, to the point of murder.  They are so missing the point that they are making it impossible for people to even see the real point.  They are a hindrance to the work of God, not a help, and this will be laid to their charge in that very generation.

I would previously have said this was about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and indeed I still think that is the visible part of this pronouncement.  BUT, this is also about the setting aside of the covenants with Abraham, Moses, and David, to be trampled underfoot during the age of the Gentiles.  In fact, look at the specifics of Jesus' words:
49 Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, 'I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,' 50 so that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation. [Luk 11:49-51 ESV]
It isn't just Abraham, Moses, and David.  It goes all the way back to Abel.  Every covenant since the fall is about to be laid aside for the age of the Gentiles.  Something completely new is about to happen.  I think this is a reference to the church - a spiritual kingdom, a corporate kingdom, that cannot be seen or identified in the physical world.  Unassailable by physical means, the church will endure.  For longer than any previous covenant?  Is that why He isn't here yet?  Or different because after so long, after the ways of men without the indwelling Holy Spirit have so often resulted in ubiquitous sinfulness, something different is required?  And this is the last thing.  Once the Age of Gentiles, the church age, is over, the end will come.

This is a turning point.  Luke says in part that "after that, they began to press him hard".  They are trying to trap him in a violation of the Mosaic law, so they can condemn him thereby.  Well...here is the whole thing:
53 As he went away from there, the scribes and the Pharisees began to press him hard and to provoke him to speak about many things, 54 lying in wait for him, to catch him in something he might say. [Luk 11:53-54 ESV]
MSB says the word translated "to catch" is used in Greek literature of hunting animals.  This was their attitude.  They wanted him hunted down and stopped.

2022 - Vss 49-52 seem to build the case that this is a critical time:
49 Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, 'I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,' 50 so that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation. 52 Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering." [Luk 11:49-52 ESV]
Can I say that the price had been paid, and the fulfilment of the promises was being offered, and if they were faithful, and turned to God truly, then the Millennial would come.  But if they did not turn, then all the sins of all the generations from the beginning of the world would be laid on the Jews, and all this would have to be paid out, served, and endured before the fulfilment of the promises would be offered again.  That generation, when Christ walked the earth as a man, was a "critical point" in the plan of God.  Their rejection led to the church.  The church is a completely different vehicle for the salvation of man. 

Chapter 12
2022 - Last year and this I was reading the OT/NT combination reading plan, and in this plan, 12 comes right after 11.  So, forgetting the chronological Bible for now, Chapter 11 ended with the Pharisees and scribes intensifying their "entrapment" plans.  They are hunting him as they would an animal, their only purpose being to harm him, discredit him, kill him if at all possible.  So this year, let's look at Luke 12 against that background.

Luke 10 was yesterday.  We skip over 11 since it was covered almost two full weeks ago.  It was a full chapter.  This seems to be about harmony with the chronology and not about anything else.  It starts this way:
1 In the meantime, when so many thousands of the people had gathered together that they were trampling one another, he began to say to his disciples first, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. [Luk 12:1 ESV]  This was a lot of people trying to get to Jesus.  But how many just wanted healing or help instead of life.  Miracles instead of insight?  2020 - These people seemed interested in Jesus, but they were really only interested in what they might get from him.  A free meal was probably quite high on their lists.  At least some free food...

As this is going on, he tells his disciples to beware the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.  Jesus didn't like hypocrisy either.  He warned that everything was going to be revealed some day, as if shouted right out loud.  2020 - Jesus is again stressing that it is our hearts he is interested in.  He doesn't care if  you follow him all the way to Jerusalem and into Pilate's judgement hall, if you just do so because you are curious, just to cover all your bases, just because you don't want to miss something "historically important".  And he knows that when you are sitting around with friends, that is how you describe him.  This will come out.  Our true position on Christ will be revealed by the evidence of our own mouths.  By the contradictions between what we say and what we do.

2023 - Thinking about hypocrisy as the leaven of the Pharisees.  Leaven makes the dough rise.  Perhaps this is one of the ways that we can "test" our religious leaders and know whether they are genuine.  If they teach us to do one thing while they do another, if they apply one set of rules to themselves (or no rules at all) and a different set of rules to us, that is leaven.  That is the small but significant part of the recipe that makes them what they are.  Further, it is quite obvious if the dough has been leavened.  In the same way, the presence of hypocrisy will be obvious.  We ought to be able to easily spot this, even from a distance.  A good test to remember!

2022 - Vss 1-3 are about hypocrisy.  The Pharisees reek of hypocrisy, but it is not confined to them.  Note this wording; "...he began to say to his disciples first...".  Jesus seems to be "sorting out" his disciples.  He is letting those closest to him know that he knows some of them are insincere, they are hypocrites, and some are probably spies for the Pharisees.  Jesus knows which is which and is letting them know they are not fooling anyone.  I think that is the main thought here.  There is certainly an allusion here to a judgment - there is a picture of an accused standing before his accusers and all his thoughts, his words, his deeds being read out for everyone to hear.  I think that scene is a part of this, without this being about bema or sheep and goat.  This connects back to 11, and the Pharisees, and is Jesus putting his followers on notice that the truth of their commitment will be exposed...so be sure about yourself.

2022 - Vss 4-5 seem to go better with 1-3 than with 6-7 as they are arranged in TCR.  They seem more to underscore a reason for the hypocrites to fear, and a motivation for the to repent from, their actions against Jesus.  Surely some sitting there near him had been threatened by the Pharisees, bribed maybe, and so on.  Blackmailed is also a very likely motivation for those spying on behalf of the Pharisees.  And Jesus is saying that their fear of the Pharisees is trivial compared to the one they ought to fear.  They are putting the comforts of this life ahead of their fate for eternity.    And then 6, 7 drive it home...there are no "nobody's" in God's eyes.  There is no working for the Pharisees but staying under the radar.  God is aware of and considering the actions of even the "least" of the Pharisee's spies.  This year, that's what I think this is all about.

(2020 - So look at how this goes..
Beware hypocrisy.  Be committed all the way or not at all, because He will know, and will show the uncommitted to be hypocrites.  Those who are uncommitted truly know that they are uncommitted.  So much for the "did we not...in your name" crowd.  They knew they were trying to earn it.  Then, fear the one who has power to send you to hell.  This power is exercised AFTER we are dead, when men can no longer harm us.  Again, what we've done in this life doesn't carry on into the next.  What carries on is our attitude, our hypocrisy or our faith.  These last.  Next, five sparrows for a penny, we are worth many sparrows.  No matter how poor you are, how "low" you are in this world, God knows, preserves, makes a place for us.  Diminish the value of what the world offers, and focus on the next world.  Then another test of hypocrisy.  The truly committed confess Christ at their own risk.  They risk what they have (very much so in that day), their business connections, their promotability, and in some places at some times, their very lives to confess Christ.  This is not hypocrisy.  Jesus will turn his back on the hearts that are not his.  This is the difference between Peter's denials and others.  Peter was pierced to the heart by what he did.  His denial was false.  Make sure you know the difference.  

Then blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is in here...I still need to work on this one...And then last the injunction about not preparing your remarks before the "inquisitors".  I looked, and have a note pointing to Lk 21:14, 15.  Almost the same injunction is used there, and that passage corresponds to Matthew 24.  Isn't this twice that we have seen "end times" advice given well before end times, and in a context that doesn't seem to be about the end times?  Who was it before, just recently, that pulled another end times thing in?  I sure wish I could find it.  See if this is something Luke does, or if it was one of the other gospel writers that did it?  I think it is important because it might be that this "end times" advice given here is not really about end times, but about more immediate events.  And if it is about "now" in Luke 12, it may also be talking about "now" in Luke 21, which may not be about end times but about 70 AD and the persecutions that follow.  Remember how this section opened in verse one:  "...he began to say to his disciples first..."  This wasn't addressed to everyone, but to the disciples gathered around  him...)

2021 - This verse:
10 And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. [Luk 12:10 ESV]
Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, in at least one other gospel. comes after Jesus is accused of casting out demons by the power of Satan, when it is the Holy Spirit that does it.  Here in Luke, we don't  have that other context.  Luke puts a LOT of things in Chapter 12.  This is a chapter of instructions to his close disciples, and comes right after the scribes and Pharisees have really intensified their attacks on Jesus.  In the face of that increasing scrutiny and direct attack, Jesus tells his people how to live in a world where the powerful are arrayed against them.  If looked at that way, the first point, back in vss 1b-3, is make sure you understand that God will know what is in your heart.  This might ought to be looked at more as an assurance that God looks after his own in all circumstances, including persecution, than it is a warning to the unsaved.  Hmmm...that makes good sense.  He is speaking directly to his disciples - to his close followers, his nearest supporters.  And he says first that nothing is hidden.  You cannot pretend and get into heaven.  But...it really does read more as a warning to pretenders than an assurance to the faithful.
Second, in vs 4, he does seem to be speaking to the faithful, telling them that even earthly death is less to be feared than the judgement of the One that comes after.  All men can do is destroy your tent.  God can destroy the spirit inside.  And for the faithful, no matter how insignificant in this world, are known by God, by name.  Indeed, God's attention to detail goes far beyond just people.  
And third, in 8-12, we have the "speak up and be recognized" if you want Christ to do the same for you.  And blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.  And how to behave in the coming persecution.
I don't know...I thought I had a thread figured out, but now I'm not so sure.  

Jesus says he will deny before angels those who deny him before men.  And vice versa.  In connection with this, Jesus says not to plan their defense before the rulers of the synagogue because the Holy Spirit will tell them what to say once they are there.  Jesus is not talking about day to day study, not about giving a reason of the hope that is in you, but of times when we are caught by surprise, accused without knowing the charges, and so on.  2021 - I think this is about 70 AD.  The wording corresponds to wording in Matt 24.
2023 - This paragraph is incorrect.  There is nothing in Matt 24 about Jesus denying before angels, there is nothing about not preparing what you will say.  It just isn't there in Mt 24.  See below...2022, 8-12.

2022 - Vss 8-12.  This seems to be a synopsis.  It seems to combine three different, but not really related, ideas.  We get a summary of the sheep and goat judgment, a warning against blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, and instruction on what to do if you are arrested.  Jesus has told them that they are going to be judged, that all will come out, and now he tells them that it is he himself who will be counsel for the defense.  If they are thinking that they can spy for the Pharisees, stay under the radar, or perhaps get a "good lawyer" when time comes for judging, and so get away with spying on this "man", Jesus tells them here that he is in fact their only possible defender.  He has systematically demolished all possible rationalizations for the "pretend disciples".  If they continue as they are, they have little on which to depend.  This denial before the angels of God is surely tied to the fact that at the second coming, he will come with his holy angels, and there will be a judgment.  God will be that judge - Theos - and Jesus will stand by and defend or deny before God.  If we read it this way, and make this the pre-Millennial sheep and goat judgment, this this will be a judgment of t/gt survivors.  Of the living.  So for Jesus' words to apply to anyone listening in reality back then, only the lost sitting there would ever be subject to the sheep and goat, because the saved will first be raptured out.  So.  At what judgment does Jesus stand and advocate for his own?  Bema?  Well all at the bema seat will be saved already.  GWT?  The saved who see the end of the Millennial will be there, and the lost of all time will be there.  And maybe...those saved but not "in Christ"?  Could this be what it means?  I just don't know today...Jesus is talking about a time when he either advocates for his own - for those who confess him - or he denies them, and so they are condemned.  I don't think this is a scene where Jesus is acting as judge.  God is the judge here, and Jesus a sort of combination defender/prosecutor/witness.  As Jesus says, so will the judgment go.  But he is not judge.  That almost has to mean GWT, because I believe Jesus WILL judge at the sheep and goat, and I believe Theos will judge at the bema.  And only the saved will be judged at the bema, so these spies and hypocrites sitting around Jesus that day won't be at the bema.  Has to be GWT.  SO, the important thing then is we need to specify the "path" of these sitting before Jesus who won't be judged until the GWT?  Ahh.  Easy.  These are lost.  They will die, go on to hell, and be resurrected for judgment at the GWT, and then sent back to hell forever.  They will get to stand for judgment that one last time, and Jesus can either say yes or no about them.  
2023 - Reinterpreting the paragraph above...Vss 8-12 are indeed a synopsis.  They are not intended as a chronological prophecy.  What it says is that the behavior of the disciples in the coming persecutions - in the backlash from Jesus' crucifixion, will be the basis on which they are judged - it will make clear who is a hypocrite and who is faithful.  Those who remain faithful and who profess Christ in the face of this coming persecution will do well at the bema - will be rewarded there, and vice versa.  Because we have to believe that the faithful will be raptured out and judged at the bema, they WILL NOT be alive and walking around at the pre-Millennial judgment.  This is a big deal.  It makes it very very clear that the rapture and the second coming are NOT simultaneous.  They are separate events.  AND, Jesus' advice to his disciples is pre-rapture advice.  That is, he is not telling them what to do between the rapture and the second coming, but what to do up until the rapture.  So, much as we would like it to be definitive as to time, the injunction about not planning what you will say is most definitely pre-rapture, but there is nothing here in Luke that makes it pre-70 AD, as I think it is from other passages.  BUT, it is NOT from Matt 24 either, that I get this pre-70 AD idea.  Matt 24:1-15 is pre-70 AD, and from 16-31 we are between the appearance of the AoD and the rapture.  Given all this 2023 stuff, the best way to interpret Lk 8-12 is as a reference to pre-70 AD events, BUT this is inferred, not nailed down by any specific phrasing in Lk 12.

2022 - That is only 13 verses of study, after today's post.  I am worn out.  Reading through the rest.

The parable of the rich man who built bigger barns, thinking he could take it easy the rest of his life.  Jesus calls him a fool.  Is that not what I did for most of my life?  Plan for the time when I wouldn't have to work any more because I already had enough to last for decades?  Only "out" I see is that this man planned to eat, drink, and be merry.  There was no provision in his future plans for extra study, extra worship, extra giving.  Possibly no time for church.  I don't think that's me.  I hope I'm reading this one right...MSB goes right by it without any comment on the deeper meaning.  2020 - This is still about priorities.  Being rich wasn't his problem.  Bigger barns were not his problems.  His attitude - to spend  his life in dissipation and waste - was the problem.  Life is short.  Redeem the time.
2022 - Is this also saying that if we have so very much excess, rather than store it away we ought to use it for the good of others?  Rather than keeping and hoarding and easing our own motivation, ought we to give away the excess?  Is it saying that too much security in our own assets is a presumption against God?  And also, doesn't it anchor is this world, rather than spur us toward earnings in the coming kingdom?   Kind of begs the question of when enough is too much?  The "don't worry" verses are next, and they do sort of proceed right on from the "hoarding" parable don't they.  I suspect this is indeed the point here.  AND...look at vss 32-34 below!  Don't they say that in so many words?  Sell your possessions and give it to the needy!  You do not need excess, you need to depend on God to supply your needs, on a daily basis.  I so very much do NOT do this!

2021 - Maybe this verse is the key to this whole chapter:
23 For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing. [Luk 12:23 ESV]
This whole chapter - at least so far - has been contrasting life in this world with life in the next, and emphasizing repeatedly that this life is short, fleeting, and the biggest thing we have to fear is mortal man.  In the next world, we will be judged for our foundational beliefs and for our priorities, whether we are truly faithful and whether we were motivated by earthly rewards or heavenly.  This verse is sort of a statement of the "Theme" of chapter 12.  So 12 may or may not be chronological, it may be more of anthology of things Jesus said about how to be eternity-minded instead of worldly-minded.  This is such a densely packed chapter!

2022 - This little verse:
26 If then you are not able to do as small a thing as that, why are you anxious about the rest? [Luk 12:26 ESV].  The thought is that if we cannot really do even the tiniest thing with worry, why do we waste time worrying about big things?  Our worry won't make the light turn green.  Why then should we worry about the bigger things?  Like....what?  What is a bigger thing we worry about?  Our next promotion?  Interest rates?  Inflation?  
This might be a good FB post.

Then Jesus turns to his disciples and tells them not to be anxious about the basics - about eating and about clothing.  His reason is that anxiety is not at all productive.  We can worry about such things, but it is not worrying that adds an hour to our lives.  This seems to be about consuming worry that pushes out all dependence on God.  This is about priorities, and making the kingdom of God our goal, not the storing up of food and clothing.  Our priorities should not be about the trivialities of basic necessity but about the important things of our relationship with God.  The only way this makes sense to me is if I make the passage about the degree of concern we have about worldly things rather than being concerned at all.  I know we are supposed to work,  As mentioned the first time, if we don't work we don't eat.  It's not about that.  But we should eat so we can study, to make time for study, to make time for serving.  The things of the kingdom are the things we should be anxious about provisioning for ourselves.  It is the logistics of these things that we should concern ourselves with.  I think.  MSB refers back to the note on vs 11.  I don't think they are the same.  2020 - We are still talking about how to live our lives.  Focused on gain, worrying about the next thing, or worrying about God.  We have so much trouble understanding this in the US today.  We have so much, we cannot comprehend worrying about the next meal.  But some certainly do.  And if your circumstances are so dire that you really don't know if you will have anything to eat today, Jesus says, live in His will, remain focused on his kingdom, and you will be alright.  Even if things are so very precarious for your life, God knows the situation.  His provision may be to bring us home - we may die hungry, freezing in the street - but what awaits in heaven, if we remain faithful, will make this life fade to a smudge.  I think this is what this really means, but the faith required to maintain this attitude in the face of starvation...that's a lot of faith.

2022 - I checked the Harmony to see what other gospels have this discourse.  It shows Luke 12 standing alone, at least from a chronological perspective.  But what about Matt 6?  Vss 25-34 are very very similar to these words from Luke.  Maybe we get into that "sermon on the mt vs sermon on the hill".  That would be worth looking into I think.  Maybe this section corresponds to that second time Jesus gave a very similar discourse, much of it corresponding to Matt 5, 6.

2021 - 25 And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? 26 If then you are not able to do as small a thing as that, why are you anxious about the rest? [Luk 12:25-26 ESV]  A small thing for God, to add an hour to our lives.  And we can't do it.  Supplements, exercise, meditation, and on and on.  None of these work to extend life.  If they did, this verse would not be true.  So again, keep these things in perspective.  Exercise in this life will not in any way make you stronger in the next!
I do think the body is a temple, and should be treated as such - kept healthy rather than constantly abused, but this says going beyond that isn't worth very much.  So if you run a 5k, do it because you enjoy running, not because it will extend your life.  Be healthy to better serve God, not to spend more time in this "lesser" place.
And about those birds...The point is that birds never ever worry about where their next meal is coming from.  They live in the now.  They look for food when they get hungry.  And birds are everywhere.  God has set the world in order so that birds can find food without having to worry about food.  If they survive without needing to worry, then man, who is much more than birds, has surely been provided for.  This is so very difficult to understand for those who've never been hungry.  

2020 - Reading straight on through from here.  Next year, focus on 13.

2023 - This verse:
33 Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. [Luk 12:33 ESV].  We don't see this emphasized very much.  But Jesus is the one speaking here, it's all in red.  Sell and give.  To the needy...but whether they deserve it or not isn't mentioned.  Took a look at the phrase "give to the needy" in BLB.  It is a very long Greek word, phonetically "eleemosenyn".  KJV translates it quite differently, and much more in parallel with the definition of the word in BLB.  KJV says "and give alms".  Give to the poor, give to charity, and give to the needy are other mainstream translations.  None of these really fit the definition:               
mercy, pity         
1.                      esp. as exhibited in giving alms, charity                 
2.              the benefaction itself, a donation to the poor, alms         
KJV translated this word as alms 13 of the 14 times it is used.
...OK, the more I look at this injunction the more involved, complex, and deep it gets.  This translation in ESV is far to simplistic for what is really being stated here.  I looked at the word for possessions, and I don't see how it can EVER be translated possessions!  KJV says "sell that ye have".  They couldn't even find a word that would work here, so they just defaulted to "that".  Here is the "outline of biblical usage" from BLB:
1.              to begin below, to make a beginning         
   1.                      to begin                 
2.              to come forth, hence to be there, be ready, be at hand         
3.              to be         
To begin below?  to make a beginning?
At this point, I read this verse as "make a new start by devaluing the things of this world and devoting yourself to charity, to benevolence, to being a good person.  It is NOT about possessions but about goals and focus and purpose.  I can see where this would be a hugely difficult verse to translate, but I think this is pretty close to the idea that it has.  

2023 - Based on the above word study, vss 35-40 also fit well.  First, make a new start on how you look at things, and place value on the eternal and not the immediate.  Be diligent then, from that point on, and continue to work on these things.  Don't get lazy in the second watch or the third watch.  Don't give Satan - a thief - any downtime of which he can take advantage.  Don't fall back, don't "let things go".  Keep working right up until the master gets here.  Go to bed tired every night, from the good that you have done, not from the money you have earned.
2023 - This doesn't go here, but I'm putting it here for continuity with the two summaries above.  In vss 41-48, Peter asked whether Jesus intends these instructions just for the 12 or for all.  Perhaps Peter is asking if it is just meant for the disciples who travel with Jesus or for all who are faithful in all the towns through which they travel.  Either way, the question is whether the instruction of this parable is for the "elite" or for the "masses".  And in the answer, I FINALLY understand what it means when Jesus says "to whom much is given, much is required".  Jesus answers with another parable, about a sort of "servant supervisor" that a master leaves in charge when he goes away.  If this one, to whom responsibility and authority were given in great measure, fails in his duties, he will be greatly punished.  He will receive a "severe" beating.  But to the rest, to the servants who were not put "in charge" of much of anything, or just of minor things, if they fail to do these little things, then they will only get a light beating.  There will be a price to pay for unfaithfulness at any level.  But the price is not death for either of them.  This must be about the bema seat, and not the pre-Millennial judgment.  All the saved have things to do.  Back to vs 23.  All need to start fresh in how we live our lives.  All need to be diligent in the things that God sends our way to perform.  Diligent, faithful, 24/7 when required.  For some, the job is huge, for others, let's call it maintenance tasks.  Do what you are given to do, faithfully, and the bema will go well.  And don't be a hypocrite about it!

