untitled

Jesus continues speaking to His disciples about this preparatory excursion. He is sending out 70 or 72 disciples in an advance team, to determine where to go next. They are walking toward Jerusalem for the final time, walking through Samaria. Jesus will stop at a few Samaritan cities and his advance team will tell him where to go and where not to go.

Because Jesus is God, people don’t understand why He is sending out this advance team. “Doesn’t Jesus know where to go and where not to go?” The answer to that question is, “No, Jesus does not know where to go.” “How can that be, isn’t He God?”

Jesus is God, but, in His public ministry (and possibly for His entire life), He has set aside His Deity and has functioned strictly as a man. We know this because He grew in knowledge in His humanity (Luke 2:40, 52). Omniscience (a characteristic of God) does not ever increase or decrease in knowledge. Jesus setting aside His Deity is the Doctrine of Kenosis, which we have covered before. Jesus has set aside His entire essence as God and functions strictly as a man empowered by God the Holy Spirit (which is how we, as Christians, live our lives today). One of the things which Jesus accomplishes in His life is, He provides for us, in the Church Age, an example of the spiritual life in the Church Age. Even though Jesus lived during the Age of Israel (or, some believers like myself believe that His life could be considered a separate dispensation, the dispensation of the Hypostatic Union), Jesus, in His humanity, test-drove the spiritual life. He had the same divine operating assets which God gives us.

Therefore, although Jesus was a prophet and knew some things in advance, prophets do not know everything as God does. A prophet only this or that understanding which God gives him. What a prophet knows is limited to what God reveals to that prophet. So, when it comes to choosing which cities to go to, Jesus is not able to determine whether or not to go to Centerville. Therefore, He is sending out this advance team to make that determination.

What we have been studying is this: Jesus continues speaking of a town where the disciples and their message are rejected.

Luke 10:10–11 If you enter a city and they do not receive you with gladness, but reject the message of the gospel, then simply walk away from there. As you are leaving, walking down their street, heading out of their city, say this to them: ‘Regarding the dust of your city which is adhering to our feet, we will scrape it off before we leave your city, so that we take nothing of your city with us. But, despite your negative volition, know this, that the Kingdom of God came to you and to your city.’ (Kukis paraphrase)

By doing this, the 70 or 72 disciples will determine which cities Jesus will stop at, as they trek toward Jerusalem.

Luke 10:12 I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town. (ESV; capitalized)

First of all, what day are we speaking of? The day of the Lord, when Jesus returns. At this point, Jesus is offering the kingdom of God—a legitimate offer, as He is the King—but the rejection of Jesus their King by Israel is pretty solid. Many Samaritans will also reject the King.

When Jesus returns in the 2^nd advent, He will return as the Judge of all mankind. Therefore, He will judge all the inhabitants of such cities as those which will reject Him in Samaria.

This is a fascinating thing for Jesus to say, that it will be more bearable in Sodom than in this city which is rejecting Him now. Perhaps we ought to understand it as hyperbole. The people of Sodom were the most degenerate of that time (but, bear in mind, the Bible does not tell us about every single degenerate city; Sodom was important to point out because because Lot, Abraham’s nephew, chose to live there). See Genesis 18 (HTML) (PDF) (WPD) and Genesis 19 (HTML) (PDF) (WPD).

It turned out that, in the entire city, there were at most 4 righteous people there: Lot, his daughters and his wife. That is, at most. And by righteous, I do not mean spiritually mature, but simply regenerate. They had believed in the God of Abraham. They believed in God as He had revealed Himself to them. As a result, they had imputed righteousness, as per Genesis 15:6, but nothing more. Their spiritual growth was minimal.

Whatever city the 70 evangelists went to would be a city populated by Jewish people or, half-Jewish people, and they should know the gospel. They should know about their Messiah and they should know enough from their Scriptures and from their various ceremonies how to recognize Him. If they still reject Jesus, knowing all of this, then that negative volition is on them. What I mean is, they are responsible for their negative volition.

As I have discussed previously, the people of Israel did not fully understand the Messiah, and the problem was, they were willing to see one aspect of Him, but they rejected everything else about Him that did not fit their perception. So, when Jesus was not a great military leader calling for the throwing off of the oppression of Rome, they did not see Him as the Messiah. For this reason, many Jews rejected Jesus the Messiah; and so did some people in the cities where these evangelists/healers would go.

The thing is, the Messiah was more multifaceted than the people wanted to believe. They wanted to see one particular thing; they wanted that applied to them at that time, where Rome is the ultimate oppressor. Interestingly enough, the scribes and pharisees, who rejected the Lord, will actually ally themselves with the established government of Rome (which government that they wanted Messiah to destroy) in order to execute Jesus. That would be called ironic today (or hypocritical).

The judgment of Jerusalem by Rome will be an horrendous historical event; and throughout history, the Jewish people who have rejected their True God have faced great and massive persecutions. If anyone should recognize the Messiah, it should be the Jews having the Torah of God.

One of the consistent themes in the Bible is, if God gives you truth, then you are responsible for having that truth. Jerusalem had both the Torah and the witness of Jesus and His disciples. When this was rejected, God held them responsible for their negative volition.

Luke 10:12 I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town. (ESV; capitalized)

What is particularly difficult is, truth was brought to these cities where the disciples have come. They offer the truth and they offer deliverance from sickness and from demon possession. How horrendous will be the regret of such cities, where it was all right there, brought right to them, and they rejected it.

Not all of Sodom will be judged and cast into the Lake of Fire at the final judgment. Lot and his two daughters and probably his wife will not be judged. But, some of these Samaritan cities will be judged, and there will not be a single convert from this time. It will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for certain Samaritan towns.

Let’s pause for a moment and take a look at this particular incident from the perspective of time. That is, where does it belong in time?

If you recall from Luke 9, there were nine or so incidents found in Matthew, Mark and Luke, all taking place in the same order, not long before the Lord’s final ascent into Jerusalem. These same incidents took place in Matthew 16:13–18:6. However, this incident matches up with Matthew 11:20–24 almost word-for-word. As mentioned previously, Luke appears to cover the public ministry of the Lord chronologically until the end of Luke 9 or Luke 10. Either Matthew is completely out of whack, chronologically speaking, or Luke is.

Luke 10:12 I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town. (ESV; capitalized)

These words are spoken with reference to cities in Samaria that will outright reject Jesus and not even want to hear from Him. The overall context is the sending of 70 or 72 disciples into the cities of Samaria in order to determine which cities will give Jesus a hearing.

Now Jesus is teaching about a specific day, which would be the day of judgment, also known as the Day of Christ, also known as the second advent (to be distinguished from the rapture). When Christ returns, there will be cities which reject Him completely. So, what does it mean for such a city to be less bearable than what happened to Sodom, being rained upon by sulfur and fire? The key difference is, in Sodom, God sent angels to deliver the four righteous people of Sodom (Lot and his family). In a city of 100% negative volition, no one will be delivered.

In Matthew 10:15, we read: “Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town.” (ESV; capitalized)

The overall context for the Matthew passage is the sending out the twelve disciples. There would be some cities which would reject them, and Jesus says this about those cities.

So, we simply have very similar, but different contexts; and the similarity of the contexts makes it appropriate to repeat this short lesson where Jesus pronounces the woes.

We have just studied how this passage in Luke is very similar to a passage in Matthew (it is almost word-for-word), but we recognized that this could be the same message given at different times. The first time Jesus spoke these words is in the book of Matthew. He would be sending out His twelve disciples to evangelize and spread the word of the Kingdom. The second time that Jesus says these words takes place in the book of Luke, the book that we are studying, and this context is the sending out of the 70 or 72 believers who are making a determination of which cities in Samaria will receive the Lord. For those cities that do not receive the Person of Jesus Christ, Jesus says this:

Luke 10:12 I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town. (ESV; capitalized)

Twice in this verse we have the onomatopoetic Greek word ouai (οὐαί) [pronounced oo-AH-ee], which means, alas, woe. Strong’s #3759.

R. A. S. Macalister:[Chorazin is a]... place referred to only in the denunciation by Christ (Matt. 11:21, Luke 10:13). It is with probability identified with Kerazeh, north of Tell Hum, where are remains of pillars, walls, etc., of basalt.

ISBE: [Chorazin is a] city whose name appears only in the woe pronounced against it by Christ (Matthew 11:21; Luke 10:13). Its appearance there, however, shows that it must have been a place of some importance, and highly privileged by the ministry of Jesus. It was already deserted in the time of Eusebius, who places it 2 miles from Capernaum (Onomasticon, under the word). We can hardly doubt that it is represented by the extensive ruins of Kerâzeh, on the heights to the north of Tell Hûm. It is utterly desolate: a few carved stones being seen among the heaps. There are traces of a Roman road which connected the ancient city with the great highway between north and south which touched the lake shore at Khān Minyeh.

Since Eusebius lived into the 4^th century and it was completely deserted by his time, the woe pronounced upon it by the Lord had come to pass.

Given this message, Chorazin must have been very negative to the ministry of the Lord, although we have no details, apart from this woe.

It is interesting that this city is right next door to Capernaum, which is mentioned several times in the gospels and generally with a positive response to the gospel. However, Capernaum will also be spoken of negatively by Jesus.

R. A. S. Macalister: Bethsaida [is a]...place on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, whither Christ went after feeding the five thousand (Mark 6:45, cf. Luke 9:10), and where He healed a blind man (Mark 8:22); the home of Philip, Andrew, and Peter (John 1:44; John 12:21). It was denounced by Christ for unbelief (Matt. 11:21, Luke 10:13). The town was advanced by Philip the tetrarch from a village to the dignity of a city, and named Julias, in honour of Cæsar’s daughter. The situation is disputed, and, indeed, authorities differ as to whether or not there were two places of the same name, one east, one west of the Jordan. Et–Tell, on the northern shore of the sea, east of the Jordan, is generally identified with Bethsaida Julias: those who consider that the narrative of the crossings of the Lake (Mark 6:45) requires another site west of the Jordan, seek it usually at ’Ain et–Tabigha near Khan Minyeh. The latest writers, however, seem inclined to regard the hypothetical second Bethsaida as unnecessary (see Sanday, Sacred Sites of the Gospels, p. 41), and to regard et–Tell as the scene of all the incidents recorded about the town.

Many mighty works were apparently done in Bethsaida. They did not respond with positive volition towards God. Some believed in the Lord but many did not, despite the great works.

Luke 10:13c For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon,... (ESV; capitalized)

In context, Jesus is speaking of the cities and towns that reject His evangelists (they are healing in these cities where they go). Who would not want to be healed and hear their message of the kingdom? Apparently some cities would reject them entirely.

Tyre and Sidon are major gentile populated cities. Both are major cities on the coast of Phœnicia (today, this would be Lebanon, north of Israel). At the beginning of His ministry, Jesus focused upon cities populated by Jews. He did not go up to Tyre or to Sidon. At this point in our narrative, Jesus is going to enter into some Samaritan towns.

Gentiles would also respond to the gospel message; and apparently, with greater enthusiasm than the Lord’s Own people. Many gentiles would respond to the evangelization of Paul and the other disciples (Paul primarily went to the gentiles).

Luke 10:13d ...they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. (ESV; capitalized)

Given that so many translations with any commentary generally got this wrong, the key word is the 3^rd person plural, aorist active indicative of metanoéô (μετανοέω) [pronounced meh-tah-noh-EH-oh], which means, to change one’s thinking, to change one’s mind, of a purpose he has formed or of something he has done; to relent, to turn around; to change direction. Strong’s #3340. Because of the poor scholarship in many Christian circles, this is presented over and over again as some sort of an emotional reaction toward sins which we have committed—like strong regret, sadness or repentance. But in truth, this refers to a change of mind, and that change of mind is not directed by default toward sin or sinning. This change of mind would have been directed toward Jesus Christ. He would be the One performing that mighty deeds and healings; and the people would logically change their minds about Him. There is nothing in this context which speaks of sin.

Let me give you a rule of thumb: God does not require any believer or unbeliever to respond emotionally in any particular way to His teaching or His person. When actual emotions are referenced as related to a command, the command is not to succumb to this or that negative emotion. That is, do not allow your sinful emotions to run your life. At the same time, Jesus never tells His audience to feel this or that emotion. When it comes to a positive command, it is all about actions or mental attitude. So when we are commanded by Jesus to love our neighbor (which comes out of the Old Testament), this does not mean that we study and think about someone that we know and don’t like and just wait to drum up some kind of positive emotion toward that person. Jesus never does that. The Bible never does that. Loving our neighbor is a mental attitude, not an emotion.

When God gives us a positive command (do this), it is either about our mental attitude or it is about things which we ought to be doing. God never commands us to feel a certain way. When God gives us a negative command (do not do this), it is about a mental attitude, a change of behavior or to stop being guided by a certain emotion or set of emotions.

The people of these Gentile cities would have responded to the gospel message and to signs performed by Jesus or any of His disciples. However, Jesus would first go to the lost sheep of Israel. They had the Scriptures and they knew about the Messiah. It was up to them to recognize the Messiah and believe in Him. Some did but many did not.

Luke 10:13 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. (ESV; capitalized)

Dr. Daniel Hill: Jesus tells them that if He had done what He did in these Jewish cities in these Gentile cities they would have repented long ago - WHY? Because the Jews were distracted looking for a king after their own making and rejected their Messiah who came as a lamb and not a lion.

Let me put this in another way. They were making the Messiah in their own image.

The Jews had a blind spot concerning the Messiah. They could see Him as the conquering son of David, but they did not see Him as the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. Nevertheless, the cross must come before the crown. We cannot be made right with God apart from the cross.

Luke 10:14 But it will be more bearable in the judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. (ESV; capitalized)

The Jews should have recognized their Messiah; and there will be great regrets among unbeliever Jews who had the Scriptures as a witness and the Person of Jesus as a parallel witness.

Who could regret more if they have learned about the Messiah all of their lives, and come face to face with the Messiah and yet did not recognize Him? If anyone should be able to recognize the Christ, it ought to be these Jews in the cities that Jesus is talking about.

Luke 10:14 But it will be more bearable in the judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. (ESV; capitalized)

Steve Ellis: Tyre and Sidon were large Phoenician cities on the Mediterranean about 35 and 60 miles, respectively from the Sea of Galilee. These two cities were often the subject of warnings from the prophets because of their worship of Baal (Isa 23; Ezek 26-28; Joel 3:4; Amos 1:9-10; Zech 9:2-4).

Luke 10:13–14 Woe to you Chorazin and Bethsaida. If the great things done among you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, those people would have changed their minds, putting on sackcloth and ashes to represent their repentance. Therefore, the judgment upon Tyre and Sidon will be more bearable for them than it will be for you. (Kukis paraphrase)

Steve Ellis: Chorazin was a village about two and a half miles north of Capernaum and Bethsaida was about three miles east. Both of these towns were in Galilee and both had seen Jesus’ ministry firsthand. They both rejected Him and not repented in regard to their attitude toward Him as the Messiah.

Ellis continues: We draw an important principle from these verses. Punishment on the Day of Judgment takes into account the opportunities one has had (cf. Luke 12:47-48; Matt 12:41; 23:13).

Luke 10:15a And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? (ESV; capitalized)

Capernaum is a city of religious Jews; but they rejected the Lord. Jesus tells the negative people that they will not spent eternity with God; they will not be exalted to the heavens.

Various geographical regions and cities will be represented in heaven; but not many from Capernaum will be there.

Those from Capernaum who have rejected the Lord, they—the population of Capernaum—will descend into the grave; they will spend eternity with the fallen.

Steve Ellis: Jesus describes Capernaum as being brought down to Hades. This is a clear allusion to Isaiah 14:15 and the description of the fall of Satan. Hades is the Greek word for hell and has two compartments: torments (the abode of the unbelieving until the Great White Throne Judgment) and paradise or Abraham’s bosom (the abode of believers of the Old Testament until paradise was transferred to heaven with Christ – Luke 16:19-31; 23:43; Ac 2:27, 31; 2 Cor 12:1-4; Eph 4:8-10). Obviously, Jesus is referring to torments here.

Luke 10:15 And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades. (ESV; capitalized)

Luke 10:15 You will not be exalted to the heavens, Capernaum; but you will descend into Hades. (Kukis mostly literal translation)

Dr. Daniel Hill: Capernaum, the resting place of Nahum, had more opportunity than any city in which Jesus ministered. More disciples were from there, He spent more time there than any place else during His public ministry, more miracles, more parables, more messages - yet in the end, for the most part they rejected and lost the honor they could have had. This helps us add to the answer to our first question. Where is your significance, your honor? Is it in merely receiving what God has for you or is it in something more, is it in knowing God and His Son in a personal way?

Luke 10:15 You will not be exalted to the heavens, O Capernaum; but rather, you will descend into hell. (Kukis paraphrase)

Steve Ellis: Jesus must have mentioned these cities because of their rejection of the message of those whom Jesus sent. Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum were towns that had already rejected Him. The Gentile cities of Sodom, Tyre and Sidon would not come under as harsh a treatment in the day of judgment as these cities because they had rejected greater revelation than was ever given to Sodom, Tyre, and Sidon.

Luke 10:13–15 Woe to you, Chorazin [and] woe to you, Bethsaida—that if the (mighty) deeds done in Tyre and Sidon that were being done among you (all), long ago, those remaining would have changed their minds, [expressing their repentance] with [the use of] sackcloth and ashes. Therefore, the judgment will be more bearable in Tyre and Sidon than [it will be for] you (all). You will not be exalted to the heavens, Capernaum; but you will descend into Hades. (Kukis mostly literal translation)

Jesus speaks of cities with large populations of Jews who have rejected Him as their King and Savior.

V. 16 is related to the disciples going out and giving the message of the gospel and is not necessarily connected to the woe to you passage.

Jesus tells His disciples, “When you go out and speak My words and My message, it is as if I am them speaking these truths.

This is clearly something that Jesus maintains, as He allows mankind to spread His Word. Unlike all other religious leaders, Jesus did not spend an inordinate amount of time teaching. He only taught for 3 or 4 years. That was it. For all other religious leaders, that is a warming up period of time. That is the time that they spend learning their craft and making decisions as to their message.

Any religious figure, one who teaches truth or falsehood, is only remembered in history if he spends his life dedicated to teaching his doctrines (whether these be true or false).

Throughout Israel’s history, there have been many people who were thought to be the Messiah or they presented themselves as the Messiah. I could not name any of these people by name because their ministries were generally short-lived. They were not the Messiah from God; and making such claims almost insured that their proclamations would be over a short period of time.

Jesus tells His followers not to take this rejection personally. They will be rejected; but it is not they themselves who are rejected, it is the Lord Who is being rejected.

Luke 10:16c ...and the one who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me." (ESV; capitalized)

Furthermore, Jesus explains, when a person rejects Jesus, he is rejecting God. None of this is personal; this is all tied to positive or negative attitude toward God.

Luke 10:16 "The one who hears you hears Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me, and the one who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me." (ESV; capitalized)

Let me paraphrase: Therefore, when you witness to someone, and they go off on some sort of tirade, don’t worry about it. Don’t think that you need to go off on a tirade against them. If they insult you, you don’t need to insult them. Again, it is not personal. They are not rejecting you; they are rejecting God.

Steve Ellis: Jesus consoled the men whom He was sending out by revealing that the rejection they would experience was not a rejection of them but of Him. The failure that these men would experience could have easily discouraged them. Jesus knew that the rejection that He had experienced would be experienced by them also. Even though the harvest was plentiful, the response to their ministry was small. Nevertheless, they were expected to be faithful in the execution of their calling.

Luke 10:16 Those who hear the words of truth from you, it is as if I am the One speaking to them; but those who reject you and your message, that one is actually rejecting Me. Furthermore, the man who rejects Me rejects God Who sent Me.” (Kukis paraphrase)

Dr. Daniel Hill: So not be shocked by rejection, if anyone rejects the Gospel you give remember that you are the messenger. The true rejection is not of the messenger but the message and the message is of a Savior Jesus Christ and the Creator, God the Father. They rejected Him didn’t they?

This general sentiment is repeated a number of times in the gospels, in several different contexts: Luke 9:48 Matthew 10:40 18:5 Mark 9:37 John 12:44, 48 13:20.

It is interesting that Luke places this verse right here. Logically, I would have placed it when He was sending out the 70 or 72. It would have been directly related to that. On the other hand, Jesus may have been preparing His current followers for the return of the 70 or 72 man point team.

The 70 or 72 disciples who were sent out both to evangelize and speak of the kingdom to come have returned. These men are very jazzed from this excursion.

There is not a great deal discussed about the various cities and how they responded; but there are 35 pairs of men who went to at least 35 cities and villages. Obviously, those cannot all be discussed. God the Holy Spirit also limited the length of each gospel, as that is just common sense. President Lyndon B. Johnson had a biographer which wrote a four-volume set biography of Johnson (he is presently working on the fifth volume). So far, this is about 3000 pages. Can you imagine how long a thorough biography of Jesus might be? In other words, throughout the gospels, there are places where we know that much more detail could have been added, but was not.

Luke 10:17b ...saying, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!" (ESV; capitalized)

The men were particularly amazed as to how the demons responded to them. They could order demons out of these people and the demons would obey immediately. This means that they would come across demon-possessed people who were completely insane and dangerous, and within seconds, would return to complete normalcy.

Luke 10:17 The seventy-two returned with joy, saying, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name!" (ESV; capitalized)

What seemed to amaze the disciples the most was the power which Jesus had given them. They could cast out demons!

Given that His followers were so amazed as to their powers over demons, Jesus has a few words for them to take in and absorb.

Sometimes, there are moments of teachability. There is something that catches the attention of a person, or affects them directly, and they are suddenly open to this or that topic. Jesus knows that many of this group are ready for more information about the demon world.

The 70 (or 72) evangelists have returned from the various cities (we do not know how long this took, but it appears to have taken place over a fairly short period of time. They are quite jazzed over what happened and their success and the response of the people—and particularly, it seems—that the wicked spirits were subjected to them.

This is what they have said to the Lord: "Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name!" (Luke 10:17b; ESV; capitalized). Therefore, Jesus will respond specifically to that.

Jesus, speaking as a prophet, seeing Satan being cast out of heaven like a lightning flash. Jesus saw this in His humanity, as His Deity is aware of every event of human and angelic history, past, present and future. This would be something that God the Holy Spirit would have to have revealed to Him long after the fact (specifically, to His humanity). This information is also revealed to us in the Scriptures. The imperfect tense indicates that Jesus saw this in the past and, in His memory (in His mind’s eye), He continues to see it.

At one time, Satan could move between heaven and earth as he so willed; prior to his fall. However, when Satan sinned against God, he was cast out of heaven. Being that he accuses Job before God, Satan is apparently allowed back into heaven at certain times and for specific reasons. See Job 1 (HTML) (PDF) (WPD) and Job 2 (HTML) (PDF) (WPD).

When Satan was cast out of heaven, a third of the stars (angels) were pulled down with him (Revelation 12:4).

Luke 10:18 And He said to them, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. (ESV; capitalized)

Luke 10:19a Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions,... (ESV; capitalized)

Jesus tells the seventy that He has given them the power (or the authority) to trample down scorpions and serpents. Even though this paints a very visual picture; I believe that we should understand this symbolically. Just as serpents and scorpions can be the enemy of man; their true enemies are unseen—demons from the spirit world. The mention of Satan, serpents and scorpions suggests a variety of demons.

Furthermore, serpents and scorpions represent natural dangers which a person is going to face; and God tells these men not to worry about these dangers; God is providing for them. This is God’s provision of logistical grace.