This verse:
37 Blessed are those servants whom the master finds awake when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will dress himself for service and have them recline at table, and he will come and serve them. [Luk 12:37 ESV]
Our lives should be consistent about serving God.  Not run always hot and cold, like mine has.  I think we have to stay in the word, study it, read it constantly before the layers can be peeled back.  I think the Bible, God's ways, and the wisdom that Proverbs talks about, are all about changing our very thinking process, seeing the world as God sees it, and trying to think as He thinks.  The world teaches us a way to think, and the way it teaches is fundamentally opposed to God's thinking.  There are many examples of this.  Certainly the Pharisees, scribes, and lawyers of Jesus' day were thinking as the world thinks, of position, power, and wealth, acquisition of which guided their every thought and action.  Jesus is saying that their goals are useless, and should instead focus on serving their master - God.  They are busy being the top of the food chain, when they should be busy preparing for their master.  This is fundamentally opposed to our culture also.    We are not about generosity but acquisition.

We are to be ready, to be prepared, be as "on guard" as if we were protecting our homes from thieves.  We must have the same vigilance about Christ's return and judgement as we would have if we knew a break in were coming tonight.  Peter asks who this saying is about - is Jesus talking about the crowd or about his own disciples?  Jesus makes it clear that he means it about everyone, but by degree.  This rather long verse:    
48 But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more. [Luk 12:48 ESV]
We only hear the last part of this verse quoted.  But the first part ties in with Jesus' teaching in parables, so that those who reject without knowing what they reject will receive lesser punishment than those who are fully informed about rejecting him.  Those chosen to lead God's people are like servants in charge of servants.  They are still subject to the master's standards.  If these servants abuse their position, take advantage of those they have charge of, live riotously themselves while judging those lesser servants, then their punishment will be far more severe than those who make the same mistakes but only do so for themselves.  They will still be judged, but the punishment will be less severe.
If we are in a position to be an example, and we are a bad example, our beating will be more severe than one who is just a "peon" looked up to by no one, who does exactly the same things we do.  This weighs heavily on fathers towards their children, towards a spouse.  I have been far too "happy go lucky" in my life, never accepting responsibility for any behavior but my own.  I pray it is not too late to make it up.

39 But know this, that if the master of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have left his house to be broken into. [Luk 12:39 ESV]
This verse absolutely says it is ok to protect your own house.  That is what anyone would do if they knew trouble was coming.  

2022 - Vss 47, 48.  I do not understand.  I am too tired, mentally, to understand today.  NEXT TIME, focus on this!  Such a chapter!

This verse also:
49 "I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled! [Luk 12:49 ESV]
Jesus is judge.  He is saying the world needed judgement badly when he came the first time.  How much more does it need judgement now?  He goes on to say first things first.  He must suffer and die, and judgement will be after this.
Jesus says that after his coming, houses will be divided internally - those who accept him, those who do not, and that the decision about him will be the source of division.  This happens, whether we want it to happen or not, and in spite of all that we might do to avoid it - on either side!

Chapter 13
The Galileans Pilate killed, and those the tower of Siloam fell on?  Not worse than others, these things were not God's punishment on them.  These things should remind us that life is short and unpredictable, and that we we need to redeem the time!
2021 - A good passage.  I see it also being about the mistake of thinking the handicapped, the lame, those afflicted by diseases are getting what they deserve because of their sins.  Back to the "why is this man blind -  his fault or his parents".  Here, again, Jesus is saying it does not work that way.  Things just happen.  Life is fleeting and fickle.  The random is a warning to all, not a thunderbolt from the blue in retribution to that person.  Their plight also applies to us!  We cannot look at a paraplegic and wonder what he did to deserve that.  We should look and understand that our time is short, and that what we are able to do, we should do for God and the kingdom.  

2022 - This:
15 Then the Lord answered him, "You hypocrites! Does not each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the manger and lead it away to water it? 16 And ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom Satan bound for eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day?" [Luk 13:15-16 ESV].  Here is yet another example of Jesus "working" on the day when work was prohibited.  There is surely something fundamental about the lesson we should learn from this, because it is here over and over and over.  But how to properly phrase the lesson?  In this case, Jesus presented something that his critics were themselves doing without ever thinking of it as a sin.  It was something menial, something trivial, and it was for the benefit of an animal, not a person.  One other place Jesus notes that if their donkey is stuck in a hole on a Sunday they go get it out that day, even though it is Sunday.  In the first case, the donkey shouldn't be thirsty all day every Sunday, should not be denied that which it needs to be whole just because it it Sunday.  In the other case, why should the donkey suffer all day because of the day of the week it unfortunately fell in the hole.  Why didn't it fall in on one of the other six days?  Being thirsty is how we're made.  We ought to be able to get water.  Accidents do not wait until a weekday to come upon us.  We can do what is needful on the Sabbath.  But going out and gathering sticks for the fire and to cook, when we have plenty of food and it is not cold...that is choosing to violate the Sabbath for our own convenience and not out of need.  God does not make rules intended to harm us, nor rules that inadvertently harm us.  
Are all the lessons where Jesus "breaks the Law" as the Pharisees understood it about the Sabbath?  Does he overrule any others?  I can't think of any really...I should see that as a warning not to stray too far from the details of this lesson.  It does not mean I can break any rule any time so long as I'm doing something good.  This has been causing me a lot of difficulty as I read the examples in Matthew and Mark...trying to understand exactly what the application is for us.  Maybe these stories are more about what the Pharisees had let the Sabbath become than about how it is ok to break the rules for a good cause?  Maybe they are about the heartless, zero tolerance application of the Law - to all but themselves - that the elite required of the masses?   Maybe it is just about the hypocrisy of picking out a favorite restriction - that causes you no problems - and making that a central necessity to being Christian?  All these things "showed", but God is not concerned with the outside, he is concerned with the heart.  Jesus' heart was to help this poor woman who'd been suffering for 18 years, 7 days a week.  Jesus' heart was not to break the Sabbath.  That was no part of his intention.  Our hearts should be the sanctification of ourselves, our brothers, and our sisters in Christ, not on whether they let their tattoos show in church.  

Luke 13:6-9  - The parable of the fig tree that needs fertilizing.  Don't cut me down yet, but give me help, and maybe I can do better next year.  But if I don't, after receiving blessing I don't deserve, then cut me down.  Surely we all get blessing that we have not earned, and it is up to us to recognize the one who blesses, and bear fruit for him, or face the consequences.  Good one for FB, and a parable rarely quoted.  2020 - Perhaps this is about "good church attenders", Sunday Christians...Did I post this one before???  2021 - SB doesn't really add much to this one.  I do seem to be on the right track that for a time, God will bless an unproductive soul - fertilize with blessings and undeserved good - but there is a limit to that.  Perhaps those fallen away are sometimes blessed to bring them back to production, but there is a limit.  Perhaps this is about those who have heard the gospel, but not responded to it, not accepted it.  Yet before God turns such people over to their own ends, to the desert that life will be without help from and dependence on God, He gives blessings freely.  One must recognize that these blessings are from God.  The saved should point out these blessings as a door to witnessing to these who have heard but not responded.  And warning should be included!  Blessings on the lost do not go on forever.  I think this finally is what the parable is about.  

Beginning in vs 10, a story about a woman with a disabling spirit.  This is something else the demons do.  It had her doubled over so she couldn't straighten up.  It physically disabled her, limited and restricted her body from its function.  Jesus healed her, and the ruler of the synagogue was offended because it was done on the Sabbath, and even tells people to suffer one more day, and then come on Monday for their healing.  Jesus says that even the Pharisees untie their livestock and lead it to water on the Sabbath, and shouldn't this woman also be "untied", released from her bond, on the Sabbath?  2021 - This idea that healing on the Sabbath was a violation of the Mosaic was ubiquitous.  Jesus heals on the Sabbath several times, and is reprimanded by the elite each and every time.  They all see it this way.  And where ever he is, when they reprimand him for doing good on the Sabbath, Jesus says the same thing - "You hypocrites!"

(I would like to study the demons of the NT.  What they do, how they treat people, how they think.  Some try to drown or burn their hosts.  This one makes the hosts life very difficult physically.  Why would they do these things?  Are they preventing worship, or just jealous and malignant?)

2021 - 18, 19, what is the kingdom like.  In 18, the mustard seed planted that becomes home to the birds.  There was already a nice garden.  But the addition of the tree made it even more pleasant.  It became a home for those in need?  Seems a bit stretched.  In 19, the hidden leaven leavens it all.  Leaven is usually symbolic of sin, but here it seems the opposite.  It seems to say that introducing the gospel to a place where it is not leads ultimately to it spreading through that place.  It multiplies once introduced.  MSB says the mustard see is about Gentiles getting to come and nest in the garden.  MSB agrees that the leaven is used differently here - not a symbol for evil permeating all three loaves, but of the gospel spreading throughout.  He uses the context saying the gospel spreads.  Jesus is not talking about how evil spreads, but giving an analogy about the kingdom.  I agree with that certainly.

vs 22 tells us that Jesus was going through various towns but was on his way to Jerusalem.  Here is indeed a hard saying:
24 "Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. [Luk 13:24 ESV]
Seekers will not find this door.  Many seekers.  It is difficult to see justice in this.  
MSB notes that the verse starts with "strive" and that it is not works that gets us into heaven, but grace alone.  Faith alone.  Perhaps Jesus is contrasting the way of Judaism at that time, under the Pharisees, where it was a huge burden to keep all the laws and sacrifices.  They were taught that keeping the law - without regard to its intent or its purpose - was what got them into heaven.  Jesus says those who try to enter that way will be turned away, and those who claim they should enter because they faithfully kept this law will be turned away.  Those who work to earn heaven are fundamentally flawed, and will be turned away no matter how hard they worked.  This is NOT about those who truly seek the kingdom, but about those who want to work their way in.  Those who want their good deeds to sneak by their bad deeds just enough to get in.  2020 - I wonder how many of the sayings I have called "hard" tie back to this very same principle.  That working hard as a means to heaven is a waste of energy because that isn't what gets you in.  Working hard - doing works - as James says - as a demonstration of faith, as motivated by faith and love,  is an effect, not a cause.

2022 - Vs 24-28 are about a scene of judgment.  Which one?
25 When once the master of the house has risen and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, 'Lord, open to us,' then he will answer you, 'I do not know where you come from.' 26 Then you will begin to say, 'We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets.' 27 But he will say, 'I tell you, I do not know where you come from. Depart from me, all you workers of evil!' 28 In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God but you yourselves cast out. [Luk 13:25-28 ESV]
There are lost people in view here.  People outside who want to get it.
Shut the door.  A time after which no one may be saved.  The time for choices is over.  That will be true at both Sheep and Goat and GWT.  We know specifically at the sheep and goat that people won't understand what they did wrong.  "When did we not visit you in prison?".  
Are they saying "We went to church every Sunday, we listened and tried to live what was taught", and the answer is "But your heart was not in it"?  This exchange also shows that the time for choices is over.  This is final judgment.  You get into that whole thing about who the lost are in the battle at the end of the Millennial, and where did they come from.  They have to have been born during the Millennial as I read it.  They will have been born for no purpose other than to oppose God and fulfill the prophecy of the final battle.  I say this because at the ship and goat, pre-Millennial, ALL the lost will go to hell, starting the Millennial with a whole world saved.  Else, that judgment is only partial.  Only those in and around Jerusalem are judged, and not the rest of the planet.  I don't see how that can be.
So that makes this about the GWT.  At that one, both lost and saved from all history - but not saved from the church age - will be judged.  The time for choices is over.  And some there can literally say vs 26.  They heard Jesus teach personally, but were not converted.  This just about has to be GWT.  
It cannot be the bema, because only the raptured will be at that one.
(But see below, "The chapter ends this way:" for another possibility.)

Some Pharisees warn Jesus that Herod wants to kill him, and that he should therefore not come near Jerusalem.  This seems odd.  Perhaps they themselves wanted to keep Jesus away so their apple carts would stay aright.  2021 - MSB agrees.  They likely wanted Jesus to move on to Jerusalem and so not bring Herod's attention to this place.  Jesus talks about three days.  MSB says this was common idiom and rarely referred to a literal three days.  The point Jesus is making is that he is on his own schedule, and not Herod's or any other King's.  It is only a figure of speech.  The thing about prophets being killed only in Jerusalem is similar.  It was likely a well known saying referencing the fact that it was mostly Jews who killed their own prophets, and not foreigners.  Jesus was probably still in Galilee - where it would be foreigners that killed him, and this was not the way of things.  We don't really know exactly what town he was in at this time.

2022 - This verse:
33 Nevertheless, I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following, for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem.' [Luk 13:33 ESV].  Here, Jesus names himself a prophet, and predicts that he will suffer the same fate as a prophet.

The chapter ends this way:
35 Behold, your house is forsaken. And I tell you, you will not see me until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!'" [Luk 13:35 ESV]
How can you read this and not see that the covenant with Israel was being set aside, that they as a nation are being  locked out, forcibly excluded, from what is to come, until that set time in the future, during trib and great trib, when their eyes and ears will finally be reopened.  They had gone too far, and they were and are receiving the justice of God even here on earth.  And surely their history has been bleak.
2021 - Oh my...given the above, and seizing on the exclusion of the Jews from the dawning age of the Gentiles, can we look back at that locked door, where no one is recognized, as applying to Israel uniquely?  That door is going to be shut and no one will get in.  That is not about the age of the Gentiles, that door is shut to the Jews.  I need to look up the other places that narrow door is mentioned - in other gospels and in Revelation 3 - and see if this would apply to them all.  Has this analogy been preached "wrongly" every time I ever heard it????

Chapter 14
The chapter opens with "One Sabbath...", so we are floating in time here.  No real way to know when this was except in reference to other gospels.  Jesus heals on the Sabbath yet again.  There are Pharisees watching him closely this day to see if they can catch him in something that will serve as a basis to undermine his teaching.  Jesus knows this.  Before he heals, he asks them all if it is lawful to do so on the Sabbath.  They won't answer.  They know that to say it is not lawful is a cruel and heartless point of view, unworthy of the God they worship.  But to say yes it is lawful is to violate the letter of Mosaic law.  Summarily guilty is what that would be.  
2021 - Note that the man healed here had dropsy.  A very similar Sabbath healing elsewhere was of a man who had a withered hand.  Two distinct occurrences I believe.  Note that in this case, he was on his way to Jerusalem.  I believe the withered hand was much earlier.  (Yes.  The withered hand was Luke 6:9, so two different healings, on the Sabbath, both to illustrate the hypocrisy of the Pharisees for all to see. )

Jesus heals the man anyway, and tells those present that they would pull a donkey or an ox out of a well on the Sabbath, yet they begrudge a human being healing on the Sabbath.  It says "they could not reply".  2020 - A note to the ESV on vs 5 says he asked whether they would pull a son or an ox in some manuscripts. Surely there was no dodging whether they would pull a son out of a well on the Sabbath.  Wish I knew which he really said, not because it changes the point at all, but it does sort of change his tone.  It seems to me that by this time in his ministry, Jesus was getting a lot more direct in his characterization of the Pharisees and the religious elite.  His remarks are now more "pointed".

2022 - Here is a thought that occurred to me yesterday after reading about the healing of the woman with the disabling spirit on the Sabbath.  We need to understand that Jesus is NOT saying that sometimes it is ok to break the Law.  He is NOT saying that sin for the right reason is ok.  If he were saying that, then his healings on the Sabbath would all be sin, but "good" sin.  What a slippery slope that would be!  Look in vs 3 how Jesus asked the question:
3 And Jesus responded to the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath, or not?" [Luk 14:3 ESV].  His point is that it IS lawful to heal, because that honors the Sabbath, where turning a blind eye to desperate need that it is in your power to relieve does NOT honor the Sabbath.  We must see and understand this.  It was not a sin.
So what Jesus is saying is that we ought to realize that healing a person you can heal, pulling a distressed donkey from a pit, casting out a disabling spirit, all honor the Sabbath, where leaving all these to suffer or starve or drown, dishonors the Sabbath.  To honor the Sabbath is to honor the one who made the Sabbath, and act with the grace and the mercy that He would use.  Honoring the Sabbath is what the Law says.  The Law does not say "never lift a finger, even to help someone in need, on the Sabbath.  They had turned the Law from "honor" the Sabbath to lift not a finger for any reason on the Sabbath.  Like the story that says the elevators in Israel stop at every floor on the Sabbath, so you don't  have to push the button, because pushing the button would be violating the Sabbath.  Does trivializing the Sabbath in that way really honor the Sabbath, or make a joke of it?
Be careful of getting pulled into the "sometimes the need is great enough to makes it ok to sin".  That is never what it means.  What it means is that we ought to understand what the Law really means, and to what it is applicable.  The Law, even the Law, was about the heart, and the attitude we have toward God when we follow the rule.  Sometimes, it is following the rule that is the sin, if our hearts and minds are not in it or resent it.

Jesus says we should always choose the lower place, the further place.  It is up to the host to decide to honor us by "promoting" us to a better location, a better seat at the table.  We are to do our work humbly where we are.  2020 - The point is that it is better to be honored by another, when he asks you to move up front, than to honor yourself by marching right up front and having a seat.  Here it is in so many words:
11 For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." [Luk 14:11 ESV]  Note that it doesn't say we should eschew honor.  It doesn't say we shouldn't prefer the place of honor.  It says we should not award it to ourselves.  
This theme seems to be coming up a lot, and not just in Luke.  It is almost as if THE hindrance to salvation is self-importance.  The rich guy building all those barns and then taking it easy...he only wanted to please himself, not even do a day's work until he had to do it.  In Luke 12 yesterday, Jesus warned of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees.  They were one thing outwardly, but inside, were just too smart to buy into all this religious stuff.  They were arrogant, not humble.  Jesus pointed it out to the disciples, so they would recognize that it was a huge problem.  They, also in yesterday's reading, don't worry about food and clothes, because God knows and will provide for you.  That is, don't let the elite tell you that you are useless to God because you cannot afford your own food.  What greater honor than to have God see to your  needs, as you serve Him.  Over and over...and not just the last two days.  
When we are so sure we are "right", or that we are...I don't know how to state this.   If someone is spouting about evolution, and I don't speak up and say creation, because it will be too embarrassing for me to put forth such an "intellectually bankrupt" theory, then I am letting pride rule over me.  I don't want to be ridiculed.  This first occurred to me when I was reading Jesus' words about confessing him before men.  If we "keep the secret" that we believe in creation, we believe in the flood, we believe in the Tower, we believe a virgin conceived, we believe a man born blind had his sight restored, AND we believe a dead man rose from the grave, we should be right up front about that.  If someone says these are impossible, we should speak up and say we believe it happened.  Keeping silent is not confessing.  To believe these things and keep silent is to commit Peter's sin.  What is worse is to be among believers and nod in agreement when creation is preached, but in your mind think that you are just sooo much smarter than these poor ignorant superstitious Christians.    To think you are above all this is to give yourself a place of honor in your own mind, rather than waiting for God to give you that place. This goes even back to where Jesus says that there is nothing hidden that won't be revealed.  Those who honor themselves above God in this way absolutely know they are doing it.  Perhaps we don't talk about it much, but we know when we do it.  Successfully fooling the assembled is not the same as fooling God about what we really think.  He knows.  And at some point, all will know because He will bring to light what our attitudes really are.
I really think this is profound, I think I'm doing a poor job of getting it stated correctly and completely, but it needs to be stated.  It is the thread that is tying all these things Jesus was saying on that last journey to Jerusalem together.

Jesus says we are to be a benefit to those who cannot repay what we give them.  Then it is God who will repay us in the end.  If we do things that men repay on earth, we have our whole reward.  2020 - This is a further extension of the idea that we are not to put ourselves above others, not to judge the worth of others by there titles, their clothes, their ability to pay us back.  When we make such judgements, we are honoring ourselves above these others, and perpetuating a judgemental attitude towards others.  We make ourselves better than those who have less.  It isn't that it is wrong to have more than others, God blesses some more than others.  It is wrong to believe that we have more because we are better - which is to promote ourselves at the banquet.  Ok, that is getting closer I think to the attitude that Jesus is speaking against.  God does not think this way, and goes to great lengths to show us this.  How many times does the chosen of God have a pretty unimpressive resume'?  David was the youngest.  Jacob was younger than Esau.  Abraham lied to save his own skin.  This lesson is hammered on from creation to Revelation, and yet Jesus is having to repeat it over and over and over.

2022 - Oh my...these verses:
13 But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, 14 and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. For you will be repaid at the resurrection of the just." [Luk 14:13-14 ESV].
Look at this phrase!  The resurrection of the just.  Surely that refers to the rapture, where ONLY the saved are resurrected.  This characteristic is unique to the rapture.  And the repayment?  What will that be?  Well that is the bema seat judgment, in heaven.  Here it is from Jesus.  

On hearing this:
15 When one of those who reclined at table with him heard these things, he said to him, "Blessed is everyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God!" [Luk 14:15 ESV]
I think this one was saying that no matter how "un-exalted" we may be, if we are in heaven, then we are blessed.  Jesus answer begins with "But...", so I am guessing this statement will turn out to be bad thinking....though I tend to agree with it.  Jesus tells about the wedding feast where the invited guests all make excuses and don't show up.  So the master of the wedding sends out his servants to invite others - still in the city - who are poor and crippled, blind and lame.  Those the original guests would have disdained are now the ones invited.  But still the hall for the wedding is not full.  So the servants are sent out to the highways, to bring in even those not of the town.  Gentiles maybe?  And the last line says that NONE who were originally invited will be part of the banquet.  This could mean that no Jews at all will be saved during the age of the Gentiles.  But this can't be right, because the lower classes in the city were there.  Those too full of themselves though, they will never be allowed in.  
2020 - I think this is still on the theme of being humble and not judging others.  I suspect now that all those the man invited to his banquet considered themselves too important to associate with him.  They were buying fields and oxen and getting married.  Doing "rich" things, and this man had taken a long time to get the banquet ready.  Perhaps his means were limited and it took time to save up enough to throw this banquet.  Those who wouldn't come were judgemental.  So the man invited different people, whom we perceive to be of even lower station than the banquet thrower.  And these were honored to attend.  But there weren't enough.  The man wanted his house filled for the banquet...so even foreigners and total strangers who wouldn't even be around to repay him in some way were invited.  And these came too.  But the ones who were invited in the first place?  None were allowed to change their minds when they saw the lights and understood that the banquet was in progress.  This is about that judgemental attitude, but it is about Jews that have it.  This is about the attitude that Israel has towards each other, and in spades towards those not Israel. They consider non-Jews to be dogs, all with the same classification.  Not Samaritan dogs and Roman dogs.  Not even worthy of that much distinction.  Just "not us" dogs.  This is a very pointed parable.  Jesus says that because of their haughty attitudes, their pride of ancestry, and their perfect lives wrt the Law, that they are excluded from the kingdom.  Excluded.  Maybe this also ties back in to the theme in John where they can't come unless God chooses them.  John emphasizes repeatedly that the religious elite don't understand Jesus' sayings because they are not allowed to understand.  They are kicked out of banquet.  This sounds "in their face" because it is intended to be exactly "in their face".  In Luke, we see that judging themselves as better than others is a roadblock to understanding, in John, they are told their exclusion because of the attitude is strictly enforced.  Hmmm...The banquet is already in progress, and the doors are locked, and the Jews may not enter at this point.  Things are past that point already.
2022 - Isn't this told elsewhere, and it is a ruler rather than "a man" who does the inviting?  And I don't remember the other placing saying that guests should be "compelled" to come?  What could that part mean?  Wish I had more time on a Sunday morning to look these things up.