This does not mean that we should handle snakes or scorpions as a proof of our faith. It would only be a proof of our idiocy.

Jesus confirms to them what they have observed, that He has given them power over the enemies of God—and I think that the emphasis continues to be on the enemies from the spiritual world.

This is a statement with 3 negatives, which stacks up just how carefully God monitors their safety. In context, I would have to suggest that God is protecting them from the violent and powerful world of demons. These people were able to walk throughout the territory assigned to them by Jesus and, despite there being a massive host of demons which wanted to see them crushed, the Lord has made their desired assault come to naught.

Now, does this mean that no harm will ever befall us? What we have to do at this juncture is to stay with the context and not get too crazy when it comes to making application.

First of all, the context is, Jesus is speaking to those whom He sent out as His representatives, who were to act as evangelists, to offer to the people of Samaria the kingdom, and to heal the sick and, apparently, to cast out demons when necessary. There were no losses which occurred. That is, no one was in danger when on this mission, despite there being millions of demons who wanted to see them destroyed. They had complete protection from that.

Now, we as believers in our life and in our function for God (in the operation of our spiritual gifts), receive a great deal of protection as well. If we are honest, most of the troubles and difficulties of life are all a result of what we do to ourselves. And God does allow us to face some pressures and difficulties. No one goes through life without pressure, difficulties or roadblocks. Part of our spiritual growth is being able to deal with these things.

So, the people to whom Jesus spoke to had absolute protection against the spirit world. For us, in the Church Age, once we have believed in the Lord, demons cannot enter into us or control us; but they might influence us with their evil thinking. That is a choice that we make.

Now, I am where I am because of some difficulties and roadblocks that I experienced many, many years ago as a new Christian—some of these things brought on by mistakes which I made and some of them simply difficulties of life that I was unable to overcome. When it became clear that my only solution to move forward in my normal vocation was to move to another state, that was quite a difficult thing to do (for me); but it was the right thing to do. It would not have happened without facing some problems which could not be resolved remaining where I was.

Luke 10:19 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. (ESV; capitalized)

Despite the language of what Jesus is saying as being quite strong, we need to stay with the context and apply without getting too crazy.

Dr. Daniel Hill: Let’s not take this as a sanction to test God by going out and playing with snakes and scorpions. That is as wrong as what Satan wanted Jesus to do in testing God in the temptations of Matthew 4 when he beckoned Him to jump off the highest pinnacle of the Temple because, after all, God said that angles would hold up the Messiah keeping Him from harm. What this verse tells me is that there is a destiny that God has for me and for you and as we follow Him, walking by faith in the Holy Spirit, we will be kept from harm in this the fallen devils world. That should make you feel pretty secure which is the answer to the third question. In what do you find your security? In being so skilled as to not step on a serpent or scorpion or in trusting God for your safety, your security, your destiny?

Luke 10:20a Nevertheless, do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you,... (ESV; capitalized)

These disciples appear to be particularly jazzed because the demon world is subject to them. Jesus is not telling them that they should not rejoice, but He is going to offer them something even better to rejoice about.

Luke 10:20b ...but rejoice that your names are written in heaven." (ESV; capitalized)

“This is what you need to be particularly happy about,” Jesus tells them, “that your names have been recorded in heaven.” This means that they are eternally saved. This is a far more important consideration than Satan’s fall (which is why we have demons on the earth).

As an aside, let me point out that demons have great mobility, despite being thrown out of heaven (apart from very specific periods of time). They could go to Uranus, they could go to other solar systems, they could willfully separate themselves from earth and live elsewhere. However, they choose not to. Why? Because earth is where God is exercising His plan, and they would like to mess it up. Earth is where there are creatures of God (us) with free will and with a knowledge of God. Earth is where the action is, for the fallen angels.

Luke 10:20 Nevertheless, do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven." (ESV; capitalized)

The 70 evangelists came back enthusiastic, but with a skewed emphasis, which Jesus needed to correct, ever so slightly.

Dr. Daniel Hill: What should be our greatest source of Joy, what should make us more happy than anything else? That we are saved - our names are written in the Lambs book of life forever. Initially, the disciples were caught up in their relationship with the world, that in Christ’s name they had power over even over the spirit world. Jesus told them that they should be rejoicing in their relationship with God. Their names are written down in heaven.

Hill later writes: In what do you find honor or significance, in what do you find joy, in what do you find security? Our names are written down in heaven, and Jesus is now there to secure for us a place, and the Holy Spirit indwells us. Our Love our Joy our Peace - our significance, our happiness, our security. We have all that God has for us, let us rejoice in the God of our salvation.

Luke 10:18–20 Then Jesus said to them, “I saw Satan as an angel being cast down out of heaven, as lightning from the sky. Listen to Me: I have give you the authority to trample down serpents and scorpions; and I have given each of you the power over the enemies of God. There is nothing out there which can harm you without My knowledge and assent. Furthermore, do not rejoice simply because the spirits are all subordinate to you; but rejoice that your names have been recorded eternally in the heavens.” (Kukis paraphrase)

Steve Ellis: After they completed their mission, the 70 (or 72) returned with reports that reflect a preoccupation with the miracles they had performed. They did not report on the response of the people to their ministry; however, they reported on the response of the demons (v. 17) to the exercise of the authority that Christ had entrusted to them. Jesus found it necessary to give them a mild rebuke. He reminded them that the authority was not theirs, but His and He had just entrusted it to them (v. 19). This authority belonged to Him because He had expelled Satan from heaven at the time of his original fall (v. 18 cf. Ezek 28:12-15 and Isaiah 14:12-15). They were not to rejoice in the fact that the demons had been made subject to them, rather they were to rejoice in the fact that they had a heavenly home (v. 20).

My first impressions reading of this is, Jesus, in His humanity, is recognizing what God is doing and Jesus says this aloud, sharing His thinking with His disciples and with us, these many centuries later.

A brief review of Luke 10:17–20:

The context for the next two verses is this:

Luke 10:17 The seventy-two returned with joy, saying, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name!" (ESV; capitalized)

The 70 or 72 evangelists sent into Samaria have returned.

Luke 10:18 And He said to them, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. (ESV; capitalized)

Jesus speaks prophetically of what He has seen in His humanity.

Luke 10:19 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. (ESV; capitalized)

Jesus assures His disciples of their safety. Even though He speaks about serpents and scorpions, He is actually referencing demons.

Furthermore, Jesus is not encouraging believers to pick up and handle snakes and scorpions. This is so not the point.

Luke 10:20 Nevertheless, do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven." (ESV; capitalized)

Jesus tells them not to rejoice in their great authority, but over the fact that they are forever saved.

This short section appears to be a response to the enthusiasm of the Lord’s evangelizing disciples. The language which begins v. 21 places this prayer alongside of the successful return of the disciples whom Jesus sent out.

Luke 10:21a In that same hour He rejoiced in the Holy Spirit.... (ESV; capitalized)

Jesus, in speaking with the seventy (-two) whom He sent out. He was encouraged by the faithfulness of God, which the seventy reveal at their return. Although God does not possess emotions, Jesus, in His humanity, does have human emotions (none of them sinful, of course). He has an appreciation, in the Spirit, based upon God’s faithfulness to these seventy disciples, who had returned from going out to the cities and towns.

All statements made by the Lord, regardless of the reason, if they are recorded in Scripture, are for our benefit and learning.

At some point during that day, Jesus began thinking of what He has observed thus far, and He rejoices in the Holy Spirit. Jesus came to a doctrinal conclusion, based upon His knowledge of doctrine and based upon His life to that point (perhaps based upon a few things that have just taken place, that day or quite recently).

It is also reasonable to think that Jesus had some human emotion at this time, because His humanity would have had human emotion.

Jesus is making a public prayer at this point. Jesus has come to some doctrinal conclusions, and He is stating them in a prayer. Jesus would be speaking to God the Father from His humanity. He is speaking aloud for the edification of those who are with Him.

I have suggested the following analogy when we consider the Lord’s Deity and His humanity—and how can you possibly consider these two aspect of our Lord separately? We, as human beings, all possess a similar dichotomy in ourselves. We have a soul, and that soul thinks and devises and considers. However, there is also a portion of our brain which is more or less on automatic pilot, and not subject to the volition of our soul. There is a part of our bring which controls our heartbeat, the movement of blood; the response to physical stimuli, etc. These are not conscious things which we do. I do not experience a pin prick, and then decide, “I will choose not to feel that.” My nerves are going to take a physical response right to my brain. Even though my brain is clearly involved in these involuntary physical acts and responses, I cannot turn them off and on. I cannot stop my heart from beating by my free will, for instance.

In much the same way, there are two distinct aspects to the Hypostatic Union of Jesus Christ—His Deity and His humanity and, in some way, these aspects of Him can function independently of one another. For instance, we are told that Jesus holds the entire universe together. I understand this to mean that there are some things, from His Deity, which function apart from His human volition. Somehow, Jesus is able to function as God, insofar as it is necessary in our universe, and yet this can remain separate from all of His decisions as a human being (as Jesus is fully human and fully divine, combined into a unique Living Being).

Let me suggest that He has chosen, in His human volition, to not access or use any of His Deity attributes on behalf of Himself as a man. Whatever Jesus must do as God—such as hold the universe together—this continues to take place on automatic pilot, so that whatever is required of His Deity take place apart from the volition of the humanity of Jesus. Furthermore, these things are taking place apart from the human knowledge of our Lord.

Now, we have a parallel of this in the human body. We have our normal human volition, which tells us to get up and to walk forward; but, that same human volition cannot contact the brain and tell us how fast the heart is to pump or what our blood pressure should be; or how our body should react to our blood pressure. We can affect some of those things by our actions (if I run, I will increase my heartbeat; but I cannot choose an arbitrary number and increase my heartbeat to that number).

Jesus specifically identifies Who God is. God the Father is sovereign in heaven and over the earth (even though Satan temporarily rules over the earth). God has, for a period of time, given Satan a position of authority—within very specific parameters—over the earth. One of those parameters might be, he is not allowed to destroy the human race as a whole or individual members of the human race. Satan would be limited as to who he can harm and to what degree. God may allow Satan to do physical or emotional harm as a part of the sin unto death.

Luke 10:21d ...that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding... (ESV; capitalized)

First of all, what things has God hidden from the wise and those with understanding?

Within the past hour, Jesus has said to his disciples: "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. 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. Nevertheless, do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven." (Luke 10:18b–20; ESV)

No one, by observation or by studying knows about the fall of Satan. No one knows that His disciples would have the authority to tread on serpents and scorpions (how demons are spoken of, as Jesus gave His disciples power over the enemy, that enemy being demon forces. The fact that the names of these 70 or 72 disciples are written in heaven is also something which cannot be found out through rationalism or empiricism.

There are more things which God has hidden from the wise and those with understanding, which will be spoken of in v. 22.

Luke 10:21a-c 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... (ESV; capitalized)

Jesus has been on the road long enough to have met and interacted with many religious types who were well-learned; and He was also aware of the sometimes childish outbreaks that His disciples might have. It is clear that God’s plan and will are being constantly rejected by the very people who ought to embrace it. The well-read religious Jews ought to exclaim, “I cannot believe it, that I should be alive during the revealing of God’s Messiah.” But, in Israel, only few of them come to this realization, despite all of their education and learning.

In our current society, scientists and doctors are unduly revered, and some groups of people attempt to suggest that there is some great chasm between science and Christianity. There isn’t and there never has been. Two scientists can view the exact same sets of phenomenon and come up with very different conclusions. Some scientists, in their work, marvel at the great creation of God. Other scientists who observe the same things, reject God from their reality.

I have watched many a nature series narrated by Sir David Attenborough. I see what he sees and I marvel at the creation of God. He has been quoted as saying, “It never really occurred to me to believe in God.” Now, it is not as though he has never thought about it. This interview indicates that he is an agnostic. Attenborough and I can see the exact same things, and yet he can think, “Maybe there is a God, maybe there is not.” But what I see is the very evidence of an intelligent Creator. Attenborough perceives instead millions of years of evolution, where there have been billions of mutations to bring us from a single cell to an entire human being. And prior to this great march from individual cells to human beings, somehow, individual cells came to be in the first place. In the view of the evolutionist, cells suddenly appeared through some unexplained process. And no individual cell is simple. A cell is very small, but certainly not simple. In fact, one might argue that a single cell is more complex than any computer which man has built. So, when I look at life, I do not see evolution at all. It simply violates too many tenets of science.

God has a plan and a purpose; and He has hidden these things from men who consider themselves to be wise and learned. Many have come up with their own ideas about Who and What God is; or what life is all about; but the geniuses of the world are unable to explain it. Various people have tried to explain this world and this life coming from a variety of directions, but this is something which man is unable to fully understand or appreciate on his own—apart from revelation (that is, God must reveal Himself, or man cannot understand Him).

The wise man might be a man who has been around for a long time; who has seen and experienced a great deal in life. Therefore, he has many experiences to draw from in order to develop his own philosophy. The learned is the one who has been schooled or has learned so much from others (through their books or philosophies or from their direct teaching). Some are life-smart and some are book-smart. However, again there is the problem of two people seeing the same thing and still coming to different conclusions. Someone can learn through books or through teaching, but that does not mean that they are studying truth. They are simply studying something which someone else wrote or said.

Man cannot, either by reason or by observation, determine what God’s plans and intentions are. These things are concealed from man and are only revealed to man as God chooses. God has not just given such information to us as believers, but we are encouraged by God to apprehend this knowledge.

Literally, Jesus, speaking to God, says, “You make such things known to those who are infants.” Or, “You have revealed these things Jesus is not saying that only babies crawling around needing their mother’s milk can understand God’s thinking; but those who may be considered infants by comparison to the wise and learned—that is the contrast which is being established here. They are able to understand God’s plan and His great purposes, based upon God revealing Himself to them.

These infants would have simply been the men and women who had not had all of the formal education which the scribes and pharisees had enjoyed. The scribes and pharisees have mis-learned the Scriptures. They have over-emphasized one set of truths and ignored a whole other set.

We have an excellent example of this in the Sabbath. The Jews followed the Sabbath with the application of great legalism. The Talmud lists 39 categories of work and made this a part of their observance of the Sabbath. So, not only have their over-emphasized one set of truths, but they had added a huge number of additional laws to better define how the Sabbath should be observed.

But do you know what the Jews did not observe? The Sabbath year. The Sabbath year is described in Leviticus 25:1–7. According to 2Chronicles 36:21 and Jeremiah 25:11–12, the Hebrew people were sent out of the land (the fifth cycle of discipline) so that the 70 Sabbath years which they ignored could be observed.

Both the super-legalism regarding the Sabbath day and the disregard for the Sabbath year are very well documented historical facts. So that tells us that Israel overemphasized one thing and yet ignored something else very similar to it.

The same thing is true of Messiah. The learned and the wise of Israel saw their Messiah coming to them as a conquering hero, but they were unable to apply Psalm 22 or Isaiah 53. What they did not like, they simply ignored and/or misinterpreted.

Jesus revealed Himself in such a way that some would understand with very little observation that He is the Messiah. Andrew, Simon Peter's brother,...found his own brother Simon and said to him, "We have found the Messiah" (which means Christ). (John 1:40b–41)

Luke 10:21e ...yet You made these things known to [those who are like] infants [by comparison]. (Kukis mostly literal translation)

How does a child learn as compared to an adult? A child primarily learns everything based upon faith. In most cases, his parents tell him X, Y and Z; and he believes X, Y and Z. Like most children, I believed in Santa Claus and I actually had some rational reasons for doing so. I knew that my parents were not wealthy, so I questioned how could they afford all of the things which our family received at Christmas. Eventually, I realized that there was no Santa Claus and they simply worked hard to afford what we received each year.

Similarly, figures of authority tell the child things and, in most instances, they believe those things. This is how a child can develop odd ideas and concepts after going to a public school, where odd ideas and concepts are taught by some teachers. For a period of time—sometimes, a very long period of time—a child has a difficult time discerning when to believe and when not to believe. As a young person throughout my public education years, it did not occur to me that teachers were imperfect and that they sometimes taught things which were false

One of the things taught to children from a very early age is evolution. I firmly believed in evolution up to about age 21 or 22. Like everyone else, I believed it to be the scientific explanation (even though it cannot be observed). I was surprised in my 20s to find that many people did not believe in evolution and that they had scientific reasons for not believing.

Earlier, I spoke of believers with doctrine and with flexibility could observe Jesus and accept Him as the Messiah of God. However, here Jesus is making a contrast between the wise and learned, who have rejected Him; and the infants, who believe in Him. How do we explain this?

Jesus came to a land where many people were steeped in the Scriptures, but they had a very specific view of things which rejected the gracious God of the Universe, and His Messiah (essentially, they rejected many aspects of the Messiah which are found in Jesus; therefore, they did not recognize Jesus as their Messiah). So these wise and learned men are people who knew the Scriptures, but only enough to support and justify their legalistic view of God. They were not believers in True God (as Paul once wrote, I fear you proclaim another Jesus).

Another way to put this is, they learned enough Scripture to reject the true God.

Let me offer a modern-day example. There are those on the far left political spectrum who present Jesus as a long-haired hippie, the first true justice warrior, who proclaimed socialism as the fundamental answer to man’s ills. Now, nothing could be further from the truth, but they take a little Scripture here, a little popular culture there, and mix in a few misconceptions, and they present a man who is not anything like Jesus.

Republicans Going to Church (a liberal meme); from Catholic Forums; accessed December 2, 2019.

Despite having four biographies of our Lord, people today do not know who Jesus is. They make Him in their own image.

The only important point to possibly correct is to #5. Because we are in a republic where free speech and free assembly are allowed, we may certainly protest our tax burden. But, similarly, we must accept it, no matter how ridiculously high it is.

Jesus as a long-haired socialist (a political cartoon); from Scottie’s Toy Box; accessed December 2, 2019.

Luke 10:21a-e 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;... (ESV; capitalized)

The key to understanding this passage is understanding the three basic systems of perception. Wise people have experienced a great deal of life through their various senses. This is perception based upon the senses. The second group referred to are those who know what they know from others. They have learned these things. The problem with both sets of perception is, they are meritorious and God does not reveal the gospel through either method. The third method of perception is faith, and this is how children learn. They ask questions, their parents answer these questions, and the children believe their parents. It is this latter way that God makes Himself known to man. God explains Himself through the gospel (the gospel is that Jesus died for our sins and we receive His righteousness if we believe or trust in Him). If we are interested in God, we believe what we hear. This is the first step in a relationship with God.

In this phrase, Jesus continues to address God the Father; but there is some confusion whether this is the vocative or the nominative case. It is God’s plan for Him to revealed it to whomever He chooses, and that those who are simple might understand it; whereas, the wise or the learned might not. The key is not IQ but revelation. The key is not intelligence but positive volition.

Luke 10:21 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. (ESV; capitalized)

Jesus, in His humanity, despite what He faced in the future, was a happy person. Therefore, He rejoices.

Dr. Daniel Hill: The Lord Jesus had abundant joy through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. The Lord Jesus had great joy in the salvation of men. The Lord Jesus had great joy in the sovereignty of the Father, which resulted in His revealing His salvation The Lord Jesus further rejoiced because it was the Father’s good pleasure to accomplish salvation through the Son.

The things which have been hidden from the wise and understanding are various Bible doctrines. We do not, for instance, by thinking and pondering, come up with the concept of the Hypostatic Union. This is revealed to us in the Scriptures and we develop this doctrine based upon what God has revealed in His Word.

Luke 10:21 Later on, during this same day, Jesus rejoiced in the Holy Spirit, saying, “I recognize that You, Father, the Lord of heaven and earth, have concealed Your plans and purposes from those who consider themselves to be wise and learned; yet You, at the same time, revealed these things to those who are (intellectual) infants, by comparison. Yea, Father, so You cause Your will and purpose to unfold. (Kukis paraphrase)

There are three systems of perception: faith, empiricism and rationalism. In the first, we do not actually see the thing in question or we do not reason our way to a conclusion, but we accept something we hear or read by faith.

Faith is not simply the domain of religion. Every person exercises faith. We see a paper written about climate science; we see comments or approval for this article written by other scientists; and so, we accept that information as true. That would be a matter of faith. Let’s say that we make our own measurements regarding the weather where we are and consider these from year-to-year; a compendium of such measurements would be an example of empiricism. If we draw some simple conclusions based upon these measurements (such that, over a period of time, we notice a trend of something going up, down, increasing or decreasing) that would rationalism based upon empiricism. When we come to a greater conclusion (like, these measurements seem to indicate that the climate of the earth is getting warmer), then we are bringing in a whole host of notions which are based upon faith.

As a well-taught geometry student knows, even to build a system of geometry (a specific kind of mathematics), we must begin with a dozen or more undefined terms and postulates (unproven statements which we accept as true) before we can proceed to any sort of rational conclusion (known as theorems). Every conclusion (or theorem) developed in Geometry is based upon a set of assumptions (which are taken on faith). Without making these assumptions, there is no Geometry (or any other kind of mathematics).

Luke 10:21 In that same hour, Jesus [lit., He] rejoiced in the Holy Spirit, and He said, “I acknowledge to You, Father, the Lord of heaven and earth, that You have concealed [Your plans and intentions] from [men who consider themselves] wise and learned; yet You made these things known to [those who are like] infants [by comparison]. Yea, Father, in this manner, Your purpose [and plan] came to pass before You. (Kukis mostly literal translation)

The wise person alluded to here is a person who has lived for a long time and has recognized divine establishment laws as being the best laws for the human race. A person may start in his early life by thinking that marriage is an outdated arbitrary institution, and that children by be raised by virtually any entity, but as a person becomes wise, he finds out that not all households are equal, not all institutions of companionship and dedication are equal; and that the introduction of children changes a great many things. A wise man, after many years of observation, may conclude, children appear to do best when raised by both of their natural parents.

The learned man is someone who has been educated by whatever educational institutions are available. What that person will learn is based upon accepted concepts based upon faith, observations and logical though. The bias of the learning institution often makes an imprint on the learned man.

Regarding these two types of men, neither one understands God or God’s plan one whit. Not based on empiricism; not based upon rationalism (or book-learning). Spiritual information must be revealed to them from another source (which can take place in a learning institution or in a conversation over a cup of coffee or by reading the third chapter of John). Their only correct response is to hear about Jesus Christ and then to believe in Him.

Truth is revealed to whomever God chooses; and it cannot be discovered by the wise or the learned. God the Father has entrusted everything to His Son. In this context, we are speaking of God’s plan and His purpose and the revelation of these things.

A scientist can investigate a great many matters in physics or biology and come to the conclusion, this universe is not random; what do I make of that? This could be an expression of God consciousness. If the person then wants to know about God—the God Who designed this universe, the Singularity from which this universe suddenly arose—then God will see to it that he hears the gospel message from a believer (or from the Word of God). That scientist, by himself, even having discovered amazing overlaps in nature, still cannot discover the gospel message by going a little further into his study. The gospel message is God’s to reveal at will.

There are things in the universe which may alert your mind to the concept of God; but those things will not lead you directly to God. That only happens by means of the gospel message. The gospel message comes to us through revelation and not through scientific discovery.

The Fibonacci Sequence and Nature (a graphic); from Samrat Sen accessed November 22, 2024.

The Fibonacci sequence starts like this: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55 and so on forever. Each number is the sum of the two numbers that precede it. It's a simple pattern, but it appears to be a kind of built-in numbering system to the cosmos. Mathnasium provides 14 examples of the Fibonacci sequence in nature and I will give three of those as examples.