Jesus tells the crowds following him to count the cost.  It is likely that many who followed were only there for the miracles, the spectacle, or just to be part of the crowd.  But the day was coming when it was going to be very unpopular to be identified as a follower of Jesus.  Friends of the "camp followers" would see them run backwards and laugh at them.  This would further inhibit those friends from ever coming to Christ.  If the cost were counted, and one could follow no matter the circumstances, no matter the personal loss, then that one would be in a much better position to win his friends to Christ.

And what about the part that says we have to hate our mother, father, and so on if we are to follow?  We know that a man who preached "love thy neighbor" did not literally mean that we should begin to hate our loved ones if we follow Christ.  But it might mean that if we end up isolated from them because of our commitment, we should be prepared for it and deal with it, and accept it.  We might be isolated even from those we love most.  And if a parent dies, shouldn't we continue in loyalty to God rather than blaming him for our loss?  If we blame God, then aren't we saying we love our parent more?  We reject the Almighty because of the loss of a loved one?  Who then did we love most?  2020 - I think this view is correct.  This is how we "test" whether we have given up all.  When we do lose it, are we angry at God about it, or do we thank him for the lesson?  

I am not sure what sending a delegation when the enemy is a long way off and suing for peace is about though?  Perhaps it means that even when it comes to following Christ, it should not be all about the emotion of the moment, but a deliberated, thought out commitment and decision to follow him.  Can a 6 year old even do this?  Or is Jesus speaking here mainly to adults - to the crowds that are following him so long as things are good.  Self-examination seems to be what is in view.  And I suppose that would be tailored to the individual doing the calculation.  Even to 6 year olds.  

Then Luke's version of the verse I posted this morning about salt losing its savor.  A good verse.

2020 - Look at the last words of this chapter:
35 ...He who has ears to hear, let him hear." [Luk 14:35 ESV]  Here is that phrase again.  I think this ties back yet again to the verses in Isaiah and Ezekiel (wasn't it?) where the eyes and ears of Israel were closed as part of God's wrath against them for their rebellion.  He is perhaps saying that very very few of the listeners can understand, but that if you do understand, now is your time.  This is the chance.  And to "break out" of the wrath and follow Christ - which was in fact their only escape - will have dire consequences, because the elite are going to try and stomp out even the memory of Jesus and his teaching.  Few will be able to tolerate the persecution, but God has chosen some.  A few have ears, a few can come apart from the salt that has lost it's savor.

2020 - The 2020 notes on 14 took a while.  Reading through the rest of today's material. Will focus on 15 next year.

2022 - Counting the cost avoids ridicule.  Avoids bringing ridicule on your efforts.  This says that if you are not willing to 100% commit, and so never "fail" in a way that holds your purpose up to ridicule, then you ought not come.  Think of the applications.  If you follow, that ought to be a well known fact about you.  "Tom calls himself a Christian".  The ridicule would come when Tom gets drunk one night.  When Tom screams bloody murder at his wife in a parking lot in Missouri.  When Tom uses horrid language in a conversation.  When Tom says ... other things that a Christian shouldn't say.  This a a terribly difficult passage to actually live.  Surely we all fail miserably and frequently at this one.

Chapter 15
2022 - So this chapter has three parables.  I have obviously struggled with some with them.  After reading them six times before, I think that three parables in the same chapter ought to be closely related.  They ought to all be about the same things.  They ought to build on and amplify each other.  As Luke presents them, they were all told at this place, in order.  If we look back, Jesus had gone home with a tax collector and was eating there, when he told about the great banquet - where the Gentiles are the last ones invited.  I think in 15, we are still at that same house, eating that same meal, and the "wolves" come out of their sheep's clothing, perhaps angered by the things Jesus has been saying and understanding full well that they are the "bad guys" in each and every story - the banquet, counting the cost, and salt without savor.  Maybe the fact that these guys got upset at Jesus' parables is the primary clue as to who those stories are about?  Can we make the religious elite, the pretenders, the hypocrites the bad guys in each one?  That would mean the Jewish bad guys.  I will keep that in mind as I read I suspect there is a theme that runs all the way through here.  Maybe this year I will start to see that common, connecting thread that opens all these up and I can fully understand them.

The Parable of the lost sheep.  Reading this the other day, I was struck by the fact that the lost sheep was part of the flock.  It was the shepherd's sheep.  Yet it got lost.  So the Shepherd goes to find his own.  I saw this as saved people straying away.  But in Luke's account there is this wording:
7 Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance. [Luk 15:7 ESV]
This way, it seems to be more about the "lost sheep of Israel".  They are sheep by birth, because they are included in the covenant.  But many in Israel were not faithful at all, but rebellious.  Lost on purpose you might say.  The part about those who need no repentance is obviously sarcasm.  Those he spoke to needed salvation as badly as the lost sheep did!
2023 - Wait a sec...what if we do go with the sarcasm idea?  The 99 are the other guests at the luncheon.  They are the ones who "need no repentance".  The one that left the fold though has stepped away from the usual, the common, the routine.  And while he is out there, the shepherd finds him, and brings him into the fold, and rejoices more over him  than about the ones who continued to graze in the same old traditional way.  The rejoicing is about this one who has recognized a different kind of shepherd.  Does that make any sense?  Well....as this version of the parable is worded, you'd have to say that the reason that one wandered off is because the 99 were....yeah...I don't think this is right.  At least not unless we get some corroboration from the remaining two parables.  In the first parable, a man "loses" a sheep.  In the second, a woman loses a coin.  And then the third is the Prodigal Son.  Did that father "lose" his son?  If we focus on the ones who "lose" something of value, then they surely do not represent God.  Whom then do they represent?  We could say the religious elite of that time.  But that doesn't fly because they rejoice so when the one lost is found and returned home.  No.  Wrong track here.
2023 - The Jews are part of the flock because of the unconditional covenant.  Not so with the Gentiles.  The Gentiles are lost, and when one of them is saved, there would be rejoicing?  Nope.  That doesn' t really fly either!

2022 - So this one seems pretty straightforward.  They've just accused Jesus because he is eating with sinners, and Jesus says heaven is happier over one of these sinners coming home than over all you elite religious people who are "still part of the flock".  Jesus "demotes" the wonderful sinless (in their own minds) "favorites of God" to a position BELOW the Scribes, Pharisees, and Lawyers.  Yes.  This is pretty gloves off stuff here when you look at it that way.  And I note that we don't need to bring any Gentiles into this in order to understand the parable.  It is not about Gentiles, at least primarily.  Jesus did not have Gentiles in view here.  I think he definitely did back in 14:16-24...where they were pretty unsavory characters attending a banquet that was never prepared for them.  But we don't need them in the lost sheep parable.

The parable of the lost coin, and then the prodigal son.
2022 - The lost coin seems to be pretty much the very same thing as the lost sheep, except that with silver coins, we see that the flock that stayed with the shepherd is shiny silver, and has intrinsic value.  But even so, even the "good ones", who have hearts for God, generate less joy than one sinner who repents.  But I think we still have to see the lost sheep and the lost coin as being about Jews.  There's no need to bring Gentiles into it.
2021 - If we make these two parables about Israel, since that is who Jesus was ministering to at this time, then it would seem to hold that all the sheep are Israel.  The majority of those sheep, and the majority of the coins, remain in the fold/purse.  But this is not the case during the age of the Gentiles.  So the herd/purse must represent saved rather than all Israel if we are to stick with this interpretation.  The herd that followed this good shepherd was mostly made up of the humble and lowly, and had barely any of the elite.  Because the elite were too consumed with their own self-righteousness to seek the righteousness of God.  But occasionally, now and then, one of those rebellious elitist was "recovered".  A tax collector perhaps, or some other synagogue attending but entirely worldly jew.  As one snatched from the fire of worldly success and self-congratulations.  Yep.  I think this interpretation still works.  I think this is what Jesus meant.  So the question is, does this parable, and the parable of the coins, even apply to Gentiles?  Is there really rejoicing in heaven over one Gentile saved?  Or do we need to understand that we are just lucky that the Jews are so rebellious, else we would never even have been called in the first place.  We were out in the highways and byways and wouldn't even know about the wedding if the invited guests were not so ungrateful.  That is surely the case Paul is making when he talks about the wild olive branch being grafted in....
So we can extend this analogy backwards and see how it applies to the banquet parable, forward to the silver coins, but does it apply to The Prodigal Son???
You can surely make a case that the first son was Israel in rebellion, and that his homecoming is the Tribulation.  The Jews will turn back to God when at some point they realize en masse how far from their God they are, and they recognize that they totally missed the Messiah.  So as far as the first son goes, the analogy holds just fine.  What is the jealousy of the second son about in this analogy?  Does it represent the resentment of the scribes and Pharisees toward the sinners Jesus associated with - and by extension the resentment of good Jews toward "death bed conversion" Jews?  This doesn't seem right.  But the second son surely does not represent Gentiles...though he could...For 2000 years now the Gentiles have come to God, but the Jews still rebel.  Yet at the end of time, the Jews will be elevated to the very top of the heap and rule the world from Jerusalem, while the Gentiles watch from afar - or from heaven if the rapture comes early...Maybe you can make this fit, but it still has a few holes....If it is about Gentiles, I am glad to see that in vs 31, the father calls him "Son".  
2022 - The Parable of the Prodigal son begins this way:
11 And he said, "There was a man who had two sons. [Luk 15:11 ESV].  Two sons.  Direct descendants, so I read that as two groups of Jews.  I don't see an opening to insert Gentiles into this story at the beginning.  Only two groups.  It is the younger son who asks for his inheritance early.  Does that mean anything?  The elite religious leaders would have considered themselves in a favored position with God, much more so than the every day rabble of the Jewish streets.  So this younger son was in an inferior position anyway, and so he rebels, sort of pushed into rebellion by the unsympathetic elitist older brother. I had never seen that angle before.  This accuses the Pharisees of being part of the reason for the exit of the less privileged.  Further, as the fortunes of the younger son turn, he is shoulder to shoulder with pigs.  He is supremely unclean.  These elite Pharisees would have been revolted at this picture, and in their minds, they would see that younger son as beyond ever being ceremonially clean again.  They would have seen him as forever unclean - almost as a leper.  They would never go near this person.  So Jesus, knowing this would be their attitude, says this:  20 And he arose and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. [Luk 15:20 ESV].  This wayward son, unclean from pigs, is embraced and kissed by his father, and that BEFORE he is even cleaned up, washed, and makes purifying sacrifices to restore him to ceremonial cleanliness.  His father disdains all this ritual, and embraces his son who was lost.  And as in teh lost sheep and the lost coin, there is celebration at the return of this one who was "dead but is alive again".  In this verse, Jesus lays out what those hearing the story are thinking:  28 But he was angry and refused to go in. His father came out and entreated him, [Luk 15:28 ESV].  These Pharisees are angry at Jesus for associating with sinners, just as this son is angry that his brother has been welcomed home.  Jesus is the Father who comes out to this older son.  So Jesus is telling the Pharisees that he doesn't ONLY care about those who have gone off the deep end, but still values highly those who stayed home.  They are still silver coins.  And what does the son say?  I kept the rules, religiously!  I kind of did what I wanted otherwise, but I have the rules down pat, and I follow all the rules.  Why was that not celebrated?  Jesus reminds them that those who never left the fold have heaven to look forward to.  That is the real inheritance - the promises to Abraham, the Kingdom of God.  Of course a dead son coming home alive is reason to celebrate!  It is rare, and special, and a great victory over evil.  That is worth celebrating.  And it does not make the "pie" any smaller in heaven for those who never left.  Their reward there will reflect that they never left.
There are no Gentiles in this parable.  I think this 2022 understanding is the closest to what Jesus meant so far.  There is always more there than I've seen before!
This would be a good website explanation, but is far too long for FB.

2020 - One more thought.  If the prodigal represents those "who have ears to hear", those who escape the curse that the Jews are under at this time, and who come home, who are saved out of this wrath, then of course the father rejoices that a few in Israel still have hearts for him.  The other son represents cursed Israel, who must still go through wrath, and through Trib and Great Trib, but in the end, this other son will be with the father.  The promises to Abraham as to his descendants will be made good, Israel will have the land, and rule the world and be forever with God in heaven.  Much must happen to them between the time of Christ and that time, but they will make it, we all know they will make it.  But a few Jews, a bare few, will get it right as we go along, and they will be welcomed as one thought lost forever who shows back up in repentance.  Hmm...Maybe I finally understand this parable...Maybe.

2021 - I was thinking during prayer time this morning that the first son was given his inheritance despite the fact that his father knew he was on the wrong track entirely, that he was taking the low road, and that he might never even physically see that son again.  That father knew that by giving this son his inheritance early, he might lose forever any chance to influence him in the right direction.  This father risked losing this son to hell by giving him the inheritance early.  But the other son...the other son stayed, and at his father's death, would receive all that his father had.  This son was there for his father to influence, to teach, to enjoy.  Yet this son also had problems.  He was jealous of his sinful brother, maybe hating his own cowardice about not asking for his share also.  He was full of bitterness and resentment.  He obeyed when his father was around, but did he criticize and undermine his father otherwise?  Neither of these sons was a particularly good son, but both were normal sons.  And the father did not base the inheritance on his own opinion of his sons, but on tradition and practice.  The father didn't try to use the inheritance to teach some last lessons to these sons after he was gone.  This father did what he could to teach them while he was with them.  This is all any of us can do.  There also seems to be a lesson that says let your "children" go, and let them make their own decisions.  At some point, it is between them and God, and we can only pray.  
Also while I was thinking this morning, I thought of other father's in the Bible who's sons didn't turn out right.  Aaron lost two sons because they spurned God's law.  Jonathan, Saul's son, was a good man, but he most certainly was not loyal to his father, honoring David instead.  Eli, as high priest, lost both his sons the same day, and then died himself because his sons were corrupt and rather than correcting them, he just ignored what they were doing.  David raised Solomon, but Solomon's ultimate sinfulness and rebellion split Israel in half.  Solomon's son's did little better.   We don't even have the names of the sons of the 12 apostles.  Not one son, so far as we know, followed the teachings of his father.  I did a quick Google search and found nothing at all - as possibly from the early church fathers, who might have had apostle's sons in their churches, and found nothing.  What greater blessing for service could there be than to see one's children saved?  And yet we have no NT evidence about the apostles sons.  I mean, at this point, is there a good son in the entire Bible?  Maybe...all this is to contrast what usually happens with children to the complete and total dedication to his Father's will exhibited by Christ?  So many son's got it wrong, but Christ got it right.

Chapter 16
2023 - This first parable is still causing me problems.  Instead of reading all this, skip on down to the bottom and read the 2023 notes down there.
2022 - Started by reading my notes from previous years.  Taken all together, they say I am not very sure of what this parable means, even after this many readings.  But there are some key phrases that I picked out of the notes and will focus on as I read it this year.
14 The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things, and they ridiculed him. [Luk 16:14 ESV].  So...like the manager and his master, they are characterized by their love of money.  
11 If then you have not been faithful in the unrighteous wealth, who will entrust to you the true riches? [Luk 16:11 ESV] .  Out of order on purpose.  I think you need the connection of 14 before 11 makes sense.

2022 - Note the contrast between vs 1, where Jesus is addressing his disciples, and vs 14 where the Pharisees heard "all these things" and ridiculed him.  Perhaps all these things means all the parables, and not just this last one.  Had they heard the last one at all?
As it starts out, the manager was a poor manager.  Indeed, he was so bad that people report to the rich man - the master - that he is wasting resources.  So right off the master sees that he has a problem with his manager not doing a good job and taking care of his business.  If I didn't already know the rest of the parable, I might think the master is God, hearing that the Pharisees are really blowing it in the leadership and teaching responsibilities they're entrusted with.  The Pharisees are poor managers of the "riches" they're entrusted with.  So the bad manager is told that he will be removed.  Future tense.  He is told to turn in his records so they can be given to another after he is gone.  Can we see these phrases as representing the blindness coming on the Jews and the beginning of the Church age?  The Pharisees - a recent arrival historically speaking - have done such an absolutely pitiful job of teaching the Law and understanding its purpose, that the Law needs to be turned in and a new manager will take over.  A manager with a completely different way of doing things.  That manager is Jesus perhaps.  (this is making good sense so far...but I fear it will fall apart completely as I go on.)  Next, we see how the manager reacts to being put on notice that he is about be unemployed.  We can see this as the Pharisees perhaps understanding that their day in the sun is just about over, that their incompetence with the Law is being exposed, and the people are going to turn away from them.  Their exalted positions are about to be shown as fraudulent, and what they will lose is the admiration, respect and authority they currently enjoy.  And since all they know is religious interpretation, they cannot get a real job later, especially since everyone will know what a poor job the did at their previous job.  So what will they do?  Oh my...oh my...In the parable, what the manager does is forgive debts that he has no right to forgive.  Note that he has each one write down 50 instead of 100, and so on.  What the manager is doing is cooking the books before he turns them over to the master.  He is placing himself in a position between the debtors and the creditor.  He is taking the credit for forgiving debt.  But in fact, the debt still exists...So...Does this sound like what priests do?  They give absolution.  They "sell" absolution.  They sell all kinds of things and grant all kinds of things - in the name of the master - though they have no authority to do so.  The debt still exists...though the manager says it doesn't.  This strategy certainly "creates" a sense of obligation on the part of the debtor toward the manager.  The manager gets paid support for the "illegal favor" he performed.  

Ah...but here is where it falls apart:  8 The master commended the dishonest manager for his shrewdness. For the sons of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light. [Luk 16:8 ESV].  

(2023 - Wait wait wait...The Pharisees make fun of Jesus for his parables...they are just too smart to be persuaded by these little stories.  So here in vs 8, the "sons of this world", that is, those who are lost even though they think they are the religious elite, are very shrewd in the way they manipulate other people - especially in the way they manipulate true believers!  Jesus is saying that while these people believe themselves to be superior because of the way they use and abused the true believers, they are in fact just one more part of a wholly corrupt system.  Hmm...never saw that connection before.)

So with this verse, we see that the master in the parable is not God.  This master is also corrupt.  This master is a leader of leaders, a Pharisee of the Pharisees, elite among the elite.  And this underling, this previously under performing minion has hit upon some brilliance that not only keeps him supported, but will also support the master as he puts the same thing into operation at an even higher level.  By calling the manager a "son of this world", we see that he was not saved, his heart was never right, his true commitment was to the things of earth.  Just as the Pharisees were.  Can we also read this as Jesus turning the upside down view of the Pharisees back to right side up?  The Pharisees saw poverty as a sign of God's dissatisfaction with the poor and their own wealth as proof of their favor with and blessing from God.  And Jesus says no...those who show an aptitude for shrewdness in the dealings of this world in fact are sons of this world, and the poor are in fact the sons of light because they live for the next world, and so can be duped in this one.  We all do well at what we study.  The Pharisees study the world and create ways to use the Law to enrich themselves with worldly things - the respect of men, the favor of men, the riches of the world.  Wow...this is really seeming to fit...
I think this answers the question as to whether vs 9 is still "in the parable" and is that corrupt master speaking or whether the parable ended in 8 and Jesus makes a pronouncement about in 9.  At this point, 9 is in the parable, and that corrupt master is saying to those who serve him to take a lesson from the manager and begin to manipulate the sheep so that they will be obligated to you when the truth comes out, and support you because of the favors you can do for them (or claim to do for them) rather than for the light you can bring into their lives through the New Covenant.  You see, the Pharisees could have followed Jesus too.  It would have meant laying down their fancy robes and becoming like the apostles and the preachers and the evangelists.  They'd have had to come down off their pedestals and become equal under God with those that they taught.  They would have to trade the best seats for the general seating.  But this manager found a way to retain his status by duping the devotees!  Wow.  This is really working.
10 "One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much. [Luk 16:10 ESV].  The manager is being dishonest in small matters.  In earthly matters.  Though the corrupt master saw this as impressive, God is going to see it as dishonest in small matters, and why would he invite such a one into the kingdom?  Hmm...that doesn't seem like the right interpretation...You have to put 11 with it:
11 If then you have not been faithful in the unrighteous wealth, who will entrust to you the true riches? [Luk 16:11 ESV].  So...if the Pharisees were willing to dupe their own masters in order to take care of themselves, their masters were not going to "promote" them.  This manager ws still fired by his master.  You can't have someone writing off your debtors without authorization stay in your organization.  He still got fired.  But he had a soft landing because of his dishonesty.  So now, since he was corrupt in his service to a corrupt master, what good master will ever hire him.  How nearly impossible will it be for a Pharisee or a priest to turn away from being successful in that position, to the position of a rank and file Christian?  And the reason is, you live by the ways of the world or you live by the Bible.  The more you submerge yourself in the ways the of the world, the more difficult it will be to wash it off.
I think this is on the right track.  I think this is really close to what it means.  This is Jesus telling the Pharisees that he knows what they are going to do from here, and that it will not fool God.  Jesus tells them that their hearts are the key, and that as long as what they really seek is earthly wealth and comfort, they will never receive - or even recognize - true riches.  
Vss 14, 15 seem to corroborate this view.  But then 16...The Law is abrogated, the gospel is in place.  What you misrepresented is not longer even the way.  The forcing in may be about the Pharisees looking for ways to function within the gospel framework, but without actually accepting it...but that is a reach.  And then...the Law won't be void?  I am calling it good right here.  Maybe these verses will be clear next time.  I am going to just read through the rest of today's stuff - there is much to do before the kids get here.
2022 - Next day - See 2022 note after the Parable of the Persistent Widow in the next chapter.

2022 - Except...the rich man and Lazarus.  It goes with the above in that it is a parable contrasting devotion to the good of this world with the good of the next.  It is to show that the right way is to look to eternity.  Note that it says those in heaven "may" not be able to pass, and those in Hades CANNOT pass.  And vs 31 - they won't believe, even if one is raised from the dead.  Which is what Jesus did, and those who are fixed on riches and worldliness were not convince, and are not convinced even today, to follow him.