Leonardo Fibonacci came up with the sequence when calculating the ideal expansion pairs of rabbits over the course of one year.

Let us also consider the golden ratio. The golden ratio is called phi (φ) in mathematics and it is an infinite, irrational number. Phi = 1.61803...) and this ratio can be seen from the microscale to the macroscale, and right through to biological systems and inanimate objects. While the Golden Ratio (that is, the phi ratio) doesn't account for every structure or pattern in the universe, it's certainly a major player. Here are some examples from nature and the universes of both phi and the Fibonacci series. .

The head of a flower is reflects Fibonaccian processes. Typically, seeds are produced at the center, and then migrate towards the outside to fill all the space. Sunflowers provide a great example of these spiraling patterns.

The unique properties of the Golden Rectangle provides another example. This shape, a rectangle in which the ratio of the sides a/b is equal to the golden mean (phi), can result in a nesting process that can be repeated into infinity — and which takes on the form of a spiral. It's call the logarithmic spiral, and it abounds in nature.

Snail shells and nautilus shells follow the logarithmic spiral, as does the cochlea of the inner ear. It can also be seen in the horns of certain goats, and the shape of certain spider's webs.

A Shell and the Golden Rectangle (a graphic); from Mathnasium; accessed February 11, 2023.

The Golden Rectangle and the Fibonacci sequence together (a graphic); from How Stuff Works; accessed July 18, 2024. The spiral conforms to the boxes with a regional area that conforms to the Fibonacci sequence.

Flower Petal Arrangements (a graphic); from Medium; accessed July 18, 2024. This same pattern is also found in nature in many plants, either with their petals or their seeds.

These same patterns can be observed in such diverse natural occurrences as hurricanes, the ear, and the human hand. It can be found in both art and architecture.

Not surprisingly, spiral galaxies also follow the familiar Fibonacci pattern. The Milky Way has several spiral arms, each of them a logarithmic spiral of about 12 degrees. As an interesting aside, spiral galaxies appear to defy Newtonian physics. As early as 1925, astronomers realized that, since the angular speed of rotation of the galactic disk varies with distance from the center, the radial arms should become curved as galaxies rotate. Subsequently, after a few rotations, spiral arms should start to wind around a galaxy. But they don't — hence the so-called

winding problem. The stars on the outside, it would seem, move at a velocity higher than expected — a unique trait of the cosmos that helps preserve its shape.

A Spiral Galaxy (a graphic); from Mathnasium; accessed February 11, 2023. You can see the golden rectangle, the phi ratio, superimposed on the galaxy.

Much of this comes from Mathnasium (the text and the photographs). I collected some examples from other websites as well.

Even more fascinating is how the Fibonacci sequence is related to the phi ratio. Take the ratio of any two adjacent numbers in the Fibonacci sequence and that ratio moves closer and closer to the phi ratio as you move further along the sequence.

Now let’s look at the ratios: 2/1 = 2, 3/2 = 1.5, 5/3 = 1.666..., 8/5 = 1.6, 13/8 = 1.625, 21/13 = 1.615384615384615..., 34/21 = 1.619047619047619... Each time, we get closer and closer to the phi ratio (1.61803...). If f_n is the n^th term in the Fibonacci sequence and f_n+1 is the next term, we say that the limit of f_n+1/f_n as n goes toward infinity is phi. The phi ratio is also known as the golden ratio.

At the bottom of the article, do they add the words, and many scientists, as they ponder such things, believe that the universe and nature are not random, but designed, possibly by a Creator. For more information, see the book of John, chapter 1?

Of course not! These sorts of words are generally not found in science texts (although many individual scientists exclaim God’s existence, in some way, when they discover or examine different aspects of this world and universe. And many scientists do believe in God.

Quotes from Famous Scientists about God:

“The question of whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the Universe has been answered in the affirmative by some of the highest intellects that have ever existed.” –Charles Darwin.

“The more I study science, the more I believe in God.” –Albert Einstein

“God [is] the author of the universe, and the free establisher of the laws of motion.” —Physicist and chemist Robert Boyle, who is considered to be the founder of modern chemistry. Boyle was a devout Christian.

“I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.” Lord Kelvin

“If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God.” —Lord William Kelvin, who was noted for his theoretical work on thermodynamics, the concept of absolute zero and the Kelvin temperature scale based upon it. Kelvin was a devout Christian.

quotation-louis-pasteur-the-more-i-study-nature-the-more-i-stand-amazed-57-55-14.jpg

Charles Darwin Quote (a graphic); from AZ quotes, accessed June 28, 2024.

Louis Pasteur Quote (a graphic); from AZ quotes, accessed June 28, 2024.

“God created everything by number, weight and measure.” Sir Isaac Newton

“In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God’s existence.” Sir Isaac Newton

“I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily.” —Sir Isaac Newton, who is widely regarded to have been the greatest scientist the world has ever produced. Newton was a devout Christian.

“When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.” Frank J. Tipler.

There is no war between science and Christianity, not today and not ever. God created all of the scientific laws and what man studies in nature and in the universe, God created.

Most of these quotes were all taken from:

https://godevidence.com/2010/08/quotes-about-god-atheism/ accessed February 11, 2023.

Also:

https://www.azquotes.com/quotes/topics/science-god.html accessed June 28, 2024.

There is no war between science and Christianity. It tends to be scientists who do not believe in God who claim such a war exists.

Neil deGrasse Tyson, who is said to be an American astrophysicist and writer, has a Facebook page, and I thought, maybe he will share some interesting scientific tidbits with us. So I followed him. My experience so far is, he uses this page (or whoever runs this page) mostly for the purpose of insulting people he does not agree with (particularly Christians who do not believe in evolution). Rather than insights, he posts things like the meme that follows:

Neil deGrasse Tyson on the Empowerment of Science (a meme); from Facebook; accessed August 9, 2024.

I have found that many modern scientists are mostly disenchanted with people who do not believe in evolution, but believe in God. Every claim which science makes about evolution—that it is not simply a theory but a proven fact; that evolution is observed; that life is made from non-living things in the lab; that the fossil evidence is conclusive—all of these claims are completely and totally false. At best, some of these claims are exaggerated; at worst, some of these claims are outright lies.

When I was younger and in college, there used to be people who would travel from university to university and debate about Creationism v. Evolution (usually a panel of four). Back then, I hitchhiked to school (if I could not get a ride there from someone I knew); and I got picked once up by a member of the anthropology department. She had attended the debate the previous evening and I asked her who she thought won the debate. She said the creationists did, but quickly added, “But we know what the truth is.”

During this same time period, some universities had a course on Evolution v. Creationism, generally taught by two teachers, each given equal time in the course (obviously, one teacher believed in evolution and the other believed that God created the world and all life). The problem for the college or university, where such courses were offered, was, the wrong side would win. No matter how the class was split, by the end of the course, more people believed in creationism than did at the beginning. This was the wrong outcome, as far as the university was concerned.

My university did not have such a course, and they never brought this debate back onto our campus; but, what they did do was, suggest that evolution be taught more. That next semester, I had evolution taught to me in three different classes: the history of mathematics, a child development course, and one of the religious courses I took (I forget which one). I do not think this to be a coincidence that three courses taught evolution on the first day of class. Evolution has a better chance of convincing the student, if no other view is taught along side it.

Evolutionists aside, many scientists are brought to the point of faith in God through the things which they study. Clearly, nature is not random. There are things known as scientific laws, but that is a misnomer. Science did not originate any of these laws and science does not enforce them. However, the scientist who believes in God based upon his scientific observations is not saved. He must hear and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ and he must believe in Jesus. He may discover God through scientific research or observation, but his pathway to God is only through Jesus Christ.

So, the knowledge which can come from scientific observation and investigation can lead one to the concept of God, but, the thing which actually connects us to God—the gospel of Jesus Christ—cannot be discovered. The very words of the gospel must be given to us in some form. We have to read it or someone needs to tell us about it. We may be moved to inquire about God through a number of different ways, but the actual connection only occurs by means of the good news of Jesus Christ.

The key to salvation is faith in Jesus Christ, which is the first system of perception used by children. There is a very specific event which takes place in the life of almost every young person with one or both parents. He just starts asking questions. It sounds as if this kid wants to know everything all at once. Why is there rain? Why is the sky blue? How come caterpillars turn into butterflies? How far away are the stars?

At some point, the believing parent speaks of God, and then the floodgates of inquiry really open up. Who is God? Why can’t I see Him? Where is He? What does He do?

It is the wise parent who is ready for this sudden onslaught of questions, because often gospel information is a part of what the child wants to know. This is one of the most receptive periods of time in a person’s life.

Starting in v. 21, Jesus appears to be praying aloud before His disciples. He is openly praising God the Father. He explains the relationship between Himself and God the Father when speaking before His disciples.

Luke 10:22a All things have been handed over to Me by My Father,... (ESV; capitalized)

It is impossible to be an expert on every ancient Greek manuscript. I have read in some places that there are 24,000 partial and full New Testament manuscripts, and at other times, I have heard that the number is 26,000. There are far fewer complete manuscripts.

I personally depend up four ancient full New Testament manuscripts: the Westcott Hort text, Scrivener Textus Receptus, Byzantine Greek text and Tischendorf’s Greek text. These are all very well-known Greek texts, and some translations will pick one of these texts and follow it religiously; and other translations will pick and choose from them (and from others).

Luke 10:22a All [things] were entrusted to Me by My Father. (Kukis mostly literal translation)

However, the Scrivener Textus Receptus, the Byzantine Greek text and Tischendorf’s Greek text all have some additional words:

Analytical-Literal Translation And turning to the disciples, He said, "All [things] were handed over to Me by My Father,...

Far Above all Translations Then he turned to his disciples and said, “Everything has been handed over to me by my father.

Modern Literal Version 2020 And having turned to the disciples, he said, All things were given to me by my Father,...

It seems logical, even if these words do not belong in the original text, that Jesus is speaking before His disciples and likely directly to them.

God the Father developed the plan of God. God the Son executed the plan of God. Jesus goes back to eternity past where it is He Who is creating the heavens and the earth.

Angels were created after God created the heavens and the earth. The disposition of angels was given over to our Lord.

God also created man—who is very puny next to any random angel—and God the Father placed all mankind into the hands of Jesus.

Luke 10:22b ...and no one knows Who the Son is except the Father,... (ESV; capitalized)

The Son—Jesus here is referring to Himself—cannot be fully apprehended or understood except by the Father (that is, God the Father).

God the Father must reveal the Son to the unbeliever. This takes place because, in the divine decrees, God the Father determined that He would provide the gospel message to those who are interested in Him. At times, God reveals the gospel to those who are not interested in Him; but generally speaking, the gospel message is reserved for those who actually want to know God.

Furthermore, no one fully understands or knows Who God the Father is except for His Son—the Man speaking right now to His followers.

Luke 10:22d ...and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him.” (ESV; capitalized)

Luke 10:22 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.” (ESV; capitalized)

God the Father has handed everything over to God the Son. At the very beginning, when Jesus was born, no one really knew the Son except the Father. However, when God the Son grew spiritually, He understood who the Father is. God the Son can reveal to anyone of His choosing Who God the Father is.

There is an exception to what Jesus has said about only the Father understands and knows the Son; and only the Son knows and understands the Father. The exception are the people to whom Jesus reveals this information to. At this point in time, Jesus was revealing this information to His disciples (all those who are on positive signals and would listen to Him); and God the Holy Spirit reveals this information to us through a system of authority. Nearly always, this system of authority is a well-qualified pastor-teacher who studies and teaches the Word of God to His congregation.

R. B. Thieme, Jr. used to always say, a pastor-teacher cannot take his congregation past his own spiritual maturity; his congregation cannot advance any further than he has. The pastor-teacher studies and teaches and his congregation is limited by what he teaches them; and he is limited by his own knowledge as to what he is able to teach.