2020 - With all that seemed to clear up yesterday tying all those parables together as being about our internal attitudes, and about not depending on our own resources and more than anything never ever seeing ourselves as "better" than those less fortunate than ourselves, We come to this parable, in 16.
2021 - Yesterday, I saw the parables in Chapter 15 differently than the year before.  Yesterday, they seemed to be about Jews and Gentiles and the history that was about to unfold.  The Jews about to be set aside for a time, and the Gentiles, worthless as we are, to be primary for a while.
2021 - I note that this chapter begins with "He also said to the disciples..."  Before, Jesus was talking to sinners, Pharisees, the unsaved.  But this parable is directed to his disciples.  What is the significance of this?
2021 - Just read the parable again.  It is just an enigmatic parable.  I just do not get it.  Here are the phrases that baffle me still:
8 ...For the sons of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light. [Luk 16:8 ESV]
9 And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous wealth, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal dwellings. [Luk 16:9 ESV]  Is it Jesus saying this to his disciples, or the master saying it to the dishonest manager?
11 If then you have not been faithful in the unrighteous wealth, who will entrust to you the true riches? [Luk 16:11 ESV]  What?????  So...if you are dishonest with the "best" the world offers, that being wealth and riches, you aren't worthy even to be offered the much better, purer, righteous riches of heaven.  
And supposedly, all this confusing verbiage is summarized, so that it makes sense, with this verse:
13 No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money." [Luk 16:13 ESV]
So after starting this session reading through my notes from the previous two years, and thinking I was really starting to understand, I read it this year and find these phrases that do not in any way fit my "learned" interpretation of this parable.  So difficult for me.

Starting in 15, Luke has been retelling parables that Jesus told.  This chapter opens with the parable of the dishonest manager.  I have not heard it called this before, and I have not and do not understand it.  It seems to contradict itself.  A dishonest manager, on learning that he is to be fired, goes and "forgives" debt that hasn't been paid.  He does this to curry favor toward himself from those forgiven the debts.  They thank the dishonest manager and provide for him after he is dismissed because he allowed dishonesty about how much they owed his former master.  
Question 1 I guess is whether or not the master ever figured out that the manager had even done this?  Perhaps that master was so out of touch he didn't even know what he was owed?  (2020- vs 8 says the master not only knew, but commended the manager for his shrewd actions.)  Perhaps this master represents the world and material wealth.  Second, the manager is enticing the debtors to enter into a conspiracy to defraud the master.  They are participating in the same crime.  The manager is too lazy to work, and too arrogant to beg.  So...there seems to be nothing about the manager that we should admire.  This parable is like a late 60's movie where even the hero is an anti-hero that is impossible to support.  
MSB says the manager in this parable is like the prodigal son in that he wasted the resources he was managing, but unlike the prodigal, he managed to provide resources for himself against a future time when his wastefulness came home to roost.  MSB says the master's warning that he was going to dismiss this manager was unwise, possibly owing to the master believing his servant was incompetent rather than criminally neglectful.  
MSB says the master's compliment to the fired manager about his shrewdness shows that the master too was corrupt, and couldn't help but admire the shrewd though self-serving genius of his former manager.  As I said, so MSB says:  "...all the characters in this parable are unjust, unscrupulous, and corrupt."  So my question is still...what are we to learn from it???  Perhaps this from MSB:  Most unbelievers are wiser in the ways of the world than believers are in things of God.  But if this means we are to be wiser in the things of God, doesn't it imply that we're doing so to gain criminal advantage?  I will not put God in a position of being duped by me or by anyone else!  That cannot be right!
MSB has still another paragraph...and it does not help.  It implies that we need to "cultivate" friends that will await us in heaven as this man, in and of  the world, used the worlds ways to cultivate friends that would support him in the future.  We are to use God's ways to cultivate friends to support us in heaven?  In what way will they support us?  Are there any other verses or parables that even imply that we should do this?  I don't think this is the right interpretation of the parable.  I think it is about something else entirely.  Moving on....

Ah.  Here it is.  I guess I think like a Pharisee.  In vss 14-17 there is an exchange between the Pharisees who ridicule Jesus because of this parable and Jesus' response to that ridicule.  Jesus contrasts the efforts of Pharisees to justify themselves before men - as shrewd in business, brilliant in management, and long on foresight - even by dishonest means - and the justification of believers as pleasing to God, and faithful in kingdom business, looking to their position in the eternity that is the hereafter instead of focusing only on their comfort in this world.  So the Pharisees maneuver politically and financially to outwit, usurp, and surpass their masters, and they admire each other for the success of their plotting.  They plot to unseat or surpass or even cheat their own masters to give themselves advantage in the hierarchy.  This is the focus of their lives.  All these things are mistaken.  They forget that what really matters, what really lasts, is eternity, and though brilliant in earthly things, they are making no provision at all for themselves in the the kingdom of God.  This parable describes only the ways common and admired by the Pharisees, things that are - per vs 15 - abomination in the sight of God.  There is no hero in the story, just one more successful and shrewd at unrighteousness than the unrighteous man he serves.  Both are missing the entire point.  AND, the manager in this parable never repents of the evil of mismanagement and arrogance and pride as the prodigal son in the previous parable did.  To forsake the ways and pleasures of the world, to humble oneself as no Pharisee would ever do, is more acceptable in the kingdom, more admired in the kingdom, than this so-called shrewd manager.  The prodigal son is the hero of the two parables.  They are in fact related.
2021 - Jesus has switched audiences.  That parable was for his disciples, but now the Pharisees - maybe listening though not addressed? - ridicule Jesus.  Apparently they ridicule him about the parables he's just told, up to and including the dishonest manager.  So they understand what he's saying?  No...parables were only for those who have ears...yet the Pharisees did often seem to know that the parables were directed at them, and condemning of them.  So maybe still the right track...Jesus is tearing down their castle built on materialism as the key indicator before men of personal righteousness.  This is why they made such a show of their giving.  The fact that they "had so much" was in their eyes proof of their righteousness!  In vs 15 they justify themselves before men.  Jesus says they have missed the point.

2020 - I think maybe this strange parable fits just exactly the way the others did.  These Pharisees see worldly success as an indicator of sinlessness.  (I can't be right about this, no one has ever preached it this way that I know of.)  So the more successful they are at one-upping each other in matters of wealth, the more it means they are nearer perfection than the ones they out foxed.  

(2021 - In the same way that they saw the lame, deaf, and demon possessed as obvious sinners, else they would not be in such straights, perhaps they see material, worldly success as an indicator of how favored by God they are.  And if cheating gets them ahead, rather than getting them punished, then it must be ok to cheat.  After all, God is "rewarding" it with worldly blessings.  But we know from previous illustrations that people are not blind because they are sinners.  They are blind so that God can show mercy and heal, and as a testament to the authority of Christ on earth.  Disease and disfigurement was not generally about sin.  Surely sometimes our distress is about sin - the Corinthians who abused the Lord's Supper for instance, and some died because of it - but it was not the general rule.  Perhaps that is the contrast here.  Material success doesn't say any more about one's righteousness than being blind says about one's sinfulness.  The Pharisees cannot seem to separate the worldly from the spiritual.  Hmm...Finally I may be onto something with this parable.)

Perhaps the Pharisees have completely changed the "evaluation" of dedication to God from what goes on in the heart to what goes on in the bank account.  He goes on to say that those unfaithful in little things will never be trusted with big things.  Those who cannot make sense of The Law and the Prophets are not going to be given insight into the New Covenant.  This does seem to corroborate that the Pharisees have turned the Law on it's head, and are using it to prove they are sinless instead of understanding that its purpose is to show how impossibly imperfect all men must be.  So upside down that they admire the self-serving, cheating corrupt manager who outsmarts his own corrupt master - they admire the one who thinks only of himself, only of "promoting" himself, only of gaining for himself a better seat at the banquet....than of repentance of heart, of squelching his self-praise, of growing in the things of the kingdom instead of growing in the things of the world.  This parable too is contrasting the current "world view" of the Pharisees with what Jesus says that view should be.  vs 8b says the sons of this world are more shrewd - so the shrewd manager is most certainly not acting as a son of light, just the opposite - but he is admired for his cunning by the masters.  Jesus is saying this way of thinking is not kingdom thinking, that those who would admire such a manager have no part in the kingdom.
This verse:
11 If then you have not been faithful in the unrighteous wealth, who will entrust to you the true riches? [Luk 16:11 ESV]  So direct and simple.  So profound.  If you're cheating each other with something as base and crass and worldly as money, why would anyone trust you with anything really valuable - like the New Covenant.  Jesus is again saying "You guys are so far off the track that God isn't even going to try and salvage you.  It is because he knew guys like you were coming that the punishment of Israel is double!"
This is all corroborated by vs 14:
14 The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things, and they ridiculed him. [Luk 16:14 ESV]  They were lovers of money.  And hearing the truth but being unable to assimilate it, they ridicule the source.  They don't argue that they aren't that way, they are concretely sure that being that way is the right way.  So they ridicule the speaker, rather than defending their attitudes.  Just before this came the 'no one can serve two masters" verse.  The Pharisees have made wealth acquisition more important than spiritual acquisition.  

(2021 - No...they have made them equivalent.  They have made the former an indicator of the second.  They have it completely reversed.  I wonder...the Pharisees arose during the intertestamentary period.  There were none when Micah prophesied.  But it seems like this one group has appropriated the entire Jewish faith and perverted it to their own ends.  They usurped tradition and the grounding of all principal in the word and said instead that the old words were stagnant and no longer relevant to these modern times.  How is that not exactly what's going on these days with Nietzsche, Jung, and the "power based" philosophies of our time.  Get the names of these for crying out loud, and learn how to oppose them!)

(2021 - Those who have so corrupted the gospel, who have appropriated the Law to themselves, now go out and tell others that they really don't have to meet the strict requirements of the Law.  Here, accept our leadership, our position, our knowledge as truer than God's word, and we will cut you some slack, we will credit your bill, and you don't have to do anything but admire us and pay homage to us, and tell us how great we are.  This is what it meant when the master actually complimented the bad manager for his craftiness.  He had won honor for himself and given away nothing that was his own.  The master had likely gotten rich by such sleight of hand - or wished he had - and so he admired the manager.  

So if all this is right, then what does this mean:  9 And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous wealth, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal dwellings. [Luk 16:9 ESV]
Looked up "dwellings".  In Greek, it means tent, or tabernacle.  And eternal tent.  Sarcasm?  Eternal tents?  Note that the verse is very clear that unrighteous wealth WILL fail.  And these Pharisees, by  crediting the bills of the debtors, make friends by these favors.  That's the worldly thing.  But spiritually, it is about the Pharisees trying to run an end around the Law, put themselves in God's place, and make "converts to themselves" by lowering the standard of the Law.  But they are still missing the point of the Law, which is that they are corrupt and can never pay that bill, and the converts - the friends - that they make by undermining the Law, will be waiting for them in hell when their corruptions comes to light.  Ok.  If this explains vs 9, then I think I have it.  )

So...are we still on self-aggrandizement, or is this now a separate and further failure of the Pharisees.  They love themselves, when they should instead love others, and thy love money, when they should instead love others.  This might be the better way to understand it.  We will see where it goes from here....this verse comes soon after:
15 And he said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God. [Luk 16:15 ESV]  Still about hearts.  Their view of what is important is abomination.  They have the law upside down, completely corrupted.

Verse 16 comes after this parable about worldly focus and before the story of the rich man and Lazarus.  I have never been able to see the connection.  2020 - Maybe this is about the revelation in the NT of the whole point of the law and the prophets.  They pointed at Jesus.  And these things - only darkly understood previously - will now be fulfilled, as in not one single prophecy will be wrong.  This fulfillment is being proclaimed loudly, backed up with miracles never seen or imagined, that people might be saved.  The Law is not being thrown out, but fulfilled, now, and the time of the Pharisees will be gone.  They won't be needed at all anymore.  
2021 - Or is Jesus making the Law equivalent to the unrighteous wealth, and the true riches of the New Covenant?  The Law was given to condemn men for their innate corruption and sin.  The Pharisees have "made a way" to be perfect before that law.  And the proof of it is their wealth.  They have made a way to stand before the Law as righteous perfect men.  They have therefore not been faithful in unrighteous wealth.  If the heart is right, one can obey the Law in an acceptable way.  But if the heart is wrong - as with Pharisees - the righteousness can be "given away" by the Dishonest Managers (Pharisees!!!) who are overseeing their master's wealth - the Law - by corrupting the rules, doing favors for the undeserving who are most like themselves in the condition of their hearts, and so tying them all to the lesser fortunes instead of seeing the better thing - the New Covenant.  This may finally be the key!!!!  This is who is who in the Parable of the Dishonest Manager.  The Pharisees are the corrupt serving the corrupt.  

18 "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. [Luk 16:18 ESV]
Maybe vss 16 and 17 should be moved down here to the section on divorce.  Jesus says in 16 that the law and prophets were until John.  John the Baptist is in view.  The old covenant, the old way of doing things, was in force until John.  But since John, the kingdom is preached.  A radical new covenant violently overturning the old covenant.  And yet, the rules of the old covenant do not go away.  Just because the sacrificial and Levitical laws were part of the old covenant, and sacrifices had to be made to get forgiveness - or at least to extend the debt sin incurred under that covenant - doesn't mean the new covenant changes what constitutes sin, nor does it release anyone of the consequences of that sin.  The law doesn't change, even the law about divorce!  2020 - This still seems like a very odd place to put this verse.

Then the story of the rich man and Lazarus.  Hmm...the prodigal, the manager, and now the rich man.  One character in each is very wealthy.  In the first, one obtains wealth from the wealthy, squanders it, and repents after seeing the error he has made.  In the second, the one who is not wealthy comes up with a deceitful way to live as if he is wealthy.  And now, in the third, the one who is not wealthy has not rebelled, has not connived, and dies in his poverty.  But in the hereafter, where it all really matters, this last man of the three is wealthiest of all, and for eternity.
I do hope that the part about those who get good things on earth are doomed to bad ones in eternity and vice versa is a bit less than literal.  Jesus was buried in a rich man's tomb.  A rich man who loved Jesus.  The divider between those who have easy lives here and bad there, or easy here, yet a place in heaven, might be the works.  The works tell what is on the inside.  The works are symptoms either of a good heart or a bad, a future in heaven or in hell.  Kings of Israel will be in heaven.  Surely they had plenty on earth, position and power both, and that did not preclude them from heaven.

2020 - I think these three are all about the heart.  And...about this world view the Pharisees had that success indicates God's favor, and worldly failure indicates God's disdain.  
(2021 - This previous sentence tells me I was on the right track last year, but didn't clearly see it.  All three of these parables could be showing the error, the abomination, of judging ones spiritual condition by the bottom line of one's bank account.  Total complete error.)  
The Pharisees would have seen Lazarus as a terrible sinner - else why would he be poor and have sores on him and have dogs tongues for medicine?  That rich man, dining sumptuously, would have been their role model.  God was truly blessing the rich man.  But it does not turn out to be so.  Jesus tells them they are 180 degrees in the wrong.  Hmm...their role model in the dishonest manager was the dishonest manager.  Their role model in the Prodigal would probably have been the son who stayed home.  This contrast that I have never seen before, this indictment of the Pharisees as worldly-centered while espousing Moses and the Prophets...this permeating hypocrisy that characterized all aspects of their lives...even to divorcing on a whim...  How have I missed that before?  Is this all in here so we may see the righteousness of God in blinding the Jews from recognizing Jesus?  

2022 Addendum - Rummage preached on this today.  I think maybe I have a better idea of what it means...though it is not at all what Rummage said.
Let's start here - at the end:
11 If then you have not been faithful in the unrighteous wealth, who will entrust to you the true riches? 12 And if you have not been faithful in that which is another's, who will give you that which is your own? [Luk 16:11-12 ESV].
Jesus uses "money" to represent the Old Covenant in the Law.  The true riches are the New Covenant - not obtained by sacrifice, ritual, and feast days, but into the heart.  The New Covenant is individual, not deriving from any priesthood - any "master".  The Jewish religious elite are the "caretakers" of the old money - the Law that was handed down to them from Moses.  The Pharisees, specifically, have corrupted/perverted/polluted that "money" they were invested with and used it to increase the indebtedness of the people they are supposed to serve to the point that only the very special Pharisees can have any real hope of heaven.  ALL are indebted to the Pharisees.  All the rank and file Jews are burdened down with their debts.  In the story, the bad manager corresponds to the disciples to whom Jesus is speaking.  The New Covenant removes the old indebtedness of the Law in great measure.  This endears those who were indebted to the Old Covenant to the preachers of the New Covenant.  By preaching the freedom found in the gospel, in the New Covenant, and releasing the debtors to the Law, the disciples lay up for themselves friends in heaven, who forever "owe" them for their freedom in Christ.
The Pharisees in particular, and the Jewish religious elite in general have not been faithful in the older, less perfect way.  They have messed that up.  Why in the world would the new covenant be entrusted to them for distribution.  
It is only with this kind of interpretation that this verse makes sense:
9 And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous wealth, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal dwellings. [Luk 16:9 ESV].  Unrighteous wealth is favor gained by "releasing" people from their debt to the old covenant.  As Judaism fails over that next 40 years or so until 70 AD, more and more would/could/should turn with favor to those who preach the new covenant.
2023 - So...I like the 2022 addendum above.  I think I am on the right track.  In the parable, to be faithful in little could mean being faithful in the things of the world - in money.  If you cannot be trusted to deal with the things of this world, how can you be in charge of what it truly important - which is the Law first, and now the New Covenant.  The Pharisees, who love money as we are told in vs 14, cheat, steal and lie with money.  And they are so in love with it that they admire those who by hook or crook obtain more of it...or the trappings of it.  Since the Pharisees are doing such a poor job of "preaching" the Law, they are not about to be trusted with the New Covenant.  There will be no priests in the New Covenant, but every man will need to provide for himself and not be in any way dependent on "masters", because poor masters, as corrupt as they themselves are, can kick you out for their own reasons at any time, they can "promote" the biggest cheaters instead of the most honest managers - it is all arbitrary.  All that sounds fine...but then I need to know what is meant by this:  9 And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous wealth, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal dwellings. [Luk 16:9 ESV].  As I am interpreting, it means we ought to make friends of those who are "skilled" at the less important things of this world, of those who control those things, so that if something takes away your little piece of the pie, you still an "in" that will keep food on your table.  And I have a real hard time thinking Jesus is saying that.  Play their game so that you never lose so badly you get kicked out of their game?  Doesn't seem right.  This is a truly difficult parable.
2023 - Vs 15 says that being successful in the things of this world is being successful in things that are an abomination to God.  Gaining the respect of men because you are a great and learned and very rich Pharisee - with a dark heart - makes you abominable to God.  

Chapter 17
In this chapter, we start with "And he said to his disciples..."   Last chapter started the same way.  So all these parables are to help Jesus' disciples see and understand the "rampant corruption" of the Pharisees. But it is in parables, so again, only those whom God had chosen to carry through rather than send to hell, can understand.
Don't cause others to sin.  A millstone and a drowning are better for you than tempting away little ones.

2022 - We just finished the Dishonest Manager, and the Rich Man and Lazarus.  The future of the Pharisees - or more generally of the religious elite and the strategy they will adopt to remain elite, and then we see that for those focused only on this world and its pleasures, even one rising from the dead will be insufficient to get their attention.  It is not only Pharisees who have this problem.  

2021 - These verses:  1 And he said to his disciples, "Temptations to sin are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come! 2 It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin. [Luk 17:1-2 ESV]  Is this about liquor store owners?  Maybe not all of them, but certainly about those who sell to minors on the sly.  Is it about marijuana dispensaries?  I'd say about 99% of it is.  There aren't that many legitimate medical uses for marijuana, but they'll sell it to you for just about anything.  Is it about Palestinian, Iranian, and Syrian parents raising their kids with songs of hatred toward all Israel.  Most certainly.  100%.  Woe to them.  Now this might be in interesting FB post.  Later.  No, I don't think this is about liquor stores and marijuana dispensaries.  I think this is about more subtle goings on.

2022 - Is this a warning against false teaching?  vss 1-4 say be careful of sine, because it will still be sin even if you are taught falsely.  And it will be worse for those who lead you astray - into heresy, into trusting in men instead of God, or trusting in your own works instead of the sovereignty of God.  But it will also be bad for you because you listened.  It could be this, coming as it does after the dishonest manager, which I now see as a preemption of where teh Pharisees are going to go.  Vs 3 says "Pay attention to yourselves..." so where sin is concerned, it is not just the one through whom temptation came that is at fault.  Perhaps vss 3 and 4 are about not needing Pharisees to tell you when you're wrong.  Police each other, you do not need an overseeing elitist sect of super preachers to follow.

9 Does he thank the servant because he did what was commanded? 10 So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.'" [Luk 17:9-10 ESV]
Unworthy servants?  I don't know why unworthy is in there.  This is about the servant who finishes plowing, and yet is expected to prepare dinner for his master when he gets done, and only after the master has eaten can this servant who already worked all day eat.  This is how it is.  No one would expect the servant to be treated as if he has earned the right to eat first.  He is a servant.  He has a place.  Social Justice does not enter into it.  Likewise, our work - even good work for the kingdom - earns no special favor from God.  As His servants, we do what our position requires of us.   Good one for FB I think.

There is a break in vs 11.  We change from a recounting of parables - which I see now have a common theme - back to a historical narrative of Jesus' journey to Jerusalem.  We have the cleansing of 10 lepers.  This:  17 Then Jesus answered, "Were not ten cleansed? Where are the nine? 18 Was no one found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?" [Luk 17:17-18 ESV]  God blesses the evil and the good.  Being blessed by God, a seeming answered prayer, does not mean that God has decided you are worthy of heaven.  He blesses all, at times, because he is a merciful God.  Only this one leper who understood where the blessing came from, and that he didn't really deserve the blessing, and was so thankful for it that he came and fell at the feet of the source of that blessing, who gets into heaven.  Note that Jesus says his faith made him well.  This one had faith.  

These vss:
20 Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, "The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed, 21 nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you." [Luk 17:20-21 ESV]
I think this is about the age of the Gentiles, the age of the church.  The church is neither geographic nor tangible.  It has no capital city.  It is a spiritual thing, made up of believers all over the world.  This is the Kingdom of God.
2021 - Not observable.  A spiritual kingdom.  This is where the whole thing about the kingdom of God being present now comes from.  Jesus says "It's not coming....", so it is still in the future when Jesus speaks of it here.  But then he says it "...is in the midst of you." which seems to be present tense.  Interlinear says that both verbs are the same in Greek.  They are not the same word, but both are 3rd person singular present active indicative verbs.  They are the same tense in Greek, though one is future and the other present as translated.  Reading the definitions, they both denote statements of fact, but not necessarily when the "fact" happened.  Just that it is real.  There is a kingdom of God.  But from these verses, we cannot read too awfully much into when it is coming.  As in we cannot say from these verses that the Kingdom of God was not already there when Jesus spoke these words.
2022 - In vs 20, the question is asked by the Pharisees.  In vs 22 Jesus seems to be talking only to his disciples.  It is like he answers the Pharisees one way, because their questions are not seeking knowledge and understanding, but an attempt at entrapment.  But after his disciples hear his answer to the Pharisees, he tells his own what they need to know on the subject.  There is a contrast in Jesus' answers, depending on the motives of the questioners.
2022 - So to the Pharisees, he says you won't even know it is here.  Because it is already here and you don't see it.  It is a spiritual kingdom that will be in place until the age of the Gentiles is fulfilled.  The saved, the chosen, the elect, those "in Christ" already see it and know that it is here.  After the coming of the Holy Spirit - only to those who believe in Christ, not to those who deem themselves perfect under the Law - the Kingdom will grow and spread all over the world.  You you Pharisees, you will be blind to its appearance.


The kingdom will come unexpectedly - that is, the day of the Son of Man will be unexpected.  There won't be a progression of historic events pointing like a finger at the day of the Son of Man.  For the most part, it will be a complete shock and surprise.  The world will be completely unconcerned as to whether the end is near.  Just as they were unconcerned in Noah's day, just as the residents of Sodom took no notice of Lot's departure.  (2021 - Hmm, like the rapture isn't it?)
2021 - vss 22-25, Seems to start off saying that in the future, there will be false Christs, and many will follow them.  But the disciples are not to believe it, because when Christ appears again, it will be unmistakable.  You won't need anyone to tell you Christ has reappeared.  "...in his day..." seems to be referring to one event, and I think that event is the reappearance of Christ as Conquering King.  I don't think we are talking about 70 AD here, nor about the rapture.  Vs 25 says he will be rejected by this generation, and we know it was "this generation" that wouldn't not die until not one stone was left on another.  

2022  - Then to his disciples...Vss 22-24, the time is coming when you will want me back.  You will seek my physical presence.  And because of that yearning, fakes will arise and claim to be me.  But they are fake, and you will know because when I come back it will be obvious that it is me.  There will be no doubt anywhere.  This is about the second coming.  This is about the Kingdom of Christ on the earth.  This is about the Millennial Reign, and Jesus victorious return to set that up.  So...a contrast between the Spiritual Kingdom of God - and why wouldn't it be sprititual.  God is spirit and must be worshipped in spirit and truth.  But the Millennial Kingdom is Christ as King on earth, and about the Abrahamic covenants, and so is a physical Kingdom.  So...there is a Kingdom of God now, and there will be a Kingdom of Christ - of the Son of Man - in the future.

2022 - vs 25, "But first...".  Jesus tells them that his kingdom won't be in their lifetimes.  In their lifetimes he is going to suffer.  

2021 - vs 26, As in the days of Noah.  Who all uses this phrase in the NT?  It is used here and in Matthew 24.  So we can tie at least some of Luke 17 directly to Matthew 24.  In Matthew 24, the days of Noah phrase follows "no one knows the day or the hour".  I don't think this can possibly apply to 70 AD.  I think in Matthew, and by extension here in Luke 17, we are talking about the establishment of the earthly kingdom of Christ, when he returns as conquering king.  A physical factual event.
2022 - Vss 26-30 are about what it will be like when the Son of Man returns.  It will be on "a day".  An appointed and specific day.  As the rain started on the day Noah entered the ark, as the fire came down on Sodom the very day - within hours - of Lot's departure, that is how Jesus will reappear.  And it has been 2000 years, and we just go on with a very low expectation of his appearance.  Even in those end times it is clear that Jesus' physical return will be unexpected.
2021 - vs 31, if you're on the housetop, don't come down.  NOT about the rapture, but about Christ with his armies taking over.  This is not about 70 AD either.  This is about the end of the world.  Vs 32 I think confirms it.  Remember Lot's wife.  As the final destruction of Sodom takes place, instead hurrying away and leaving that place behind, she looked back - perhaps turned back and walked into the zone of destruction, and so was destroyed with Sodom.  When Christ comes to destroy the Kingdom of Satan established through Antichrist, you do not want to be anywhere near there.  When you see them assembling, flee!  Get away from the battle zone.  But this is about tribulation's end and establishment of the Millennial kingdom.

2022 - Think about this...if this was about the rapture, why it say not to come down from the housetop?  Why not?  When the rapture comes, our departure is imminent and unstoppable.  It will be in the twinkle of an eye.  51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. [1Co 15:51-52 ESV].  There won't be any decision making involved at the rapture.  We won't decide where to go and stand until our turn comes.  This will be instantaneous.  So in this passage, this stuff about the housetops and the fields is NOT about the rapture at all.  NOT AT ALL!!!  Look at this confirming verse:  33 Whoever seeks to preserve his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will keep it. [Luk 17:33 ESV].  How can this be about the rapture?  It will be far too late to do any preserving and losing at the rapture.  

2021 - But how do the two in one bed, and the two grinding enter into it?  They will react differently to events?  One is about night, the other about day.  This is about an interval of time, not about an instant.  Some will recognize it, some will not.  Those who do not will end up casualties of war.  I think we usually see this backwards, as if the one taken is the better off.  There is certainly more to the word "taken" than we usually notice.  It is the Greek "paralambano".  Obviously a compound word.  Left is translated "leave" more than it is translated left.  What if we read it "one will be captured, the other will leave".  That would make this about separation by personal choice, not by rapture.  Wow.  This needs to go in with the Matthew 24 notes, because there are so many ties between them, and so much more information on which to discern the time we are talking about.

2022 - This is about the battle.  When the Son of Man reappears, there will be war.  Sides will be chosen.  Enemies will be captured.  As the battle lines are drawn, as you see the forces of the Antichrist begin to mobilize, do not go near them.  If they think you are on the Lord's side, if you do not have the mark, they will take you away lest you fight against them.  Get out of camp, as Noah got in the ark and left everything behind, as Lot ran away from Sodom, leaving all he'd ever known, when the Son of Man appears, you need to get out of the condemned area.  It is unlikely that we are talking about the current city of Jerusalem, but about the city Antichrist will build, or  about the place he will choose as his capital city.  It is about a place, because that is what we see in vs 37:  Where the corpse is...  So at the battleground.  Do not be there.  Get out of there.

In the case of Noah, and of Lot, there was ample opportunity to prepare for the destruction about to take place.  Noah did prepare.  So did Lot.  Both removed themselves from disaster.  Noah had time to prepare, and provisioned for the animals.  Lot had almost no time, and grabbed what he could and got out.  But when the day of the Son of Man comes, there won't be any time to prepare.  We have already been warned that it is coming, and that it could be any second.  Those who recognize it when it comes will just be gone.  And those left will be out of options.
NO!  Wait a sec.  This (Lk 17:31-37) is not about the rapture.  This is about Jesus coming as Conquering King and defeating the armies of Anti-Christ.  That is going to be a monstrous battle here on earth.  Jesus is saying that if you are in the "war zone" when this battle begins, you better not look back.  Don't be in enemy territory when hostilities commence.  Get out!  There will be two in bed - which means night time, and two grinding - which means day time.  The rapture will be instantaneous.  All over every where in a millisecond.  THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE RAPTURE!  If we believe that the church is raptured out at the beginning, and that this battle is not until the end of Great Trib, then this warning is to those left, who have been saved SINCE the rapture.  They need to get out before Christ appears.  They need to separate themselves and so live into the beginning of the Millennial reign.  That is why vs 37 is about vultures and corpses.  It reads like this:
37 And they said to him, "Where, Lord?" He said to them, "Where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather." [Luk 17:37 ESV]
The "where" refers to where this battle will take place, and though not specific, the picture is of widespread death and destruction.
(2021 - Not so sure the listeners recognized this as a coming battle.  Perhaps they are asking where Christ will appear.  And his answer says, the place I appear as conquering king will be littered with the bodies of the followers of The Beast.   You'll know where I appear, after the fact at least, because there will be many dead there.  Hmm...Sure seems to make good sense.)

If this is so in this place, then surely Matthew 24 is describing this same scene.  I need to look at that again...

2020 - I had forgotten about this.  Reading it again this year, I think even more that this is on target.  The establishment of the earthly kingdom of Christ is what is in view.  That will be the battle at the end of Great Tribulation.  This battle is going to come together very suddenly, but obviously.  People will see the armies beginning to gather.  Get out of the war zone at that time.  This message is to the Jews who will have come home during Trib and Great Trib.  To those in whom the promises to Abraham will come to pass.  They need to get out of the way, because it is all going to happen very quickly once it starts.  I still want to compare this in Luke to the similar wording in Matthew 24.  This should put some brackets around what Jesus says there, as to the time he is talking about, and as to the question he is answering when he says this.  ...the next day...I notice that my Harmony does not put Luke 17 together with Matthew 24 at all.  It seems Jesus said these things - these very same things - on two occasions.

Chapter 18
The chapter begins with a parable.  (2022 - A better way to look at it might be that 18 continues the parables.)  The parable of the persistent widow.  The ESV wording is interesting:
1 And he told them a parable to the effect that they ought always to pray and not lose heart. [Luk 18:1 ESV]
Don't lose heart.  No matter what the prayer, no matter how long the delay.  
Don't     lose     heart!

2022 - The interpretation of this parable comes in advance.  That is unusual.

2020 - So Luke tells us precisely what this parable is about.  And the point is that even a dishonest judge will dispense justice to one who can do him no good, if pestered persistently enough.  But this doesn't seem to be about just any kind of prayer.  This verse:
7 And will not God give justice to his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them? [Luk 18:7 ESV]  This says it is about justice.  Wouldn't this be about those who have wronged us, or about rioters, and lawbreakers, and looters.  Is this about praying persistently to God that He will give us justice toward such in this world?  Or am I dividing things down too far?  Getting Pharisaical in restricting what is being said?  Maybe better to say that at the very least, this is about seeking God's justice toward those who do us wrong.  It is at least that.  It would be worthwhile to compare other gospel writer's versions of this same parable...if any others cover it.  ...Checked.  Only Luke relates this parable.  At this point, I do not see this parable as a continuation of what Jesus was telling them about coming events.  From here we move to another parable about prayer.  Seems better to consider this a new section, not a continuation.

Reading on, this widow had an adversary.  She was being cheated, probably daily, by this adversary.  All she wanted was justice.  To be relieved of the burden of this person who daily injured her.  The judge knows she is right, he knows her story is true, he knows it is her adversary that is in the wrong.  But she is a lowly person, and helping her in no way benefits this corrupt judge.  There is no bribe offered to him for dispensing justice.  But somehow, she pesters him regularly enough that he decides a little peace and quiet is worth doing the right thing even if there isn't a bribe.  
So...is the point of this to pray with persistence for a new car and we'll get it?  I hardly see where driving an old one is unjust.  There might be other places that discuss praying for luxury in this life, for "extra" in this life, but I don't think that's what this particular passage is about.  This parable ends with this verse:
8 I tell you, he will give justice to them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?" [Luk 18:8 ESV]  What is this last little phrase about ?  Will he find faith on earth?  When the Son of Man comes?  Is that about the time when Jesus was talking, or about the second coming?  Seems more likely he was talking about the first advent.  He is encouraging them to pray, but then noting that few had real faith at that time.  2020 - Either that, or that last little phrase ties us back to the coming of the Son of Man in the previous chapter.  It ends with the things going on when the Son of Man returns, and this little parable ends with "what will the Son of Man find when he returns".  Surely the Antichrist will be pouring out injustice like water against the returned Jews just before the Son of Man returns.  Surely they should be praying for justice, for the annihilation even of Antichrist at that time.  Or maybe Jesus is telling them to pray for justice persistently even during Great Tribulation?  When it seems they can't expect justice from any earthly quarter?  Pray for it even then.  2021 - MSB note says this last phrase ties in with "the days of Noah", so a reference to the second coming.  Even though the prayers of the faithful for justice are answered, there will be fewer and fewer who pray.  More and more of the world is going to be lost.  The church is in a losing battle for the salvation of mankind.  We are to fight desperately, but we will lose.  Heartbreaking.  No matter how faithful a generation might be, the next will be less, then less, then less again, until almost none.  And none will care.  As they didn't care until the first drops of rain fell in Noah's day.  There will always be hatred of the saved, but in the main what we get is indifference.  People just won't care about God, won't give him the time of day.  And anyone who suggests that people ought to think about God becomes a lightning rod for those who hate, or brings out the hatred that exists in all who love the world instead.  The verse doesn't say those who love the world are indifferent to Christ.  It says they hate him.  This is where it is all heading.

2022 - This is the second time that the "hero" of the parable has been an anti-hero.  This judge in this parable is corrupt.  He is out only for himself.  Yet at the end, Jesus uses this antihero as a comparison and a contrast at the same time, in order to amplify the confidence we ought to have when we pray.  Even BAD judges will dispense justice of pressed hard enough.  But God needs little pressing, and will respond quickly to prayers for justice.  Maybe I ought to go back and look at the bad manager's master as the antihero of that parable, rather than the manager himself being the antihero?  Both were corrupt, but what if I look at it from the master being comparison and contrast to God?  
Hmmm...What if the idea in the bad manager is that he represents Gentiles?  God's promises are to Abraham and his seed.  The Gentiles get nothing.  But God warns the Gentiles that they are in danger of hell.  He gives us a change to "weasel" our way into heaven, but we can only do that by "usurping" the promises God has already made to the Jews.  While they are blinded - during the church age - we are "collecting" what would have been theirs.  And God is "ok" with our doing so, he compliments us for doing so.
2022 - That last phrase - will he find faith on earth...The second advent is after the rapture.  At the rapture, all the saved on earth will have been removed.  I believe that the door for the Gentiles will be mostly shut at that time, and the door for the Jews will open.  Their blindness will be completely removed. And so this phrase is Jesus saying that in that day, opportunity for salvation will abound, but will the Jews go through the door?  Their history on this matter is not very promising.

The Pharisee and the Tax Collector.  
2021 - Starts like this:
9 He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: [Luk 18:9 ESV]  Interesting that this is two times now that Luke has "previewed" the parable to help us understand it as it unfolds, rather than telling us afterward what it was about.  This is about those who think themselves righteous because of their own efforts.  We could put Catholics into this category today, certainly those who lived by perfectly obeying the law and making their sacrifices on time were in view in Jesus' time, and I can't help but think of Islam today, where only the best of the best of the best get to go into the top level of heaven.  Works.  This is about the arrogance of thinking you can save yourself.  Three largest religions - by headcount - Islam, Judaism, Christianity.  Islam is all works.  I haven't read anything in the Quran about the heart being what's important.  Judaism perverted the Law and made the sacrifices primary rather than the heart that offered them, and Christianity has always been about the heart.  Works expected, works consequent to salvation because they're just the right thing to do, but the change of heart is what Christianity is about.  Inner, permanent sincere change.
The Pharisee lists his works, which make him, in his own eyes, more honorable in God's eyes.  The tax collector almost despised himself because of sin that he could not remove on his own.  He saw himself hanging on by the fingernails, and begged for mercy.  I am thinking that I need to work this into a testimony I can offer to Muslims.  Two men.  Jesus words, because they are allowed to hear Jesus' words.  And then let it sink in.  Need to work this out, memorize it.

2022 - Another parable with the explanation at the beginning.

Neither was very popular at that time.  The Pharisees were accepted, but they were probably not well liked.  How could they be since they were so entirely arrogant and judgemental of others.  No one wants to spend time with them unless they too want to be arrogant and judgemental.  The Tax Collectors were unpopular, and total outcasts.  They were actively openly  hated.  The difference in character was in their own perceptions of their relationship with God.  The Pharisee saw himself as an honored participant in the working of God, a big help to God, and a good man - well....at least a better man than all these "other people".  But the Tax Collector knew that he was nothing.  That he was a scab to be picked and discarded.  He knew he deserved no consideration from God.  And it is this second attitude that God requires before He will justify.  All of us sin, whether we admit it or not.  But God only forgives sin that is repented.  If our sin is not nearly as bad as that guy's sin, and we decide we don't need to change until we're the worst of the worst, we will never be forgiven, we will die in our sins.  We should repent even of the little sins.  The second helping.  the encouragement we didn't give, the judgment that we silently passed.  2020 - I see no way to tie this back to chapter 17, so likely the previous parable didn't tie back either.  These are two parables about prayer.  We need to be persistent in prayer.  We need to be humble in prayer.  The Pharisee seems to think that his "good standing" with God in comparison to others entitles him to more consideration.  Almost as if he believes God owes him answers to his prayers.  But Jesus says we need to understand that God owes us nothing, because we are sinners.  Yet he has just told us to keep praying anyway, understanding how undeserving we are, and so leading to the right thankfulness when we do get our prayers answered.
2022 - They all tie is the Pharisees represent the arrogance of the Jews and the tax collector represents Gentiles.  That ties them all together.  We Gentiles know that we are just scraping our way in, and we ought to be very grateful for it.  But the Jews believe they have a birthright to heaven and to God's special favor.  But this age we live in says that they too must humble themselves before God if they want to see heaven.

17 Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it." [Luk 18:17 ESV]  I think we've seen a similar verse before, maybe in a different gospel.  The idea is to have faith in God as a little child in his parent.  Trusting without complete understanding.  All we need understand is that God wants what is best for us, and the He can do all things.  No man can do for us the things that God can.  God can give us eternal life.  Children trust parents without question, and even when they have questions, they still trust their parents.  This is how we should trust God.

Rich young ruler, Luke 18:18-23 - Being rich is an obstacle to salvation.  This is so because the rich put their faith in their riches.  They (we?) are less dependent on God for our help because we have enough to look out for ourselves.  We "need" Him less.  At least in our minds.  It is not really so.  The problem is that money keeps our minds on this world, and our needs in this world are met by our money.  But it is of no value in the next world.  That is the need we should focus on.  In that next world, rich and poor will be irrelevant.  We should set our minds to use the value system of the next world while we are still in this one.
2021 - Note that Jesus gave him the five commandments about worldly relationships.  Adultery, stealing, killing, lying, and parents.  All about how to behave in the world.  The spiritual commandments are not listed.  And the man says he has all those worldly relationships under control.  So Jesus tells him to "sell his connection to the world" and depend only on the relationship that the man did not claim he had under control.  His spiritual relationship.  Being a good man, doing good things, treating people right...those are all good things, but they are superficial.  But this man could not, would not let go of the superficial and devote himself instead to the spiritual.  This would make a good FB post.  Will it be hypocritical for me to post it?  Here is a thought...this parable is about converting the unsaved but already rich.  It is not about those saved who become rich.  Riches to this second group are a distraction from their salvation, but riches can never remove salvation.  But if riches come first, they are quite difficult to displace.  THAT is what this is about.  Think of all the verses in Proverbs that talk about getting rich through gradual and steady accumulation and hard work and perseverance and getting out of bed, and not being lazy when it's time to plant so you won't starve when it's harvest.  Abraham was very rich.  He and lot were too rich to stay in the same country.  Isaac was rich.  Joseph was second only to Pharoah.  Talk about rich!  David, Solomon...Being rich is not a curse, and it is not something you shouldn't try for, a la Dave Ramsey.  But if you're born rich...now it is an entirely different matter.  You don't see that you're rich because God blessed you.  You don't make that connection, you think you deserve to be rich because you're worthy, and then it is beyond difficult to humble yourself before God.
2022 - Vs 18 - What is the significance of this title, "Good Teacher".  Jesus answer implies that it was a specific title reserved for...someone else.  Jesus denies that it applies to him, or to any other human really.  It is "agathos didaskolos".  In the Mark 10 recounting of this, Jesus' answer is the same.  Matthew's phrasing is just a little different though:  17 And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments." [Mat 19:17 ESV].  I still think this was a special title, perhaps reserved for God alone, and Jesus is pointing out the difference between himself and God?  Physical vs spiritual?

In vss 31-34, Jesus tells them very specifically what is going to happen when they get to Jerusalem.  These two verses:
32 For he will be delivered over to the Gentiles and will be mocked and shamefully treated and spit upon. 33 And after flogging him, they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise." [Luk 18:32-33 ESV]  This is very plain.  They should have recognized as events unfolded that what Jesus had said would happen is going along just as he said.  Most of all, there is that last phrase, that should have given them hope.  "...on the third day he will rise."  But Luke tells us in vs. 34 that the implications of what Jesus was telling them was "hidden" from them.  They were not allowed to understand the details of it, nor to "remember" it as it happened.  They would put it all together later, with the help of the risen Christ.  Perhaps they would have behaved differently had they been "conscious" of the details.  

Jesus heals a blind man at Jericho.  Jesus is getting pretty close to Jerusalem by this time.  42 And Jesus said to him, "Recover your sight; your faith has made you well." [Luk 18:42 ESV]  Sometimes Jesus healed everybody of everything.  You know they didn't all have faith.  But the point of those healings was to witness to who he was, because only one from God could do such miracles, in such quantities.  And I've noted previously that his healing of those the Pharisees considered sinners and undeserving of miracles would have played into the antagonism between Jesus and the religious elite.  But sometimes, when Jesus healed, this phrase about "your faith has..." is included.  I have wondered why it was there, and I think I finally see what this "faith" healing is about.  Faith, in sufficient quantity, can draw the attention of God to us.  Persistence, as in the parable in this very chapter, along with faith, has a strong appeal to God.  This blind man was not really part of the day's "plan".  But his constant yelling, and his true faith that Jesus could heal him and that no one else could - there is only one door to heaven, and it is Christ - caused Jesus to "stop", to turn, to grant a face to face meeting, to ask this blind beggar what could be done for him, and then Jesus granted it, not because it was part of the demonstration of his own power, but because faith sort of has its own power.  Prayers of faith can work miracles, even in the hands of mortal men, if the faith is strong enough.  And looking back at where this phrase was previously used, I think this way of looking at it may hold up in all those cases.  Going back and looking at these would be a good study....I remember the woman with the bloody issue.  Her faith did it.  And the Centurion who asked healing for his servant, Jesus did that because of faith.  And the woman who said even dogs eat from the master's table.  That was done because of her faith.  This is really starting to make sense.  And look at the results in the rest of the chapter.  Those who see healing by faith gave praise to God.  Those healed as "all were healed" just go away.  The 10 lepers...9 didn't praise God, only one did.