There are other factors involved. A pastor-teacher may be constrained by the number of hours that he teaches his congregation. This could be related to the length of the service, the number of gatherings each week, and the ability of the pastor-teacher to assimilate the material necessary to teach the Word.

One of the areas in which I hope to help is, the pastor-teacher who discovers my exegesis and develops a respect for my own integrity of teaching. I hope that he will feel comfortable to teach an entire book, leaning upon what I have put together (and upon his own spiritual growth and personal insight as well).

R. B. Thieme, Jr. often disparaged commentaries, but this is because they could be so unhelpful when plumbing the depths of a verse or a passage. However, he certainly did refer to commentaries and he studied carefully the teachings of Lewis Sperry Chafer.

My attempt is to provide a great depth of resources, including the original languages, three original translations, and a complete sampling of the available translations (I try to exclude translations which use the same phrasing or vocabulary of those already listed). I believe that I also provide an accurate and understandable commentary which focuses upon the words and their meaning.

R. B. Thieme, Jr. understood the power and importance of the Word of God and, therefore, taught as many as 9 hour+ classes each week (and more hours in a week of teaching for conferences). Thousands of men and women have benefitted from his concentrated teaching that he gave himself over to. (And, like all men who stand for the truth, Bob was much maligned throughout his life as a pastor-teacher.)

Furthermore, the ministry cannot be a numbers game. It does not matter if you have a congregation of 4 or 5 or if 2000 attend your church. I face the same things as a commentator. I simply put my commentary on the internet. I don’t advertise for it, I don’t charge for it, and I do not ask for money from those who go to my website (God has made that possible). There is no advertising. I may have 2 or 3 or 8 people who really study and use my website and 100,000 who click on a link, end up at my site, and leave 2 seconds later, never to return. I cannot concern myself with the numbers (although I admittedly do have an interest here). I can only exercise my spiritual gift faithfully as unto the Lord (a phrase I heard a thousand times or more at Berachah Church).

Luke 10:22 All [things] were entrusted to Me by My Father. Furthermore, no one knows Who the Son is if not the Father; and [no one knows] Who the Father is if not the Son (and to whomever the Son wills to reveal Him). (Kukis mostly literal translation)

This is the revelation of God. The Son, Jesus Christ, chooses to whom He will reveal God the Father to.

It is only through revelation that we understand (as well as we can) the Hypostatic Union. It is only through revelation that we understand the Trinity. It is only through revelation that we understand Who God the Father is and Who God the Son is.

We come to some very limited understanding of God through God consciousness. But we only come to a saving faith through revelation; and we only experience spiritual growth by means of revelation. What I mean by revelation is, God the Holy Spirit, through an evangelist or through a pastor-teacher reveals enough truth about Jesus that we believe in Him (for salvation); and reveals enough truth for us to grow spiritually. We are only saved by exposure to revealed truth and we are only able to grow by means of revelation.

God the Father is the Divine Planner and from Him are the divine decrees. These things were handed over to God the Son. No one understands any of these things unless they are revealed to him.

No one would understand Jesus as our Savior apart from the revelation of the Scriptures. No one would understand Jesus in the Hypostatic Union except as revealed in the Scriptures. Most of the time, we begin to understand these concepts when a well-qualified pastor-teacher teaches them to his congregation.

At this point in time, Jesus was revealing these things to His disciples. Many of them would be given the privilege to write Scripture and God the Holy Spirit would reveal that to man, to his human spirit (which is where divine understanding is stored).

Steve Ellis: In His prayer, Jesus acknowledges that the wise and learned (i.e. the religious leaders in Judaism) chose to be blinded to spiritual Truth whereas the “babes” (i.e. the simple and unlearned) had accepted the gospel of the kingdom. Jesus also acknowledged the expectation of generations of kings had been fulfilled in Him.

Luke 10:22 All things have been entrusted to Me by My Father. Furthermore, no one really knows the Son except the Father and no one knows Who the Father is except the Son (and those to whom the Son reveals Him). (Kukis paraphrase)

To put this in another way, the true revelation of the Father is found in the Son.

Earlier I mentioned the idea of a 4 year old child asking a plethora of questions, eventually leading to questions about God. How do you explain Who God is? You tell the child about Jesus. In Jesus, the Father is revealed; and by Jesus, the Father is revealed.

As an aside, the first few words in v. 22 which are considered questionable—those words probably came from v. 23a.

The crowds did not fully appreciate all that they were seeing and hearing, but those close to Jesus were told by Him that what they are seeing and hearing is quite incredible. How many of the disciples had no idea how unique and amazing that their experience was?

I have taken the common adjective ídios (ἴδιος) [pronounced IH-dee-os] and used it as an adverb. I think that is reasonable in this context to translate this word privately. .

Jesus has turned toward His disciples and He is speaking to them privately or separately here. He is no longer praying or speaking divine truth aloud to whomever is around Him. What He says is specifically for His disciples (which may go beyond the basic twelve).

Jesus more literally says, happinesses or blessings to your eyes; but obviously, He is referring to His disciples and their souls. They ought to enjoy great happiness and blessings because of what they are now seeing. What are they seeing? They are seeing the Son of God teach them truth.

This is in the context of teaching all of those in this crowd about how God reveals Himself by means of Jesus.

Luke 10:23 [Jesus] turned to face [His] disciples and He said [to them] privately, “Happinesses [belong to you all, for your] eyes are seeing what you [now] see;... (Kukis mostly literal translation)

When it comes to contemporary events, people often do not appreciate or understand them. The things which are truly important, they don’t notice; and the most transitory things are what appears to weigh on their minds. How many people on this earth spend their entire lives concerned with the most trivial of things, and what is of real importance rarely enters into their thinking.

Jesus is pointing out to them, “What you are hearing and seeing right now is the most important thing that could happen to you.”

Let me give a concrete example of this. In the United States, every four years, we vote for a president. Easily half of the discussion or interaction between the supporters of opposing parties have little or nothing to do with actual competence and philosophy. There has been much discussion of the past sexual history of both President Trump and Vice President Harris (who are the present candidates for the 2024 election). In both cases, their past indiscretions and bad choices go back a decade or more. There may actually be people who are swayed one way or the other based upon these past choices made by both candidates. How much relevance does this have to their potential performance in 2025 and forward? Very little, in my opinion. However, candidates are so often defined and voted against for some of the stupidest reasons; reasons which are completely unrelated to the office that they are pursuing.

My point being, people in this life do not necessarily understand what is happening all around them, even in the world of human events (setting aside for a moment God and His plan). Even in the human realm, people cannot distinguish the trivial from the important.

The contemporary history of the disciples is happening all around them, but what is most important is Jesus Christ standing right in front of them, along with the fact that He is teaching them directly.

Even though this is true for all of the people that Jesus has spoken with or to; He confines these remarks to His disciples (this may be more than just His twelve disciples).

Application: Of all the important things in my life, possibly the most important was the abundance of teaching which came out of Berachah Church. When I arrived in Houston, Bob was teaching 8 or 9 hour+ lessons each week. At the time, I did not really think much about it, except how much it impacted my social life from time to time. However, in retrospect, I can see how important that teaching was and how unimportant my social life was.

Principle: When you are in the middle of history, it is sometimes difficult to separate what is important from what is truly mundane. Whatever is related to truth, that is what is important.

Luke 10:23 Then turning to the disciples he said privately, "Blessed are the eyes that see what you see! (ESV; capitalized)

The disciples saw the actual Son of God; and they heard His words and He took time to explain to them what many things meant.

Jesus is explaining to His disciples the unique experience which they are having right at this moment (that unique experience being the fact that Jesus is teaching them face to face). They will also see the most important events of history play out: the crucifixion, the resurrection and the ascension.

Luke 10:24a For I tell you that many prophets and kings desired to see what you see, and did not see it,... (ESV; capitalized)

Just as many people today wish that they could have sat at the Lord’s feet to hear His teaching; there were millions of people who looked forward into time desiring to see and hear the Messiah-King. Bear in mind, the promise of the Messiah loomed large in the teaching of the Hebrew people. We sometimes forget that because this is mentioned in Judaism today, but it is no longer presented as a fundamental tenet.

The people of Israel in the Old Testament were fundamentally concerned with the coming Messiah. There could be nothing more central to their worldview than their Messiah. Today, Jews are aware of the messianic teaching of their Scriptures, but it is no longer the foundational and central concept to them as it was to their predecessors.

Remember Andrew’s words to Peter when talking about Jesus? “We have found the Christ!” (John 1:41). Christ is the Greek translation for Messiah. The Messiah loomed large on the psyche of the Jewish people in the first century a.d. This was fundamental to the Jewish faith.

Both David and Isaiah looked forward to this Messiah as the culmination of all things. Both men wrote about this Messiah.

Messianic prophecies from the Old Testament:

One of the earliest prophecies found in the Old Testament is about Jesus:

When Adam and the woman had sinned, God spoke to the serpent who misled the woman and said this:

Genesis 3:15 Furthermore [lit., and], I will place enmity [and antagonism] between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed. He will bruise your head and you will bruise His heel.” (Kukis mostly literal translation)

There is the seed of the serpent and the Seed of the woman. The language used here is fascinating, as the seed of the serpent is not a reference to more serpents but to men who would follow Satan. The Seed of the woman is a reference to the Messiah, the One Who would come.

Now, generally speaking, seed is not a word associated with women. It is the man who provides the seed in conception. But God speaks of the Seed of the Woman because there will be no man involved in the conception of Jesus. The virgin birth is necessary in the human race because the sin nature is passed down from the man to his children (girls or boys). So this becomes a great theme of the Scriptures, beginning here in Genesis and prophesied in Isaiah and fulfilled in the book of Luke.

The Seed of the Woman will crush the head of the serpent, which will be the death blow to the serpent (Satan). Also, the serpent will bruise the Lord’s heel (which occurs on the cross). Although a seemingly fatal blow, as Jesus physically dies on the cross, God will raise Him up three days hence.

Although the Messiah, in one form or another, is found throughout the book of Genesis, let’s go to the end of Genesis:

Genesis 49:8–9 You [are] Judah; your brothers will praise you; your hand [will be] on the neck of your enemies; and the brothers of your father will bow down to you. Judah [is] a lion’s cub away from [his] prey; you have gone up, my son; he has crouched down, he lies in wait [or, reclines] like a lion; and, as a lion, who would rouse him up? (Kukis mostly literal translation)

At the end of his life, Jacob speaks of his sons and blesses them. What he says about Judah is most unusual. Judah is Jacob’s fourth-born son. He is not preeminent in any way. Not by his behavior (see Genesis 38) and not by his order of birth (although Judah simply assumes a position of prominence in his family around Genesis 43–44).

At the time that Jacob speaks these words, Joseph is the lord of the family. He is the one with great authority in Egypt, being second-in-command only to Pharaoh. But to whom will the tribes bow themselves down to? Who will the tribes praise in the future? It is Judah.

There is a period of waiting which takes place (these words are spoken around 2000 b.c.), so there will be about 2000 years which transpire. However, about 1000 years later, the tribe of Judah will become preeminent and a son of Judah, David, will become the first Judaic king. From that point forward, the line of kings will be descendants of Judah. Judah has crouched down, lying in wait for this time, like a lion, and who will rouse him? The tribe of Judah has been like a lion, crouched down, waiting for his time. When David comes into the picture, this is the lion rising up and taking charge.

Genesis 49:10–12 The scepter will not depart from Judah and the Lawgiver [will not depart] from the midst of His feet until Shiloh comes; and He has the obedience of the peoples. Binding His donkey to the vine and [binding] a foal to a choice vine. He has washed His garment in the wine and [He has washed] His clothing in the blood of the grape. [His] eyes are red from wine and his teeth are white from milk. (Kukis mostly literal translation)

Judah will become the ruling tribe. The scepter, a sign of rulership, will not depart from Judah until Shiloh (a reference to Jesus Christ) comes.