Chapter 19
Zacchaeus, as Jesus entered Jericho, on his last trip to Jerusalem.  
Zacchaeus, a very rich man since he is a chief tax collector, promises to give half of all he has to the poor, and to repay fourfold any he has defrauded.  So he wasn't required to give it all up.  He wasn't required to be poor.  But he did give up much - and was still rich afterwards.  And he repented and did what he could to right old wrongs, and went forward being as good as  he could.  2020 - This is also in Jericho, same place Blind Bartimaeus lived.  Luke puts Zacchaeus right after Bartimaeus.
2021 - This is the very next chapter after Jesus talks about camels through the eye of the needle.  This chapter starts with the salvation of a VERY rich man.  

The Parable of the 10 Minas.  There are two reasons given for this parable.  First, that he was near Jerusalem, and second, because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately. He had been near Jerusalem before, but this is the last time he will see it, so maybe that is the key to the first.  The second was to make clear that the kingdom would not appear immediately.  It could be invisible of course, or it could still be future.  The Millennial is still future.  
This is a difficult parable still.  The nobleman goes elsewhere to receive a kingdom.  He leaves money with three servants, and each is told to invest that money.  Each of the ten is given one mina, a pretty small amount.  We only hear the results of three of them.  Once the nobleman left to receive the kingdom, those he was leaving sent word that they hated him and didn't want him back.  These weren't the servants that sent this word, but the citizens of the place he was leaving.  So his own people hated him, he entrusted some with a bit of money and commanded them to "engage in business" until his return.  When he does return, he rewards the first two according to their success.  Not according to the works but according to the success they had.  Might be reading too much into this.  The last, who kept the mina, but did nothing at all with it - he did not work - is deprived of the mina he was given.  But...it wasn't even his.  So the surprise is not that he lost the one, but that it was given to the one who had earned 10.  MSB notes (not sure where I got the comments above...) relate that the message sent after the nobleman protesting his appointment was what had happened with Herod Archelaus.  When Archelaus had gone to Rome to "receive his kingdom - Judea", the Jews had sent a delegation to Caesar to try and stop the appointment.  It didn't work and he was appointed anyway.  He was removed, leading to Judea being ruled by Procurators, of whom Pilate was the fifth.  
So this seems a direct analogy to Jesus leaving for heaven to receive his kingdom, and then coming back at the Millennial to exercise his authority over it directly.  It is already given to him, but he does not yet exercise authority in residence.  The minas were a much smaller sum than the talents in the previous parable.  Even in something as small as minas, we are to be diligent in using what we are given for the advancement of the kingdom.  The one servant's fear of the nobleman showed craven disdainful fear, not the fear of love and respect for authority.  It is likely this servant was killed with those who hated the nobleman and sent the word to oppose him.  Those killed are like those who reject the coming king.  
2020 -Again, the question is what the minas represent.  I think they represent understanding.  Jesus was there to fulfill scripture, and to reveal the gospel to those who had ears to hear.  He was there to unfold/unravel the OT, and show that there would be a Suffering Servant AND a Conquering King.  The more we read, study, and learn, the more we understand..  It is possible to read, now and then, and have some sense of what the Bible is - of what the gospel is - without ever coming to a saving knowledge of Christ.  This is what the last servant did.  He had the jist, but he did nothing with it at all.  He made no effort.  The more effort we make, the more the return.  I think this is what the minas are about.
2022 - This verse:
15 When he returned, having received the kingdom, he ordered these servants to whom he had given the money to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by doing business. [Luk 19:15 ESV].
If this "return" symbolizes the second coming - the conquering King - then those called to account are those saved during tgt and AFTER the rapture.  This is about the pre-Millennial judgment.  This is the Sheep an Goat judgment.  It IS about what they did during the trying times of tgt.  Some, who did well, go into the Millennial Kingdom, and are rewarded according to how they "performed" during tgt.  Some get more, some get less.  Note that the one who kept his mina in a handkerchief loses that mina, but he is not punished in any way.  But his lack of effort means that he will henceforth serve others, rather than ruling over cities as a reward for his efforts.  And then it goes on to this:
27 But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.'" [Luk 19:27 ESV].  Here are the goats.  They do not get sent home.  They do not get off.  Those not saved during tgt go straight on to hell.  The sentence is carried out before the conquering king.  After all this time, the progress I've made on the judgments seems to have clarified what this is about.  It is about specific events at a specific time.  While the principle may very well be the same one utilized at the bema seat, there will be no goats at that judgment.  No one will be slaughtered after first being raptured.  That makes no sense at all.  It "fits" best when interpreted as the sheep and goat.

They move on and the two disciples are sent ahead to get the colt for Jesus to ride on.  As he comes down the Mount of Olives, there is this verse:
38 saying, "Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!" [Luk 19:38 ESV]
They are proclaiming him King.  The praises remind me of what the angels announced to the shepherds, but I looked and though the sentiment is the same, the words are not as similar as I thought.  Jesus refuses to rebuke those who are praising him, for either title they're giving him.  King and Messiah.
2020 - None of the gospels tell us which two went after the colt.  One gospel says they were to bring back both the colt and the donkey tied there with it, and it says they did bring both back.

When the city is in view, this verse:
42 saying, "Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. [Luk 19:42 ESV]
Hidden until the Millennial in my opinion.  I am no longer sure there are any saved Jews.  The descendants of Abraham are preserved, but are they also blinded?  Are the so called converted Jews of today partial descendants, but not the pure race, and so can see to some extent?  It just seems that the punishment of the Jews that began in Zedekiah's time, and then was reinforced in their rejection of God's own Son at the second punishment is very very severe.  They are blind to Jesus.  They cannot be saved while in this condition.

In vs 43, 44 we are surely seeing a prophecy of the siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD as near, and possibly the Pre-Millennial battle far:
43 For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side 44 and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation." [Luk 19:43-44 ESV]
2020 - Just absolutely must be about 70 AD.  This is how Rome did it.  And Jesus is going to say again, after leaving the temple, that not one stone will be left upon another.  If you tie that in with this verse, isn't it pretty plain that we are talking about 70 AD?  And if that's what Luke means, doesn't Matthew mean the same thing?  I believe it is called the Preterist view, and John MacA does not hold with it.  But I sure think it is how I see it.  I still need to dig deep into Matthew 24 and make sure I'm consistent about that interpretation.
The Gore video on the 70 AD siege of Jerusalem, and other videos about it too, say that after part of the city had been taken, Titus decides to just lay siege to the city and he builds a wall all the way around the city, and puts "forts" all along the wall, completely cutting off any escape from the city or any supplies going into the city.  How does that play with this verse:
43 For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side [Luk 19:43 ESV]  Luke also used the phrase here about there not being one stone left upon another in Jerusalem.  

Upon entering Jerusalem, Jesus goes and cleans the sellers out of the temple, and teaches the people, and it says the people were "hanging on his words".  With this kind of attention on him, the Pharisees and their allies dared not grab him.  Not in daylight.  They dared not incite the crowds against them as they knew their authority was already tenuous at best.

Chapter 20
(2020 - Mostly things previously covered in other gospels.)

This follows Jesus cleansing of the Temple in Jerusalem.  It starts with "One day, as Jesus was teaching the people in the temple..."  I think Luke's point is that these things he is about to relate were not necessarily just right after the cleansing of the temple, maybe not even the same day.  Maybe not even that same trip.  BUT, we know from other gospels about when it was, because this is when the angry Pharisees and temple officials want Jesus to tell them who authorized him to pass judgement on the temple merchants.  

Then the parable of the vineyard and the evil tenants that had charge of it and killed the owners son in the end.  At the end of this account, upon hearing that the owner of the vineyard will destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others, those present say "Surely not!"  This indicates that they understood Jesus to be saying that the blessing given to Israel would be taken from them and given to others.  They knew he meant a break in the covenant at least, or even a permanent change in the parties to the covenant.  They knew how big this was.  
2020 - So the parable is an expansion on the meaning of that original verse, again in Psa 118.  This "stone" is not about adding to what already exists.  The chief cornerstone is the first stone laid.  It indicates new construction.  And that is exactly how Jesus means it.  The old is taken away, the covenant is abrogated, and the Jews are out.  The "new" building is the church, and it is given to an entirely different people, and looks only to the heart.  The perfect sacrifice is behind so the church does not sacrifice.  

So Jesus makes it plain that this is not just a concept he's come up with on his own - which is how they would have, and probably did treat it - by quoting the Old Testament to them as the foundation of the parable he's just told.  He quotes Psa 118.22, about the rejected stone becoming the chief cornerstone.  This verse says they will "miss" their Messiah, and that the rejected Messiah will be the core of a new "temple" around which an entirely new religion will be built.  It isn't just a story, it is what is about to happen.

2022 - The scribes and the chief priests sought to lay hands on him at that very hour, for they perceived that he had told this parable against them, but they feared the people.  Luke 20:19 ESV.  Against them as in the religious leadership, or against the Jews as a people?  Only the leadership was offended by Jesus, not the people.  So to whom were the prophets sent?  Leadership or people?  Perhaps we should understand this as being about all Israel, as represented by the leadership.

Since they cannot take Jesus by force directly, they try to get him to "run a red light" and get himself arrested by the civil authorities whom the people fear.  Taxes to Caesar is their first attempt.  

The Sadducees ask about marriage in the resurrection.   2020 - Again. Luke's emphasis is different than that we've seen before though the question and the answer are undoubtedly the same.  Luke focuses on the answer's implication to Gentiles.  They will never die, they will be as angels, they will be sons of God.  This is "more" than was said previously.

2023 - I wonder if the use of the phrase "sons of God" in vs 36 can be related back to the OT where the sons of God came to the children of men?  I don't see how that could work, really.  Jesus is talking about physically resurrected bodies like what he has after coming back to life after the crucifixion.  No one ever had that kind of body before.  So I would say that sons of God here in this verse is a term we should look to the NT to define, and not try to tie it in with some strange things that happened in the OT.  

Who's son is Christ?

Luke describes the warning about the Pharisees in the shortened version about widow's houses, rather than the 7 point version in Matthew.  Matthew wrote to Jews, and so would put more emphasis on things said to them.  Luke does not emphasize that since he was writing to a person, and to Gentiles in general.  His emphasis is therefore very different.  

Chapter 21
Starts with the widows mites.
2021 - 1 Jesus looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the offering box, 2 and he saw a poor widow put in two small copper coins. [Luk 21:1-2 ESV]
It doesn't look like I have spent time on this little story so far.  I note that near the very end of the last chapter, where Jesus singles out the scribes - contrasted with the Pharisees - for their own condemnation, and he says they "devour widows' houses".  Then right away in this chapter, we see the story of the widow's mites.  I have always seen this presented as a story of the "best" sort of giving.  I have seen it used to recommend sacrificial giving, to the point of not having enough left after giving to pay your bills that month, and therefore an act of supreme trust for God to provide.  But when coupled with that last bit, in Luke 20, couldn't this be seen as an example of the kind of "devouring" that Jesus was talking about?  This widow was destitute, and yet compelled to give "out of her poverty".  Jesus does not call her blessed for what she is doing, but says her gift is more, because these two mites are vital to her survival while the much larger offerings of the rich won't really be missed that much.  They aren't risking hunger in order to contribute thousands, but this widow is risking that to put in her two mites.  BUT ALSO, the footnote in TCR ESV is that these copper coins - leptons - were each worth 1/128th of a denarius, which is a days pay for a laborer.  A day's pay would feed the laborer and his family for a day - and not much beyond that.  So this offering would not have fed this widow that day.  The BLB definition of lepton is a brass coin worth about 1/5th of a cent.  In other places, it talks about a penny's worth of bread, so these two coins would not even have bought her a small loaf of bread that day.  So...maybe - I think certainly - Jesus point is that in her heart, despite her poverty, she was determined to give to the treasury.  She wanted to put in something at least.  This was not going to be the difference in eating or not eating that day.  It wouldn't have bought any food anyway.  But it was perhaps all she had beyond what she needed to eat meagerly that day.  For her, even this almost valueless offering represented a lot. She gave ALL the extra she had, not just a tithe out of an abundance.  She was foregoing saving up for tomorrow and trusting God for tomorrow.  In this attitude, her offering represented great trust and sacrifice.  But it was not about starving in order to give!!!  
A very long post, but maybe I can shorten it - or reference the website in a FB post - for a perspective on this story.

2020 - I want to re-do the walk through of these verses, and update them to what I think now, a year later.  So, what is in between the ***'s is from 2019, and what follows that is 2020, and so marked.
2021 - I note this year that 21 is the last chapter before the Passover meal with the Apostles.  The last chapter in which Jesus addresses the Gentiles - speaks publicly.  In the rest, he is speaking directly to his Apostles, or he is on trial and speaking before unqualified judges, and fulfilling OT prophecy of the Messiah as suffering servant.  So these are his last words to the Gentiles.  And these words include the parallel passage to Matt 24.

******
Then this verse:
6 "As for these things that you see, the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down." [Luk 21:6 ESV]
The narrative takes a completely different direction at this point.  Things change from condemnation of the present to prophecy of the future.

In vs 7, two questions are asked by those who hear him say this about the temple:
7 And they asked him, "Teacher, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?" [Luk 21:7 ESV]
First, when will these things be, and what will be the sign that they are about to take place.  Only a subtle difference in the questions.  "When" was probably a general question.  Tomorrow?  Our generation?  A thousand years from now?  And the second question implies that they thought it was at least a ways off, because they wanted to know what to look out for, they wanted a "signal" that this prophecy was about to be fulfilled.  So a general "when" and then the observable events immediately prior to it really happening.  BUT, the key, to me at least, is that these two questions in Luke are about the one event.  The stones being un-stacked.  There is no question about the end of the age or the time of Jesus' return. So...there should only be a 1/3rd overlap with Mt 24....

Jesus answer tells them not to worry, it is going to be a while yet.  This is shown in that he tells them not to listen to those who show up saying "The time is at hand".  Also that every war that pops up is not to be interpreted as one of the signs.  He tells them not to listen to prognosticators and not to interpret the ongoing events of history as signs.  Note also that it is likely that only the apostle John lived to see 70 AD.

(((One could argue here that Jesus' answer does not refer to the physical buildings that were standing there, but to his own body.  He had just told them that he was a cornerstone, he was a building, and now he talks about some buildings being torn completely down.  Jesus had a history of sounding literal when he was speaking spiritually - as in the boat when he said bread and meant anything but bread.  In that case it should have been obvious what he was NOT talking about.  Here, I don't know...but I think we have the hindsight to see that he did mean the physical buildings of Jerusalem.)))

Verse 11 tells what the signs will be:  
11 There will be great earthquakes, and in various places famines and pestilences. And there will be terrors and great signs from heaven. [Luk 21:11 ESV]  Sixth seal is a great earthquake.  Then you have the plants and crops and water being tainted.  Terrors?  Not sure what those are about, but I wonder how often that word is used in the NT?  Or by Jesus himself?  And then the one that can't be faked, even by Lucifer himself.  Great signs from heaven.  What exactly is that referring to?  I don't think Revelation tells us that end time events kick off with a sign from heaven.  I wonder if the rapture is that sign?  I wonder if the big battle between Satan the power of the air, and the angels of God pulling the raptured through it all to heaven is the sign?

He continues in vs 12....BUT, before all this...So a lot of other things have to happen before the signs of the end show up.  Before all this comes persecution.  Lots and lots of persecution.  Civil authorities, governments will persecute Christianity.  Being arrested for His sake is to be viewed as opportunity, not as punishment, and he will give those so persecuted the very words they are to say.  It says some will be "put to death" then almost immediately says "not a hair...will perish".  Body and soul, surely.  Then "by endurance, you will gain your lives."  This sounds like trib and great trib.  The 144,000 maybe.  Will there be signs in heaven at the end of Great Trib, just before Jesus returns?  Perhaps when he comes he will dismantle the temple that exists at that time, the one used to worship Anti-Christ, and will set up a new one with himself as it's cornerstone, upon it's throne.  I mean, the wailing wall has stones on top of stones.  That is what it is.  So when Jesus said exactly specifically these words:  6 "...the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down." [Luk 21:6b ESV], how can we say his words have yet been fulfilled?  

Hmm....I just convinced myself that none of this is about 70 AD.  None of these things in Luke 21 are about 70 AD.  These are end times signs, and very possibly post Great Trib signs.  

Then this verse, signalling another change in the time he is talking about.  This starts with "But..." as vs 12 started with "But...":
20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. [Luk 21:20 ESV]
I think this was a lot nearer time.  This was coming in that generation.  Some would see it.  I think the "not one stone on another" was what they asked about, and it is what he was answering about in vss 8-19, which is the end of Great Trib.  And then he gives them some additional information beginning in vs 20.  Information not about the temple buildings but about the city of Jerusalem itself.

vs 21 give advice contrary to what the OT prophets and Revelation itself says will happen in the end times.  At the end, the Jews will all return to Jerusalem.  This tells them to get away and not look back.  This is not about the end!!!  This is about 70 AD.
vs 22 confirms it and Jesus tells them when he is talking about now:
22 for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written. [Luk 21:22 ESV]
This is God's vengeance on the city, on the sons who killed the prophets, described in Matt 23.  Though Luke doesn't emphasize it as much, surely they are talking of the same few hours in Jesus' life, and the same words spoken.  This is about judgement on Israel, NOT judgement of the whole world.  This time of judgement against Israel will continue until "the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled", and following that will come signs in the sun and moon - these are end times signs and can only come from God, and THESE  SIGNS are the signs of the end of the world and the destruction of the temple that then is...wherever it is.

This vs:
27 And then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. [Luk 21:27 ESV]
Goes right with it.  Jesus coming to establish the Millennial, NOT the rapture!  The redemption that draweth nigh is the redemption, finally, of Israel.  NOT the world.  We will be switching back to the Sinai Covenant as the New Covenant will have been fulfilled by the rapture.

This verse:
35 For it will come upon all who dwell on the face of the whole earth. [Luk 21:35 ESV]
This is about the end of Great Trib.  And it will be only Jews who see this.  The church will be out by then.  Those who stand before the Son of Man will be the Jews who survive Great Trib and proceed alive into Jerusalem and see Jesus sitting on the physical throne of David.
******

Here is the 2020 version:
Luke is writing to Gentiles.  That has been coming up a lot lately in my reading.  So that is the first thing to keep in mind here.  Here, as in Matthew, Jesus has just said the stones will be un-stacked.  That happens in 70 AD.  That does not happen in trib or great trib.  That does not happen in the Millennial.  So, if this is literal at all, then Jesus is talking about the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.  Luke only records two questions, and they are both about the same thing.  When will these stones be un-stacked, and what is the sign that says it is imminent?  That is all Luke records, and maybe that is all Luke intends to inform his readers about.  I am going to be very literal about this and assume Luke isn't going to talk about the second coming at the end of the Millennial, nor about the rapture before or early in the Tribulation.  Luke is only going to talk about the total destruction of the Temple.  Remember that half a chapter ago, Jesus talked about chief cornerstones and rebuilding.  We can surely say that the "physical marker" that the new construction was beginning was the annihilation of the most visible symbol of the old construction.  

vvs 8,9 are pretty generic.  They are more of a "what not to get excited about" introduction before the real answers come.  False prophets, doomsayers, end-of-the-world announcers - we are to ignore all these.  They don't mean it's the end.  They are irrelevant as indicators of anything but false prophets and Satan's deceptions.  Same with wars, rumors of wars, even of American Civil wars...these are not indicators, they are the normal advancement of history, the way of all men.  Jesus says "the end will not be at once".  I think he was telling them they need not go into hiding when he died, because there would be an interval before the Temple was destroyed.  

My Bible puts vvs 10-19 in their own paragraph titled "Jesus Foretells Wars and Persecution".  Luke didn't put in this paragraph break, the ESV translators did.  In the NASB, there is no break until after vs 19.  The NKJV has no paragraph breaks at all, only chapter breaks.  We should note that vs 10 begins with "Then he said to them..."  So I think it is fair to say that Luke is separating the dismissal of normal events from what is about to be said.  Luke sees this as a new paragraph.  So what does it say?

Vss 10, 11 move from a very general warning to a more emphatic prediction of coming events.  There will be conflicts/wars between nations.  People at war.  There will also be natural disasters.  Earthquakes, famine, and pestilence either as consequences of natural disasters (probably this) or as isolated events.  We surely see some of these too.  Then this last phrase:  "...there will be terrors and great signs from heaven."   It has become an axiom of mine that heaven is the realm of God and God alone.  Satan can manipulate and counterfeit and fake all kinds of things on this world and in the sky, but he can NOT do things in the heavens.   The sun going dark, stars falling, things like this are signs strictly from God and Satan cannot counterfeit these.  So...what about this word used here for heaven?  

As used here, the word translated heaven is Strong's G3772.  It is used 274 times in 256 verses in the NASB New Testament.  That is a lot of verses to look up.  So I am going on to Revelation, to see if this is the word used when then sun does turn black and so on.  BUT, as I began to look at this I found these two verses really early:  16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; 17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." [Mat 3:16-17 ESV]  Seems to me that the Holy Spirit would descend not from the sky, but from heaven itself.   God is in that third heaven, and his voice would come from there.  So these sure seem to indicate that the heaven Luke is using is the third heaven, where only God can place signs.  
Here are some from Revelation:  12 The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God. Never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name. [Rev 3:12 ESV]
1 After this I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven! And the first voice, which I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet, said, "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this." 2 At once I was in the Spirit, and behold, a throne stood in heaven, with one seated on the throne. [Rev 4:1-2 ESV]
13 and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale. 14 The sky vanished like a scroll that is being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. [Rev 6:13-14 ESV]
This is not how I wanted it to come out.  Not much doubt that we're talking about the heaven where only God works.  So we have to conclude that Luke is saying that Jesus said there would be signs from heaven before the Temple falls - that's how we have to read it if we are going to stay completely literal.  I am not aware of any such signs leading up to 70 AD.  BUT, with just a little looking I found this article:  https://www.romaneclipse.com/single-post/2017/10/10/Sword-Star-seen-over-Jerusalem-70-AD  Talks about a "sword star" that Josephus talks about over Jerusalem in 70 AD.  A sign possibly commemorated on a Roman coin minted three years later on the back of a coin showing the likeness of Titus on the front.  Titus.  The one who destroyed Jerusalem.  So let's go with that for now and say that at least one sign did appear in the heavens that only God could have put there in 70 AD.  

2021 - This sign is not referenced in the Bible specifically, but also, the Bible has no account at all of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.  John is the only apostle that wrote after that time, so far as I know, and he doesn't mention it at all, instead writing about Trib and Great Trib.  Why would John not mention it?  Next big question is whether we are going to throw out the rest of the interpretation because we don't know of any pre-70 signs from heaven?  Looked up "terrors".  Only used once in the NT, in this verse.  Just means things that cause fright.  A pretty generic term as far as I can tell.  Looked up "signs".  This word is used 77 times in the KJV.  It is always something of unique significance, setting it apart from all other things.  It is what I would call an unmistakable indicator.  I looked at all the ways Luke uses the word.  Luke first uses it at Jesus' birth, saying the "sign" will be a child wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger.  So not all signs are in heaven.  Luke also says this:    16 while others, to test him, kept seeking from him a sign from heaven. [Luk 11:16 ESV].  So in this sense, the sign would be something that only heaven's power - God's power - could bring about, without necessarily meaning that the sign was something visible in the sky.  Luke 21:11 could be using it in this sense.  He talks about the city being compassed about and that being a sign that people should flee.  Jesus predicted this and it came to pass.  So the origin of this "sign" would be heaven.  This also is a confirmation that signs from heaven preceded 70 AD, and this one does have Biblical confirmation.  In fact, this sign is specifically mentioned in vs. 20.  This is what Jesus was talking about.  He actually names the sign from heaven that they are to look for.  OH!!!  It also says sign FROM heaven, not sign IN heaven!!!  Looking ahead, as prompted by the list of Luke's use of the word "signs", we get this verse:  25 "And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth distress of nations in perplexity because of the roaring of the sea and the waves, [Luk 21:25 ESV].  There is no doubt here about where the signs will be.  This is not about earthly signs, but about heavenly.  But when you read the rest of that paragraph, Luke tells us - in red - specifically that it is about the time when "...they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud...", which is the end of Great Tribulation.  This will be the sign of his coming, not of 70 AD.  So I think the first use of "signs form heaven", meaning things that no human could have predicted or known, is the one that applies to vs 11, and keeps us pre-70 AD in the things that the apostles are being told.  Further, we know from Matthew 24 that these were not "public" words, but things he said to his apostles on the Mount of Olives, after they had left Jerusalem that day.  ---Spent a long time in 2021 on this little paragraph.  The result is even more corroboration that Jesus is speaking of 70 AD through vs 24, and begins a new topic in vs 25.

Beginning in vs 12, we go backwards.  "But before all this..."  So taking it all literally, the things described next are going to take place between about 30 AD and 70 AD.  Let's see if it fits there.  Through vs 19, Jesus talks about persecution and how to handle it.  He is talking to his disciples - possibly only his apostles.  All of his apostles other than John were dead by 70 AD.  All of Paul's letters are written and circulating by 70 AD.  So all the persecution described in the New Testament - outside of Revelation - will take place before the Temple is destroyed.  So we're still ok with this being a literal reference to 70 AD, and NOT to Trib and Great Trib.

My ESV has another subject break before vs 20, and this is also where the NASB puts in a chapter break.  Vs 20 starts with "But...", which I pretty much agree signifies a subject break.  And sure enough, we leave the topic of persecution in the meantime and return to predicted events.  Here is vs 20, because it is important:
20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. [Luk 21:20 ESV]
Titus, and the Roman army, surrounded Jerusalem in 70 AD, besieged it, conquered it, and razed it to the ground.  Desolation is the right word for what happened.  This is NOT what will happen at the end of the Millennial when the Antichrist and his army surround Jerusalem.  Jesus will destroy that army with a word.  And at the end of Great Trib, the battle is at Armageddon, way north of Jerusalem.  It won't be surrounded at all at that time.  So this MUST be talking about 70 AD!!!  And if that is so here, beyond a doubt as I think it certainly is, then when these same words are used in Matthew 24, this is what is being described!  
2021 - I have another note somewhere, likely on Matt 24, where I saw a YouTube video of a guy saying that shortly before 70 AD, some guy came down to Jerusalem with an army from Syria - at the behest of Rome - and surrounded Jerusalem for a short time.  He inexplicably broke camp and left, and was pursued by zealots from Jerusalem and routed.  These events were interpreted by Christians living in Jerusalem at the time as the fulfillment of this prophecy.  This explained how they were to escape, though the city was surrounded.  I need to find that reference and include it, and the link to the video, because it had the sources of this information.

If you're outside the city, don't come back.  If you're inside and can get out, then get out.  (It was a long siege.  Perhaps some did escape.)    Everyone is to stay away.  Why?
Vs 22:  22 for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written. [Luk 21:22 ESV]  What vengeance?  I think it refers to this:  
2 Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and cry to her that her warfare is ended, that her iniquity is pardoned, that she has received from the LORD's hand double for all her sins. [Isa 40:2 ESV]
18 But first I will doubly repay their iniquity and their sin, because they have polluted my land with the carcasses of their detestable idols, and have filled my inheritance with their abominations." [Jer 16:18 ESV]
18 Let those be put to shame who persecute me, but let me not be put to shame; let them be dismayed, but let me not be dismayed; bring upon them the day of disaster; destroy them with double destruction! [Jer 17:18 ESV]

26 Still the LORD did not turn from the burning of his great wrath, by which his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations with which Manasseh had provoked him. 27 And the LORD said, "I will remove Judah also out of my sight, as I have removed Israel, and I will cast off this city that I have chosen, Jerusalem, and the house of which I said, My name shall be there." [2Ki 23:26-27 ESV]
But how was  this "double punishment" to be measured?  I think the answer was in 2Ki 23:26-27.  The city and the temple being destroyed was the measure.  This was to happen twice.  And that is exactly what happened. The temple of Solomon, the first temple, was destroyed and Jerusalem desolated in 586 BC by Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon.  In 70 AD, the restored temple, and the city of Jerusalem, are again destroyed, this time by Titus of Rome.  Not one stone was left upon another.  
So with all this as backup, I think the "fulfilling" that Jesus references is the second fall of Jerusalem.

And look how prophetic vs 24 is:
24 They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. [Luk 21:24 ESV]
This is what happened.  Rome made it illegal for Jews to come within sight of Jerusalem after this.  They built their own city there and named it a different name.  Jews were scattered all over everywhere.  That's where Palestinians came from was during this time.  No Jews allowed = trampled by the Gentiles.  This is about 70 AD.  How could it possibly be interpreted otherwise.  

In verse 25 Luke begins to give us answers to the questions that are only related by Matthew.  Jesus talks about signs in the heavens as portents to a specific event.  He names the event.  He is no longer talking about 70 AD.  Verse 24 ended with the fulfilling of the times of the Gentiles.  And after that, vs 25.  We are way out there now.  Jesus, like all the rest, skips over all the events of Gentile history and moves from 70 AD to end times.  They all do this.  Note this, and realize how lucky you are to be grafted into the true olive tree.  We are a graft, we are not part of the "real" olive.  Vss 25-28 are a 50,000' view of Trib and Great Trib, which end with Jesus coming in a cloud, with his army, and conquering Antichrist on the plains of Megiddo, and ushering in his thousand year reign on earth, with a covenant keeping, home from the dispersal nation of faithful, Christ believing Jews.  That's what happens here.  This is redemption, not destruction!  These verses are separated from 24 and previous by the end that they point to.

Then the fig tree, and these two verses:
31 So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near. 32 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all has taken place. [Luk 21:31-32 ESV]
These are both referencing Christ's return.  So we have to explain what "this generation" is about, because it seems to say that those to whom Jesus is speaking will be there for the second coming.  I had to get my MSB out for this one.  MSB sends me to a note on Matthew 24:34 for an explanation.   That note suggests that the generation Jesus is referring to is the generation that sees the summarized events (the signs) of vvs 25-28 in Luke.  Those alive to see the signs in sun, moon and stars, that future generation, will see those signs, AND the Kingdom of God AND the return of the Son of Man.

2021 - vss 31-38 The events portrayed in vss 25-33 will come upon all the earth.  This is part of watching for the second coming of Christ.  The sign of the fig tree will come at the end.  Don't be so drunk that you don't see it.  Surely this message is to the Jews who will have returned to Christ, recognized him as Messiah, and be worshiping Him during those final 7 years.

Still 2020 - I am so glad I took the extended time to work through these verses.  I am very comfortable with the way they go together, and that there is no need at all to either jump around in chronology or get allegorical about what anything means.  This is a straightforward, literal interpretation, and it is chronological from beginning to end.  This is how it is supposed to be.  I will use this interpretation now, when I get to Matthew 24 day after tomorrow and see if that chapter can be looked at in linear, chronological organization also, just as this one can.  What a good morning!

Chapter 22
Luke 21 was the "apocryphal chapter" in Luke, corresponding to Matthew 24.  The last three paragraph headers in 21 were The Coming of the Son of Man, The Lesson of the Fig Tree, and Watch Yourselves.  This is Jesus' last week.  He is teaching daily in the temple, and Luke says he was lodging each night on the mount called Olivet.

As in Matthew 26 and Mark 14, this chapter opens with the religious elite having a conspiratorial meeting to plot the murder of Jesus.  First degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, accomplices before the fact.  These people are very very guilty.

In this verse, Luke seems to be cutting Judas a little slack that the others did not.  The others made Judas' betrayal of Jesus all Judas' doing.  But Luke says this:
3 Then Satan entered into Judas called Iscariot, who was of the number of the twelve. [Luk 22:3 ESV]  Luke lays Judas' actions at Satan's feet.  But remember that Jesus said previously that it would have been better for Judas if he had never been born.  Judas bears the consequences of his actions, no matter that he was influenced by Satan.  He also walked with Jesus, and could have chosen to be influenced by him.
2021 - If Satan "entered" Judas, then he possessed him.  If such possession was irresistible, then we couldn't blame Judas really, but Jesus has already told us - BEFORE this possession - that Judas is very solidly to blame.  The life Judas lived up to this point, the choices that he made - stealing from the purse he shared with 11 friends and the Messiah, over and over again he did this - hearing and rejecting Jesus' words over and over again...If we also accept that Jesus spoke in parables as a mercy to those who heard him but still rejected, remember that Judas also heard the explanations of all those parables, and who knows how much more insight he was given, then his guilt only multiplies.  To whom much is given, much is expected.  Judas was given about as much as any man ever was - certainly only a few others could claim as much...like 12 others in all history...and he rejected it and betrayed Jesus to death.  Yes.  Judas is to blame, and Satan's amplification of what Judas already was doing is just more reason for the fate that awaits Satan also.

2022 - It is interesting that in Luke, Satan enters into Judas before Judas confers with the Pharisees to help betray Jesus.  It is like that whole conspiracy is orchestrated by Satan from "inside" Judas.

Luke again gives us some detail we haven't previously seen.  Jesus sent Peter and John to prepare the Passover feast for Jesus and the 12.  Maybe it was also these two who went looking for that colt Jesus rode on.  We are told about the man carrying the water jar, and Luke clarifies that this man was a slave, and that they were to follow this man to his master's house, and request a room for their Passover meal, and Jesus tells them it will be an upper room.

This verse, describing the Lord's Supper:
18 For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." [Luk 22:18 ESV]
I would use this verse as a proof text that the Kingdom of God, though given into Jesus' authority on his return to heaven, is not yet come to earth.  That will happen at the Millennial.

2022 - I would clarify that the physical Kingdom is not yet come to earth, but the spiritual kingdom certainly is.  The suffering servant introduced the spiritual kingdom, and it was sent, in great measure, for the Gentiles.  The promises to Abraham are very physical promises having to do with lands and dominions, and these will come to pass in the Millennial.  It all just makes more and more sense as you keep reading it.

2021 - For perhaps the first time, I note here that this goes cup, bread, cup.  It is that first cup that Jesus says he won't drink again until the kingdom of God comes.  Charlie told us in class one time that the Jewish Passover actually has four cups.  I got out my Jewish Study Bible and found these things:  According to this source "In these accounts, one sees the traditions of the first century with added spiritual lessons taught by the Messiah.  Among the traditional items mentioned are lamb, bitter herbs, the washing (Jn 13:1-15), four cups of wine, and matzah."
This source says it was in the cup of bitter herbs, which signified bondage to an oppressor, that Judas and Jesus both dipped their matzah.  I had certainly not seen this before.  You'd have to really know and see the Passover feast - the Seder - performed to recognize the nuances that were there.
"Each of the four cups of wine teaches an important lesson.  According to ancient rabbis, these four cups are based on the four promises given to the children of Israel in Exodus 6:6-7.  "Therefore, say to the people of Israel: 'I am Adonai.  I will free you from the forced labor of the Egyptians, rescue you from their oppression, and redeem you with an outstretched arm, and with great judgments.  I will take you as my people, and I will be your God'.""
Here is the description of each cup as given in the Jewish Study Bible.  I'm not going to put it in quotes, because it is a lot of typing and I may take a short cut here and there.
1. The first cup is the Cup of Sanctification.  It sets apart this service as special to the Lord.
2. The second cup is the Cup of Plagues.  This is a reminder that it was because of Pharoah's stubbornness that the plagues intensified, and that many innocent people died because of him.
3. Third is the cup of Redemption.  This cup was designated by Messiah Yeshua as a special memorial through all generations (cf Luke 22:19).  It was once a memorial cup of physical redemption for the Jews from Egypt, but for believers in Yeshua this cup symbolizes the spiritual redemption found in Messiah's sacrificial blood.
4. Fourth is the Cup of Praise, and some of the songs of the Hallel are sung around this cup.  In Matthew 26:30, it says "After singing the Hallel, they went out to the Mount of Olives."
So now, my question is, which cup is it that Jesus won't drink again until the kingdom of God comes?  The way it is worded in ESV and in the JSB, it doesn't look like Jesus drank this cup that night.  He told them to share it among themselves because he wasn't drinking any more fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.  As I continue to read in the JSB, I see we need to back up to vs 16:
16 For I tell you I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God." [Luk 22:16 ESV]  Jesus has just told them he's looked forward to eating this Passover meal with them.  So I think he fully participated in this last Passover he would celebrate until, according to ESV, "...it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God", or according to the JSB, "...it is given its full meaning in  the Kingdom of God."  The next thing we're told is that "He took a cup of wine...".  A footnote in JSB says there were two cups before, and two cups after the meal.  So unless we decide to get over-complicated for some reason, this was the first cup, the cup of sanctification.  Since he says "not again" before the first cup, he may have been referring to wine in general, fruit of the vine.  The reference is to all four of the individual cups.  If we focus on the "full meaning" of the Passover, and we note that the third cup is about redemption, final redemption of the Jews will occur at the Millennial, after that battle.  At that point, surely we can say that the full meaning of the Passover will be understood.  
This seems like a more complete way to understand the last supper than what I understood of it before.
2021-2, It could be that the Jewish tradition of four cups is something that came later...but no.  The Passover has been going on a very long time.  I suspect that Jewish tradition had been four cups for a long time, though I doubt that it was that way the night they left Egypt.

Also 2021:
This verse:
21 But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table. [Luk 22:21 ESV]  Jesus said this after the Cup of Redemption, before the cup of praise.  To me, it is clear that Judas participated in the last supper at least through that third cup.  All four gospels record that Jesus said the betrayer was there among them.  (I just read through this in the Harmony.  In Matthew and Mark, it is pretty clear that Jesus said this before the meal, because one of the answers as to who the betrayer was is that it would be the one that shared the "sop".  I'm thinking the sop is the way they ate the bitter herbs.  Note that Luke does not tell this the same way that Matthew and Mark tell it...the order is a bit difference.  Luke was not a Jew.  The order would not have been as critical to him as to Matthew and Mark.  John pretty much aligns with Matthew and Mark also.  But the point I'm trying to make is that Judas was still there.  He DID eat the Passover meal with Christ.  I read the Matthew and Mark versions of this yesterday, but I read through them pretty quickly for some reason.  I need to spend more time putting these accounts together, as I did on the three apocryphal chapters.  Especially since parts of this supper are recounted in all four gospels.  Surely that says something about how important these events were.

Judas' responsibility for his own actions are double stitched in this verse, in red:
22 For the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!" [Luk 22:22 ESV]
Judas' fate in the afterlife...

The disciples are disputing as to who will be greatest - presumably who will lead the group after Jesus is dead.  But Jesus tells them that leaders serve, the young lead the old.  But he also tells them that in the kingdom, they will sit on thrones and judge the 12 tribes.  When, I wonder, is this judgement?  During the Millennial doesn't seem right.  So when?
30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. [Luk 22:30 ESV]
MSB has a very short note saying this will happen in the Millennial.  But will the dead in Christ be on earth during the Millennial?  I thought he was only bringing angels with him, not the saints?  Need to look again at all this.

2022 - They will judge throughout the Millennial. This is not a specific one day judging event.  The Sheep and Goat judgment takes place with Jesus on the throne.  Only he will judge on that day.  But during the Millennial, the world will continue, and sin will still be present on earth, and disputes that need judging will arise.  That is what Jesus is talking about in this verse.

2021 - Didn't they have this squabble on the road coming into Jerusalem just a few days before this?  After being "informed" about how "Gentile" this squabble was on that day, are they doing it again?  Or does Luke just decide to put that in right here?  

2021 - Some really difficult questions arise here, starting with these verses:
31 "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers." [Luk 22:31-32 ESV]
Satan demanded....Of whom did he demand it?  How are his demands of any consequence?  It reads like a Satan gets "equal consideration" with Jesus as to the coming of the church.  Now I know this next is wrong, but I don't know how to answer it.  What if someone says that Satan's demanding means that Satan and Jesus are competing, which means that they are equal.  Then, if I wanted to press such a point, I'd say that implies that Jesus and Satan are both angels.  And then I would attack the Trinity, and attack the position that Jesus is a manifestation of God's working in the world toward redemption of man, since Jesus is just an angel, though a perfect angel.  How do you answer this line of attack?  I find it interesting that MSB does not address that Satan demands this at all.  Just doesn't mention that aspect of it.  For now, my answer to al this would be that Satan's "so called" demand is allowed because of the "sifting" that will result in a more refined final product.  In fact, this sifting, especially in Peter's case, will result in a nearly unshakeable faith afterwards.  Yeah...that's a pretty good answer.  Same answer in Job's case.  Satan needed permission still.  In the case of Job, there was nothing about competition.  In this case, you have to read in that it is a competition between equals, it certainly isn't stated that way.  And we know from many other scriptures - including the temptation of Christ - that Satan is NOT equal to Jesus, we know that Jesus was born a man, not an angel....There are a lot of replies to the argument above.  Many ways to show it wrong.  Maybe that's why MSB doesn't even bother to go there.

Reading this in JSB, I think the "you" that Satan demanded is ALL the apostles, not just Peter, but Jesus prayed expressly that Peter would come through, because Jesus knew just how devastatingly Peter would fail in the face of Satan's attack.  (Yes.  One of the footnotes points out that the "you" in vs 32 is singular all four times, as distinguished from the usage in 31.  Satan wants to sift them all.  Jesus prayed for Peter specifically - perhaps because his testing would come so soon, and result in such dramatic failure.

Luke also gives us more information about Peter's coming denial.  This verse:
32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers." [Luk 22:32 ESV]
Jesus knew Peter would fail, but that he would also repent of his failure.  How can we say that Peter was unsaved when he denied?  How can we say the truly saved never deny?  I just don't see it this way.  The JSB also has a note on the phrase "turned again".  In Judaism, the word for turning (t'shuvah) is not used of conversion, but of repentance.  So my point above seems solid.  You can get pretty bad in your denial of Jesus and still be saved.

This next is cut and paste, because it's come up before:
36 He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. [Luk 22:36 ESV]
When Jesus sent them out previously, they were divinely provided for and protected.  He gave them all the food, clothing, and protection from thieves, thugs, and tyrants on the road that they needed.  But after he dies, they will be on their own for these things.  It won't be divinely provided - beyond basic needs I believe - but instead, they are to use their own foresight and planning to take care of these things.  This would sort of contradict the whole idea of setting out with no visible means of support and just depending on God.  I think this verse says you make your best plans, and you depend on God to make what you have work for what HE plans for you.
2021 - Also, in light of the sifting that is coming, we know they will all be persecuted and abused and subject not only to the random evil of men, but to directed purposeful attack.  The time for "miraculous" protection as evidence of the purpose of God that they are fulfilling is now passing.  The miracles are going to go away, but the church must still continue, against all attacks.  They will have the Holy Spirit, as we do, but few if any miraculous interventions.  
Reminds me of the Book Roy Moody loaned me about the missionary to China, Hudson Taylor, and the way he did things.  He prayed, long, hard, and with others, to discern God's will.  He got that part right first.  Once he knew God's will, then and only then, did he plunge ahead and depend on God to provide.  Only in His will can we expect his provision.  This might be made into a good FB post, especially in view of what is happening in the US right now as Biden's swearing in approaches, as congressmen pray in the name of Brahma, and as prayers are ended with amen and a-women.  We had better get ourselves into God's will, tie on our moneybag and knapsack, and prepare to defend ourselves - not against government, but against the random violence that is no longer held in check by a God-fearing majority.
2021-2, ...sell his cloak and buy one...  They needed a moneybag, a knapsack, and a sword.  Most likely this is how people traveled in those days.  Or was it?  Would the Romans really let Jewish citizens travel with swords?  And if not...Jesus is telling them to break the law.  So that must not be what he means.  Instead of traveling with divine protection, they would need to travel considering all the contingencies, including robbery on the highway.  They would need to travel as ordinary citizens traveled and not depend on God to provide everything.  That is surely all that was meant here.  Look after yourselves to a much greater extent than when he sent them out special.  And do not forget that in any case, he is talking to the 12, not to all men at all times.  Be careful of applying this instruction universally.  And remember that we never hear about swords in the rest of the NT.  Even Paul, though he says robbers attacked him, never talks about fighting them off with swords.  Ahh...They told Jesus they had two swords with them, so it is highly unlikely that this was illegal.  

2022 - Perhaps this paragraph is an extension of the previous one.  They are to be sifted, so the kind of divine protection they had previously will have to be withdrawn.  Otherwise, it is not sifting at all.

Luke does not mention the singing of a hymn - or the Hallel - before they left the upper room.  Again, Luke was not Jewish, and this detail may not have meant so much to him as it did to Matthew and Mark.  John doesn't mention singing either.  

Where Matthew and Mark say Jesus told the disciples to watch, Luke says he told them to "Pray that you may not enter into temptation..."  Apparently their desertion of him when the mob arrived was their yielding to temptation.