Shiloh is the Hebrew word Shîylôh (שִילֹה) [pronounced shee-LOW], and it means, he whose it is, that which belongs to him; tranquility. These meanings are uncertain. Obviously this is transliterated Shiloh and many believe this to reference Messiah. Strong’s #7886 BDB #1010.

The references to the blood of the grape and washing His garment in wine refer to the Lord being closely associated with sin. He became sin for us. Yet, His white teeth refers to His perfection, His being without any sin.

Messiah would come from the tribe of Judah. Both Joseph (not the Joseph of Genesis 39–50), the Lord’s legal father, and Mary, the mother of Jesus, come from the tribe of Judah. Both are in the line of David, which is the record of Matthew 1 (for the line of Joseph) and Luke 3 (the line of Mary).

The prophet Isaiah certainly looked forward to the Messiah:

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel. (ESV, capitalized)

Immanuel means God with us; and Jesus on this earth, walking among the people, was certainly God with us.

God speaks of the future sometimes from long ago (as the Old Testament prophecies above); but sometimes, He prophecies about the near future.

The angel Gabriel prophecies to Mary about Jesus:

The virgin spoken of in Isaiah is Mary. God told Mary that she would bear a Son and she agreed to this.

Luke 1:26–27 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary. (ESV; capitalized)

God’s promise of Isaiah 7:14 would be fulfilled in Mary.

Luke 1:28 And he [the angel] came to her and said, "Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!" (ESV; capitalized)

Luke 1:29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. (ESV; capitalized)

Mary was of course taken aback by having an angel speak to her and greet her in this way. At the time, it may not have been apparent at first that she was speaking to an angel.

To put this another way, Mary remarks, “Just what the heck are you talking about?”

Luke 1:30–33 And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to Him the throne of His father David, and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end." (ESV; capitalized)

The angel prophesies as to Who Mary’s Son would be. Her son would be David’s Greater Son, Who is the Messiah.

Luke 1:34 And Mary said to the angel, "How will this be, since I am a virgin?" (ESV; capitalized)

Mary was young, but she understood that it required a man and a woman to produce a child. She is a virgin.

Luke 1:35–37 And the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God. And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. For nothing will be impossible with God." (ESV; capitalized)

The angel explains. I should point out that the process here is not some form of intercourse. The power of the Most High would overshadow Mary. Skeptics try to paint this as something very crude, which it is not.

Luke 1:38 And Mary said, "Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her. (ESV; capitalized)

Mary agrees to what the angel just proposed. She is agreeing to, as a virgin, give birth to the Messiah.

My point in all of this is, the Messiah was central to the Old Testament. Those passages are still there, but no longer does present-day Judaism emphasize this aspect of their doctrine.

Luke 10:24a For I tell you that many prophets and kings desired to see what you see, and did not see it,... (ESV; capitalized)

Jesus is telling His disciples privately that what they are seeing, many prophets and king desired to see this for themselves.

Luke 10:24b ...and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.” (ESV; capitalized)

These people from the past wanted to hear what the disciples are now hearing; Jesus teaches His disciples divine truth every single day. This is what so many in the past desired to hear.

Luke 10:24 For I tell you that many prophets and kings desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.” (ESV; capitalized)

I took just a small handful of passages of those who looked forward to the coming Messiah, who desired to see what the disciples saw.

So many of the prophets spoke of the Messiah. So many of the kings—David and Solomon for instance—also greatly desired to see and hear the Messiah. God has given that great blessing to the disciples, to whom Jesus is speaking.

Luke 10:23–24 Then turning to the disciples He [Jesus] said privately, "Blessed are the eyes that see what you see! For I tell you that many prophets and kings desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.” (ESV; capitalized)

People without doctrine or without divine establishment thinking cannot understand or evaluate the times in which they live. Things happen, there are national movements, there are points of inflection, but people who lack the orientation of doctrine or of divine establishment can rarely make sense of these things, or see where they are going. They do not see the patterns, they do not understand the true causes and effects, and they do not understand the health and focus of the nation in which they live.

The laws of divine establishment are laws which are applicable to all societies and countries, and they work for believers and unbelievers alike. A believer with Bible doctrine understands these laws. Believers without doctrine do not understand them and many unbelievers not only lack understanding of such laws, but are in opposition to these laws. A few unbelievers understand these laws; and to many of them, they are just common sense.

Fundamental to any society or country are the basic divine institutions. The volition of the soul, the institution of work, marriage (between one man and one woman), family (in most cases, the biological family), and nationalism. These are fundamental and foundational to the health and welfare of any nation.

Illustration: Communist and socialist countries often limit the volition of their citizens, particularly when it comes to God. This does not make a country better in any way.

Illustration: The United States has made it possible for millions of people to live without work. We have also distorted the institution of marriage and family and nationalism. These things are strong negatives with regards to the United States.

Illustration: We have two good illustrations of this which took place over the past 20–30 years (I write this in 2023 and 2024). One of these was the acceptance of marijuana as just another nearly harmless drug, safer than alcohol. As a result, the usage of same not only increased and became commonplace. Therefore, one state after another legalized marijuana in one way or another. Intoxicants are dangerous for our culture; and the more we are intoxicated as a country, the worse off our country is. I know people who honestly believe that there is nothing wrong with getting stoned every day because pot is legal where they live. The second thing which was accepted in our country as normal and acceptable behavior was homosexuality (which, for hundreds of years, was not). This opened up all sorts of sexual floodgates, including gender confusion which is going to destroy the lives of many children, who, when they suddenly grow up, will realize that they have turned themselves into physical freaks, and no one is interested in a real relationship with a freak. Both changes of thinking by our society were big mistakes; and we as a country will pay dearly for the misguided thinking of this era.

Application: How did it happen that the people of the United States come to the point of accepting marijuana and homosexuality as normal? There was a huge amount of misinformation which was circulated. However, fundamentally, people in the United States simply rejected the laws of divine establishment, which is the instrument by which societies and countries are guided and advanced.

Luke 10:23–24 [Jesus] turned to face [His] disciples and He said [to them] privately, “Happinesses [belong to you all, for your] eyes are seeing what you [now] see; for I say to [all of] you that many prophets and rulers wished to see [that] which you (all) see but they did not see; and to hear [that] which you (all) hear but they did not hear.” (Kukis mostly literal translation)

Application: What many of us do not appreciate is, when we hear a book of the Bible presented accurately, in its historic and theological context, and we understand what the writer meant to say, and how it applies to our lives—that is the greatest thing happening in our lives. That is an amazing blessing to us. This is actually greater than this disciples being able to eat and drink and hang with Jesus. Nothing is greater than the infallible Word of God.

Saint Peter, who actually saw the glorified Christ early on, says this exact same thing. Peter will make the claim that the Word of God is greater than the experience of seeing Christ glorified.

What is even greater than seeing Jesus Christ in person and hearing Him teach?

(R. B. Thieme, Jr.’s corrected translation will be used below)

2Peter 1:16 For not having followed as our source of authority cleverly concocted myths, when we had communicated to you all the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we have become spectators of His majestic magnificence [appearance of the second advent].

Peter communicates that he has seen the glorified Christ (also known as the Shekinah Glory). Jesus took three of the disciples aside and they separated themselves from everyone else, and then Jesus was glorified before them. Moses and Elijah appeared to them as well.

We would think that this would have been the ultimate experience, the ultimate in truth. Peter says no, it isn’t.

2Peter 1:17 For when He [Jesus] had received from God the Father honour and glory, such a unique voice having been carried to him by His majestic glory, “This One Christ is My Son, My beloved One, with reference to whom I have been well pleased.”

Peter and the other two disciples actually heard God speak to them. God said specifically to them, “This One Christ is My Son, My beloved One, with reference to Whom I have been well pleased.”

This appears to be the most amazing experience ever in life, so that Peter did not just see the glorified Christ but he heard the actual voice of God. Could there be anything in life greater than this experience?

2Peter 1:18 And we heard this same voice, having been carried from heaven, when we were with Him on the holy mountain.

Peter, James and John all heard the very voice of God. They saw with their own eyes the glorified Christ. Could anything be greater than this? Peter will answer yes, there is something greater than this.

2Peter 1:19 We keep. possessing this prophetic doctrine as something more reliable, with reference to which doctrine, you perform honorably when you habitually become occupied with doctrine; doctrine as a lamp shining in a dark place until the day dawns and a morning star [Venus] has come up.

However, what Peter and the other Apostles possess is an even more reliable Word. They have something more reliable than seeing the glorified Christ and hearing the voice of God. You may be asking yourself, what the heck could that be?

It is this: Peter and the other disciples are teaching the very words of God. These words which they are teaching are more reliable and they are greater than this experience of Peter, James and John.

2Peter 1:20–21 Knowing this first that all prophecy of Scripture does not originate from one’s own explanation for prophecy was never produced from human design or volition; but men (human authors) communicated from God, being carried along by the Holy Spirit. (R. B. Thieme, Jr.’s corrected translation throughout)

The prophecy which they are teaching does not come from them personally, from their own human experience and wisdom. The word which they teach is from men of God being carried along by God the Holy Spirit. These words of instruction are more important than seeing the glorified Christ! Their words—the words of Peter and John, as writers of Scripture—are more important than the experience of hearing God speak!

The question again is this: What is even greater than seeing the Lord Jesus Christ in person and hearing Him teach? What is greater than seeing the glorified Christ in person with your own eyes? Hearing the Word of God taught by a well-qualified pastor-teacher or (in a few instances) reading the Word of God being taught by a well-qualified commentator. That is what Peter is teaching.

Luke 10:23–24 Jesus then turned towards His disciples and quietly said to them, “This is a tremendous blessing to you, for you are seeing Me and these great miracles. Listen, there are many prophets and rulers from the past who wished to be able to see what you are seeing now; and they desired to hear these words which I am speaking. Such things they strongly desired to see, but did not.” (Kukis paraphrase)

Dr. Daniel Hill: One cannot read the Psalm and not realize that these saints of old longed for a time when they would see the prophecies of God fulfilled. When they would see the one whom God would send to be the salvation of mankind.

Psalm 14:7 Oh, that salvation for Israel would come out of Zion! When the LORD restores the fortunes of His people, let Jacob rejoice, let Israel be glad. (ESV; capitalized)

Today is the greatest time to be alive:

Any well-qualified pastor-teacher could tell his congregation this today: There are many prophets and rulers from the past who wished to be able to see what you see now and hear the words which you hear now. They had such a great desire to hear and see the things which you hear and see.

You may not realize, but we live in the greatest times ever; we live under the greatest blessing ever. We get to observe God’s plan as it unfolds over the ages. We get to see God calling Abraham, the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice the son whom he loved. We see Moses leading the children out of Egypt and Joshua leading them into the land of promise to take it. We view hundreds of years of history of Israel, right up to the time of the revealing of the Lord. We get to experience all of that. God has provided for us the record of these events and a good pastor-teacher can place us back into those times through the power of the Word and our own mind’s eye.

On top of all this, many of us enjoy life in the greatest country in the world—in the United States—where God’s great blessing is apparent. More importantly than that, we have access to some of the greatest Bible teaching which has occurred in all human history. There are churches which actually understand the importance of the Word of God and the pastor strives to teach as often as he is able.

But just as Jesus pronounced these great woes against the cities where His message was rejected, this might also be the woe of the city in which you live. This could be the great woe against the United States. There has never been a greater time to be alive; and there has never been a greater nation and environment for us than life in the United States. Do we hold onto it or do we let these great blessings slip through our fingers?

Dr. Daniel Hill continues with this same theme: But while that was good for these disciples to be in the presence of Christ on earth, and that was greater than the prophecy of Christ, we have something even better.

Saint Peter speaks of these wonderful blessings which we enjoy in this life:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to His great mercy, He has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ. Though you have not seen Him, you love Him. Though you do not now see Him, you believe in Him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory, obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls. (1Peter 1:3–9; ESV; capitalized)

And today, our lives as believers are even greater than they could have been during the time of Peter.