This verse:
43 And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. 44 And being in agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground. [Luk 22:43-44 ESV]
I still don't know how Luke could have know about this.  He doesn't say anything about the three closest to Jesus moving further into the garden with him.  He doesn't talk about that at all.  Yet he talks about this angel and about sweating blood.  Luke never met Jesus, so far as we know.  So who knew these details???
2021 - The obvious answer to this kind of question, here and previously where I have asked it, is that this is inspired scripture.  So where no other explanation is forthcoming - that is, where no naturalistic explanation is forthcoming - we know the information is inspired and is there because it was important that we knew these details.  Also, a footnote in TCR says that some manuscripts omit vvs 43 and 44 about the angel and the drops of blood.  ESV does include these verses though.  ESV claims to only include the "best" manuscripts, so some pretty good ones must include it.  

2021 - I looks like I ran out of gas right about here last year also.  I am tired, but I have added some helpful information to these notes.  But for the rest of Luke 22, and all of John, I will just be reading straight through.  Next year, I will start with John 13.  I also need to focus on Lk 22:47-71 one year also, as I burn out before I get to these.  2021-2, Reading straight through to vs 47 this time (June).

It is Luke that tells us Jesus turned and looked at Peter when the cock crowed.  Neither Matthew nor Mark told us about that.  Luke could only have gotten this information from Peter himself.  

I have only tried to note things Luke says that Matthew and Mark didn't.  I will do the same in...

Any notes below this are from 2021-2.
47 While he was still speaking, there came a crowd, and the man called Judas, one of the twelve, was leading them. He drew near to Jesus to kiss him, [Luk 22:47 ESV]  A crowd, led by Judas.  The implication is that they were a mob.  And note that swords come out and a clash takes place.  The apostles do try to physically defend Jesus, even cutting off someone's ear.  But Jesus stops them.  This is not the time he was talking about earlier when he told them to get swords.  We learn also that Jesus directly addresses the chief priests, officers of the temple, and elders.  So there were some officials in this mob.  They made it look legitimate, though it was still just a mob with torches and clubs.  Jesus knows who incited this mob though.  It is not "the people" trying to arrest him, but the powerful.  And Jesus asks them why the powerful have to operate in darkness when he was right there with them in the light.   He makes sure THEY know that HE knows.
Luke does not mention that all the apostles fled the scene.  It is implied in that Peter was following at a distance.

Peter's denials come next.  I have written about those elsewhere in detail.

Beginning in vs 66, we see the first "official" charges leveled against Jesus.  As you read the "transcript" in Luke, it is hard to see how they could even trump  up charges based on Jesus' answers to them.  Ahh...If you look at it in the Interlinear, in vs 70, when they ask him if he is the Son of God, he answer with the proscribed phrase, "I am".  There is no "You say that..." in the Morphological Greek New Testament.  All that is implied.  Or not...
Both the mGNT and the Textus Receptus are shown in the BLB notes.  Jesus' answer seems to have been five words - in both versions.  The difference seems to be that the TR puts Jesus answer in quotes and capitalizes the first word.  The transliteration of both the capitalized and uncapitalized words is "hymeis" in both versions.  Yet a different Strong's number is assigned to the words.  In the mGNT, it is Strongs. 4771, uncapitalized, and in the TR, it is Strongs 5210, capitalized.  Well...the more I look the more obvious it is that I don't know Greek and that this response is actually a lot more complicated than capitalized and uncapitalized.  When I see this kind of thing, I believe the implication is that the full complex meaning of what was said in Greek does not at all translate into English.  You just cannot bring it across.  And then add to that the fact that in a Jewish court, Jesus was probably speaking Hebrew, and that Hebrew might well not have translated fully into Greek.  And when you think about it that way, you must make some assumptions.  Whatever his specific answer in Hebrew, addressed to Hebrews was, it was considered blasphemy by the court.  Therefore, what he answered must have been an unmistakable "Yes, I AM".  He not only claimed to be God's Son, but included himself AS God.  Very much is here.  By the way, it turns out Strong's 4771 is just the personal pronoun of the second person singular.  Jesus was referring to himself in the second person.  First person is "I".  Second person is some kind of singular "We"?  Is that what he answered?  They asked "Are you the Son of God", and Jesus answered "We are".  Oh my.  I bet that is pretty close to what went on here.  That is probably as close to what he really answered as English can get.  I don't think we have a second person singular other than "you".  A word must be "invented" or a substitution made to understand this answer.

Chapter23
To get back on track with Luke, the previous chapter told of Peter's denial, Jesus is mocked by the guards, and Jesus is led from the house of Annas to "their council", apparently another place, more official, and the council convicts Jesus of blasphemy punishable by death based on his testimony of himself.  It was believable enough for them to condemn him to death, but not enough for them to believe he was the Messiah.  Then we move to 23.

From the council, Jesus is taken to Pilate.  Luke says the accusers charged Jesus with 1, misleading the nation, 2, forbidding tribute to Caesar - a demonstrable lie, and 3, saying he is Christ - a king.  Pilate asks Jesus if he is a king, and Jesus answers "You have said so."  He makes no such claim himself.  This is the same kind of answer he gave the council.  "You say that I am."  Pilate says he finds no guilt.  But the crowd insists that Jesus is a rabble rouser and must be dealt with.  They mention that he is also rousing rabble in Galilee.

Pilate seizes the opportunity to send Jesus to Herod instead, since Jesus is from Galilee, and that is Herod's territory.  Herod is glad to have opportunity to question Jesus.  Herod has heard the stories of miracles and wants to see one.  The questioning goes on for some time, but Jesus remains silent.  Ultimately, Herod and his soldiers show contempt for Jesus, and mock him - likely because he doesn't do a miracle for them.  So Herod sends Jesus back to Pilate.

2022 - I never noticed this verse before:  10 The chief priests and the scribes stood by, vehemently accusing him. [Luk 23:10 ESV].  So when Jesus was sent to Herod, the accusers went along, and continued to accuse him even while he was there.  I had always assumed that Jesus' questioning by Herod was a private matter, with only Herod and his people present.  Not so at all.  No wonder Jesus didn't answer.

Pilate says he finds no guilt in Jesus.  He says Herod found no guilt in him either, or he wouldn't have sent him back.  Pilate's words are "I did not find this man guilty of any of your charges".  Pilate's summation:
15 ...Look, nothing deserving death has been done by him. 16 I will therefore punish and release him." [Luk 23:15b-16 ESV].  But the crowd will not have it...
2021 - I would point out here that there has been no mention of the Pharisees in this chapter.  I did a quick check, and the last time the Pharisees are mentioned in the book of Luke is back at 19:39, at the triumphal entry, when they urged Jesus to stop his disciples from praising him.  The last time before the crucifixion in Matthew was during Jesus discourse in chapter 23.  I believe this was in the Temple the second day Jesus was there.  Jesus really berates the Pharisees here.  They show up one last time in Matt 27:62, when they come with the Chief priests to ask Pilate for a guard on the tomb.  Mark last speaks of the Pharisees in 12:13, when some are sent to the temple to try and trap Jesus into saying something he shouldn't.  That is, I believe, the same as in Matthew.  They were unsuccessful, and after that, dared not question him further.  So in the three synoptics, the Pharisees are not shown to participate in the arrest, mock trial, Roman trials, or crucifixion of Jesus.  That is quite an interesting thing.

In many Bibles, vs 17 says that Pilate was required to release a prisoner to them.  Some Bibles put this after vs 19.  Other Bibles exclude the verse altogether.  In any case, the verse is introductory to vs 18, which says the crowd asked for Barabbas' release.  Yesterday, I think in Mark 15, it seemed to me that some in the crowd may have asked Pilate to release Jesus, but when the conspirators figured out what they were doing they had these people shouted down.

As I read it, Pilate tried to release Jesus three times, and the crowd shouted him down each time.  The guilt lays at the feet of the Jews.  And yet...Pilate lets them crucify a man that he himself is convinced is innocent.  Surely this makes Pilate - and by extension Rome - guilty of complicity in Jesus' death.  Here is the verse:  24 So Pilate decided that their demand should be granted. [Luk 23:24 ESV]  After this, Jesus is led away to be crucified.

Simon of Cyrene is pressed into service.  A large crowd is following Jesus, including women mourning and lamenting for him.  He addresses them.  Including it here:
28 But turning to them Jesus said, "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. 29 For behold, the days are coming when they will say, 'Blessed are the barren and the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!' 30 Then they will begin to say to the mountains, 'Fall on us,' and to the hills, 'Cover us.' 31 For if they do these things when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?" [Luk 23:28-31 ESV]
I don't think any of the other writers include this.  It corresponds - in my opinion - to the time when Jerusalem will be encompassed by armies.  It would be bad to have a baby during a prolonged siege.  You'd likely be watching your child starve.  The reference to the mountains falling ties more to language in Revelation.  This phrase is used several times there.  These verses should be included in any attempt at explaining Matt 24.  2021 - There are also Old Testament passages that talk about asking the mountains to fall on them.  Those too should be included in any study of the phrase.  This would truly be an interesting study.
2022 - I think Jesus is referring to the tribulation that will occur between the revelation of the man of sin and the rapture.  That is when all those who believe in him will be hounded and persecuted as never before.  That is when you don't go home.

Jesus is crucified.  The two thieves are mentioned in Luke as concurrent, not later as was implied earlier.  Luke also is the one that tells us Jesus said "Father forgive them..." from the cross.  Matthew and Mark don't mention that, but only his "why hast thou forsaken me" words.  

The people watch, the rulers scoff, one thief seeks to be included in Jesus' saving himself, but puts no faith at all in Jesus, and the other thief is saved.  Again, it is only Luke (so far, at least) who has told us about this thief's conversion.

Luke has the temple curtain torn just before Jesus dies, the debt being paid at that point.  Only Luke gives us Jesus last words - "...into your hands I commit my spirit".  So the words where they thought he called Elijah were earlier.  These other words, that Luke does not record at all, are the only words Matthew and Mark record.  Luke's audience was Gentile, they likely wouldn't have known who Elijah was - and certainly they wouldn't have known his significance at this point - so Luke leaves them out.  Matthew and Mark put them in because their audience is Jews.  Once the debt is paid, Jesus dies.  I would think that it was Jesus' death that paid it all, and one shouldn't read too much into timing details which were not the point of Luke's book.  

What if...what if someone claimed that because of the way this reads - the curtain torn before Jesus dies - that Jesus suffering had already paid the debt, and there was no need for him to die, but God let him die anyway?  There are cruel people who might suggest such a thing.  How would we answer them?  Here's an interesting thing...the Harmony does not include that phrase at all, but cuts off after "the sun's light failing".  Both Matthew and Mark put this last phrase in after Jesus had yielded up his spirit.  The Harmony, it turns out, has moved this phrase - this last bit of Lk 23:45 - to correspond with where Matthew and Mark put it.  The MSB has a note on Luke 23:45 that sends us to the note on Matt 27:51.  That note does not address the exact time the veil tore.  So.  Were I to have to face this question, my answer would be that Luke put all the signs that accompanied the death of Christ together in one spot, where Matthew and Mark - again, because they were talking to the Jews - made sure to get the order right and so better convey the significance of that event.  Remember also that Pompey had sliced that veil also, in 63 BC, and removed the scroll of Moses from the Most Holy Place.  A Roman soldier went in there and was not struck dead in the instant.  Of course, the Ark was not in there at the time.  

Now there is another interesting aside, another "sign" that the Israel was only still around so they could reject the Messiah and to receive double for their sins against God.  The Ark was taken from the Temple in 586 BC, when Jerusalem fell.  It has not been "accounted for" since that time, and since it was on the mercy seat that God dwelt among the people, God has not dwelt in Israel in that way since Nebuchadnezzar's time.  So why not just skip the 400 year intertestamentary time?  Wow.  This fits into place nicely.  And until a week or so ago, I thought the Ark was still in the Temple until 70 AD.  But it had been gone for over 600 years by then.

Once Jesus dies, the Centurion praises God, the crowds that came to watch beat their breasts, and the women watch all this from a distance.  Perhaps Luke got many of the details he includes from talking to those very women, and maybe he even talked to the Centurion.

Luke tells us that Joseph of Arimathea, though on the council, had NOT consented to their decision and action.  He asks for Jesus' body.  Luke records that Jesus was taken down, wrapped in a linen shroud, and buried in a new tomb.  Doesn't say it was Joseph's tomb, though it may well have been.  Luke makes it clear that no spices were applied to Jesus body, because it was almost the day of Preparation.  They looked to see what they would need, and they planned to come back with the spices after the Sabbath.

Chapter 24
Luke 23 ended with the women noting how and where Jesus was laid, and then going away since it was the Preparation.
24 opens at dawn the first day of the week, so two full nights have passed and this is the third day.

Luke says nothing about an earthquake.  The women find the stone rolled away, they go inside, and are perplexed that Jesus' body is gone.  They don't seem to have seen an angel outside, nor one sitting on the ledge inside.  After they see that he is gone, two men in dazzling white "stood by them".  Doesn't say appeared in ESV, but the Greek may imply that.  In any case, they had not been noticed before, which seems a stretch if they were in dazzling white.  The men remind them that Jesus already told them he'd be crucified and rise the third day.  Upon hearing this, they remember him saying so.  The way Luke puts it, the women are those from Chapter 23 who had prepared spices.  He mentions specifically Mary Magdalene, and Joanna and Mary the mother of James, but adds "and the other women".  So there were many of them.  6-12 would be possible.  They go and tell the 11 and "...to all the rest."  Though a number of women reported this, the apostles didn't believe it.  They thought these idle tales.  

2021 - So it is interesting that Matthew, Mark, and Luke all have the details a little different.  It bothers me that they do.  None of them have said anything that excludes another, they just clearly don't seem to be the same.  MSB note on Luke 24:4 has a "reconciled account", using all four gospels.  I will include it here:
"Finding the stone rolled away, the women entered the tomb, but found it empty.  While they were still in the tomb, the angels suddenly appeared.  The angel who spoke reminded them of Jesus promises then sent them to find Peter and the disciples to report that Jesus was risen.  The women did as they were told.  The disciples were skeptical at first, but ran to where the tomb was, John arriving first, but Peter actually entering the tomb first. They saw the linen wrappings intact, but empty, proof that Jesus was risen.  They left immediately.  meanwhile, Mary Magdalene returned to the tomb, and was standing outside weeping when Christ suddenly appeared to her.  That was his first appearance.  Sometime soon after that, he met the other women on the road and appeared to them as well. "  This helps some, but it still leaves some problems in my opinion.  Perhaps the only real resolution is to consider that maybe all the women did not arrive at precisely the same moment.  Some were there really early and felt the ground shake as the stone was rolled back, and saw the guards pass out as if dead, and the angel sitting on the rock.  And went in at this angel's bidding.  Then these left, and a few others showed up, and saw the scene with the rock already back, and went inside.  The rock rolling angel was already gone, but two more appeared to give the news to this group.  And so on.  One could probably construct a pretty good time line this way.  They would have all arrived back at the place where the apostles were at staggered times also.  And as MSB says, some could have returned to the tomb after reporting what they had seen.  I want to go back and try to put this together along these lines, maybe figure out how many groups of women there were and what happened to each.   I bet it will all fit together perfectly, and I am anxious to give it a try!
2023 - It should also be remembered that no two eye witnesses ever give exactly the same account.  Some things stand out as memorable to one, other things to another - who may completely miss what the first noted.  If all the gospels had the story exactly the same, the charge would be that they had gotten together conspiratorially and concocted a consistent story to avoid suspicion.  Which would certainly have aroused suspicion.  We should also remember that only Matthew would have been present at the time all this happened, and even he was not actually there at the tomb on this day - may not have ever gone back out there.  So all three - Matthew, Mark, and Luke - are reporting what they were told by others, and each of them is further removed from the actual events than the one before.  None of the stories contradicts any other stories...they just contain different details.

Peter, though, rose and "ran to the tomb" to check.  He remembered.  And he would have been feeling very low, unable to apologize for his denials.  He went to check.  He sees the linen clothes and goes home marveling.  Not something a conspirator who helped steal the body would do.  
2021-2, Didn't Luke travel with Peter a lot?  (2023 - No, Luke traveled with Paul, Mark traveled with Peter).  Peter's recollection would begin with the arrival of the named women to report what they had heard from the two angels.  He wasn't there early, so wouldn't know who arrived when  and what each saw.  He would know only what the women had told him, and this is what he would have told Mark.  However...Luke may have interviewed some of the women who went that morning.  He seems to have a made a good study, including interviews, of the events he is reporting.  So even the accounts that appear to be second hand may have come to Luke first hand from the women who were there.

The next section is titled "On the Road to Emmaus".
As they are walking on this 7 mile journey, and talking to each other, Jesus comes near, but they were kept from recognizing him.  Why, I wonder?  Jesus asks what they are discussing and Cleopas answers.  He relates the events of the last few days, up to and including Peter finding an empty tomb, confirming what the women have said.  
2023 - Perhaps Jesus looked younger, stronger, less harried and stressed, less exhausted by the intense schedule and rough living he had endured.  The indication may be that after the rapture, our new bodies will not be "put on" at the age and state they were in when we died.  This makes a lot of sense.  A body still showing the ravages of the cancer that killed a person would not be a perfect and immortal body.  We will rise healthy, with everything working as it should.  There is the matter of scars...Jesus had Thomas put his hand in his side...so the would was there and still open, but not bleeding nor subject to infection.  Add to the changes in Jesus that these did not expect to see him, and perhaps had only seen him from a distance...but that does not explain why Mary Magdalene didn't recognize him.  There is something more going on here.

2022 - Couple of verses:  
21 But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things happened. ...
In this verse, we see that those who knew Jesus pretty well, who likely associated with him in person, and were among "the company", did not think he was John the Baptist.  They thought he was the redeemer.  I don't know if they connected redeemer and Christ.  They do not call him Christ at this point.  Only Peter has called him that I think.
26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" [Luk 24:21, 26 ESV]
Jesus refers to himself here as Christ.  Not absolutely directly, but there can be little doubt that that he is connecting the suffering and death and entering glory and the coming Christ.  And since it was Jesus of Nazareth who suffered, Jesus is the Christ, according to Christ.  So we see here that Jesus wants these very early Christians, post-resurrection - to understand that Jesus is the Christ. Ahhh!  And Christ MEANS Anointed and by extension means Messiah.  So that is what Jesus is trying to unequivocally establish here.  That the Messiah had to suffer, that Jesus did suffer, so Jesus is the Messiah.  This is a title that Jesus applies to himself.
Also in vs 46:
46 and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, [Luk 24:46 ESV].  No mistake here either.  Jesus is the Christ.  Jesus is the Anointed.  Jesus is the Messiah.  And these according to Jesus himself.

2021 - 2, 20 and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him. [Luk 24:20 ESV].  So even at this very early time, and even though Cleopas and friend were not of the 12, they already recognized that it was the religious elite of the Jews that had instigated the events that led to Jesus' death.  They knew, the rank and file knew already, before any preaching from the 12 and before the Day of Pentecost, who was responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus.  They also pass on the report that some women gave them about the body being gone.  So these were likely present when the women made their report.  They were inner circle, but not the 12.  

Jesus tells them they are "foolish", and "slow of heart" to believe.  Then he explains to them how the prophecy in their own scriptures required that the Messiah suffer these things first, and then rise on the third day.  It is all predicted in OT scripture.  
When they arrive at Emmaus, the day "is far spent".  They urge Jesus to stay with them and he does.  Doesn't say if they lodged at a public place or maybe Cleopas was from there?   As they break bread, their eyes are opened, and they recognize the risen Lord.  Cleopas, husband of Mary, mother of James the Less, and Simon Peter.  Once they recognize him, he vanishes.  They realize that not only is Jesus risen, but the reasons for these events have been explained to them in detail.  They understand now, and believe fully.  

2021 - Mark and Luke both mention the appearance on the road to Emmaus, but Luke goes into far more detail.  Mark barely mentions it.  Two men, one named Cleopas (another name for Clopas?) the other is Simon (vs 34.)  These were clearly NOT of the 11 because they go back to Jerusalem in their excitement to tell the 11.  That is interesting also.  Cleopas and Simon.  MSB doesn't attempt to identify Simon, but the note on vs. 34 includes a detailed list of 10 post-resurrection appearances of Jesus.

They jumped up and returned to Jerusalem immediately.  It had to be in the dark, but this revelation could not wait, they couldn't keep it to themselves.  They find the 11, and others, all gathered together in one place, and they tell their story.
2021-2, I note in vs. 34 that when they arrive back in Jerusalem, they find the eleven and others together, excited, because Jesus has appeared to Simon, and now they all believe fully that Jesus is risen.  So these two arrive and pass on Jesus' appearance to them also.  Why them, one wonders?  Why these non-apostle disciples and not someone "bigger", more central?

While they are discussing this, Jesus appears among them.  So that very night - the night of his morning resurrection.  They are frightened and think he is a spirit rather than the risen savior.  He tells them to look at the scars, to convince themselves he is flesh and bone.  This is his glorified body, but they were able to touch it.  He was not a spirit being.  His body that would go to heaven was recognizable, enjoyed food, could violate at least some physical laws (2023 - heard a real good sermon saying that he did not go through walls.  It never says he goes through walls...but I have not researched it out myself)  as to movement and solids, but will never, ever, grow old.  It must look a bit different, because they all have trouble recognizing this man they've walked with for the last three years.  Yet at some point, it hits them as to just who this is.  The phrase "their eyes were opened" makes it sound like the recognition is withheld, and then granted, by an outside force for some reason.  However, it could just be that the possibility of a dead person...but that's not right.  They had seen Lazarus after his resurrection.  But Lazarus' body was not yet glorified.  How did they recognize Moses and Elijah at the transfiguration?  Many questions.

Jesus tells them again that all this was prophecy fulfilled.  Then this verse:
45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, [Luk 24:45 ESV]
Only those that God chooses are able to understand.  These who walked with him didn't fully understand until "he opened their minds".  It is a supernatural thing. He had also explained, verse by verse, to those two on the road that the prophets had foretold every detail of what had had just happened.  

Luke says Jesus ascended to heaven from Bethany.  Not from a mountain in Galilee.  2021 - I have always thought the ascension took place in Galilee.  Luke doesn't even tell us they ever went to Galilee, nor do Matthew or Mark.  Mark, in the "disputed verses", is not specific as to the place from which Jesus ascended.  Matthew doesn't say he ascended.  He ends at the great commission, spoken on a mountain to which Jesus directed them.  John doesn't say he ascended.  So no contradiction here.  A difficult timeline to unravel, but not a contradiction.  This is another I'd like to dig into and work out the actual timeline of these seeming "disconnected" stories.