I know that in this world, the cosmic system tells us that we live in terrible times and that this is the worst time ever to raise up a child, and so, we should not have any children. This is pure-d balderdash. There are great potentials and opportunities in the United States. The key is, first get your priorities straight, and then everything else will fall into place. This does not mean that life will be without opposition or suffering; but God, through His Word, will give us the means to stand.

The opportunity to take in doctrine here in the United States is phenomenal. The opportunity to move where doctrine is being taught is out there. We, as believers, simply need to seize the moment, and fully appreciate this time during which we live.

In this next section of Luke, we sometimes have an extended narrative and teaching session which can be broken down into several subsections. Most people are aware of the story of the good Samaritan—in fact, even the term, good Samaritan, has taken on a life of its own, so that millions of people know that term without even knowing where it comes from or what it really means. How many people, when they hear these words, think, I guess these Samaritans were pretty good people back then?

Few people realize that this narrative has a beginning, a middle and an ending; and only the middle section is actually about the good Samaritan. Whereas, a few people could tell you about the good Samaritan, far fewer can tell you what led up to this and what the aftermath was.

I have talked about these various sections being held together by very specific time phrases. After these things, for instance. We might call these time stamps, which pull together the previous narrative with the current narrative, even if these narratives have little in common (apart from them being from the public ministry of Jesus).

At this point, we have words which suggest that soon after Jesus speaks to His disciples, there was an incident which takes place. The word behold suggests that we are still in the time frame outlined in Luke 9 and continued in Luke 10.

A lawyer is someone who was a person well-versed in the Law of Moses. It is not someone who would necessarily stand up and argue in favor of his client.

Hastings’ brief explanation of a lawyer: This term in Scripture does not belong so much to the legal as to the religious sphere. The ‘lawyers’ busied themselves with the study and exposition of the Written and the Oral Law of Israel, and were practically identical with the scribes.

Hastings NT: In Israel the activities of the lawyer were limited by the Torah, or Law of Moses. His functions were three-fold: to study and interpret the Law (and the traditions arising from it), to hand it down by teaching, and to apply it in the Courts of Justice. The lawyers played an important part in the proceedings of the Sanhedrin, not only voting, but also speaking, if they saw fit, on either side of a case, though in criminal charges solely on behalf of the accused (Mishn. Sanhedrin, iv. 1). The Roman lawyers, were more secular in their interests, and applied themselves more directly to the practical aspects of jurisprudence. Their work in the law-courts covered a wide range. The most general representative of law was the cognitor, or attorney, whose place (in Gaius’s time) was partially filled by the procurator litis, or legal agent; but in court the case was pleaded by the patronus or orator, the skilled counsel of whom Cicero is so illustrious an example, often assisted by the advocatus, or legal adviser. The opinion of jurisconsulti, or professional students of law, could also be laid before the judges...

In the NT lawyers appear as νομικοί, ‘jurists’ (freq. in Lk., but elsewhere only in Matt. 22:35 and Tit. 3:13), or νομοδιδάσκαλοι, ‘doctors of the law’ (only in Luke 5:17, Acts 5:34, and 1Tim. 1:7); but they are clearly identical with the γραμματες, ‘scribes,’ who are mentioned so often in the Gospels and Acts. These lawyers are all of the Jewish type. The Roman lawyer appears, however, in the ῥήτωρ or ‘orator’ Tertullus, who pleaded the cause of St. Paul’s prosecutors before the Roman governor Felix (Acts 24:1 ff.)—in order, no doubt, that the proper technicalities might be observed, and the case presented in the way most likely to win over the trained Roman mind.

One problem with the lawyer, as found in this context, is they often did not understand the Law concerning which they were experts. Their minds were too clouded with extraneous materials. Today, we might call such extraneous knowledge as precedent, but it is really just traditions.

This lawyer did not have a legitimate question. This is not something that he has been wondering about and now that Jesus is here, he can ask Jesus. In fact, he is not even asking Jesus to get His perspective, to consider it. He is testing Jesus with this question. “Do you really understand this, Teacher?” might best convey his approach.

This sort of thing happened throughout the Lord’s public ministry. Many experts in the Law stood up and tried to trap Him with various questions. Matthew19:16 22:35 Luke 18:18

Sometimes, the trap was such, so that, no matter what the Lord said, they would have a place to argue with Him. At other times, they were certain that Jesus would answer the question wrong (as per their own additions to the Mosaic Law). Of course, He never did.

Twice in this passage, interestingly enough, this man’s motivation is laid bare. Here, he is said to be testing the Lord; and later, in v. 29, he will speak with the intention of justifying himself. It is quite interesting to me just how Luke knows this man’s personal motivation and when did he know it. There are several possible answers: (1) this could have been simply revealed to Luke by God the Holy Spirit, as Luke wrote these words; or (2) the lawyer in this narrative could have revealed this to Luke directly. I like this second option for several reasons: (1) quite obviously, the one person who would know the lawyer’s motivations is the lawyer himself. (2) This interaction with Jesus may have stuck in the mind of this lawyer more than with anyone else (particularly if this lawyer eventually believed in the Lord). (3) This is a unique narrative in the gospels, which would make sense if the source of this story was the lawyer himself. Although these are three very strong reasons which help to tie up a lot of loose ends for this narrative—that is, if the lawyer eventually believed in the Lord, and later encountered Luke and told him this story. Nevertheless, I realize that this is a matter of speculation, but I give this better than even odds that I am right about this. I suspect that my opinion/speculation here might be a unique one and yet very possibly correct.

I have no doubt that Jesus had a read on this man (not in a mystical way, but simply by observing him), and knew that the man did not want information. Jesus understood that the man simply wanted to put Jesus to the test. But since Luke did not speak with Jesus, he would have known this information (that this was a test) from a different source.

Luke 10:25a-b Behold, a certain lawyer stood up, testing Him,... (Kukis mostly literal translation)

If this man is an expert in the Law, would he not already have a fixed opinion on this matter? That by itself suggests to us that he really is not asking a question to gain information.

Warren Wiersbe expressed this opinion: Like some theologians and Bible students today, Jewish rabbis enjoyed debating the fine points of doctrine; and this lawyer (a student of the Old Testament law) wanted to hear what Jesus had to say. We get the impression that the man was not seeking truth, but was only trying to involve Jesus in a debate that he hoped he would win. The lawyer proved to be evasive when it came to facing truth honestly and obeying it.

Luke 10:25c ...saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" (ESV; capitalized)

The verb is an aorist participle, so would refer to action in past time. It would be legitimate to understand this in the 1^st person, like the main verb, giving us: ...saying, “What should I have done [so that] I will inherit eternal life?”

The implication is, “I already have eternal life; but, in Your opinion, what should I have done in the past to secure that eternal life?”

On the surface, this appears to be a legitimate question, but given that the action of the participle precedes the action of the main verb; and that an aorist tense is used, the oddity in this question seems to focus on the past. Nothing can be changed from the past. Jesus might be thinking, “Why ask a question in this way?” We have already been informed that this lawyer is putting Jesus to the test. Therefore, he is not seeking information; he is hoping to trip Jesus up.

Dr. Daniel Hill: The word for LIFE found here in the Greek New Testament which is ζοω and in the Hebrew of Leviticus 19:5 which is cha-yah both mean more than just to live and breath or have biological life. These words look at a quality of life, a meaningful life, a life that is full of all the good things God would have for us. And this relates to the original question the man asked. Not merely how can I have or enter eternal life but how can I inherit or have the inheritance of eternal life. He wants more than just to be saved, he wants all that God has for him both now and in eternity - which is commendable.

Luke 10:25 And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" (ESV; capitalized)

Theoretically, the certain lawyer asks, “What should I have done in the past in order to inherit eternal life?” So the lawyer sets aside the place where he is now and whether or not he has eternal life. “Maybe I have eternal life, and maybe I don’t; but what should I have done in the past in order to have it?”

Luke 10:25 Behold, a certain lawyer stood up, testing Jesus with the following question: “What should I do in order to inherit eternal life?” (Kukis paraphrase)

Jesus was asked this question, no doubt, a number of times by a number of different people. Another similar incident also took place near the end of the Lord’s earthly ministry (the rich young ruler, who is found in Matthew 19:16–24 Mark 10:17–25 Luke 18:18–23—when we get to this passage, it will be fascinating, as there are many lessons to learn from it). In these two incidents, the way that Jesus deals with them will be very different.

The difference between this and our Lord’s encounter with the rich young ruler suggests to me that Jesus takes a read on this man—Jesus looks at the man, listens to the words that he says along with their intonation—and, as a result, He has a very good idea as to what is happening with that person.

Here we are told that the man is testing Jesus with this question, so Jesus is going to throw this question right back on him.

Jesus looks right at this man in order to give him an answer. I do not believe that Jesus used His omniscience, for the most part, during His public ministry (very possibly never). So, when interacting with a number of individuals, Jesus would look at these people, and evaluate them based upon the His Own ability to read a person. Jesus was brilliantly perceptive in His humanity.

This phrase tells us that Jesus did more than speak to the man; Jesus looked at the man and took his measure. How do I know this? Let’s look at the ESV:

Based upon the ESV’s translation, we would think that we have the verb to say, to speak followed by the dative of autos (αὐτός) [pronounced ow-TOSS]; which would be simply translated, to him (or, to him (for his advantage)). But that is not what we have here. We have the preposition prós (πρός) [pronounced prahç] plus the accusative of autos (αὐτός) [pronounced ow-TOSS]. In this case, prós means, facing, face to face with; to, towards, unto. Strong’s #4314. Jesus, while speaking to this man, is looking at him face to face. Jesus is not simply speaking to this man; Jesus is taking the measure of this man while He speaks to him.

Jesus asks the man—Jesus appears to know that this man is an expert in the Mosaic Law— “What does the Law say?”

Have you ever been to a Sunday school class or to a Bible study, and the person leading the study asks to hear each person’s opinion about the meaning of a verse? In a sense, Jesus is doing this, but He is not necessarily assigning equal value or authority to every person’s interpretation.

“You must have some idea about this? How do you read the Law?” Jesus asks him.

This man, Jesus senses, has a point of view. He has a ready answer. Therefore, Jesus chooses to begin with the man’s answer to his own question and then go from there.

Luke 10:26 He said to him, "What is written in the Law? How do you read it?" (ESV; capitalized)

“First, quote a few verses, and then you tell me what you think they mean,” Jesus says, facing him. “What does the Old Testament say and how do you interpret it?” (I am paraphrasing here; Jesus would not have used the term the Old Testament.)

Luke 10:26 Jesus looked right at him and said, “What does the Law say? How do you read it?” (Kukis paraphrase)

No doubt, the man is thinking, “This is the crux of the matter; and this I understand!” He does not say this out loud, but let me suggest that Jesus looked him directly in the eyes, read this, and said, “No, you go. You know the answer to this one.”

The Law of Moses is quite lengthy and involved. For this man to cut through all of that and find what is most essential is quite amazing. He does not simply throw out there a few of his favorite verses, but he summarizes the Law as Jesus Himself would later summarize it. But, there is a problem with what he says, despite it being a rather insightful answer.

Jesus used a variety of teaching methods. With this lawyer, he allowed the man to speak his own mind and to give his own opinion. Jesus would use this interaction not only to teach those who were with Him, but He teaches us as well, 2000 years later.

As an expert in the Law, this man was only too happy to reveal his own knowledge.

Luke 10:27b ..."You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart... (ESV; capitalized)

The lawyer quotes from the Law directly. He asked Jesus directly, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus put it back on him, asking him, “How do you read the Law on this question?”

The lawyer appears to have a ready answer. There is a saying that, a lawyer should not ask a question of a witness on the stand unless he knows the answer to that question. Even though this man is a different sort of lawyer, this appears to be the case, nevertheless. He has an answer of his own which is quite certain of. “You will love the Lord your God,” he says, “out from all your heart.” The heart is often used to encompass the entire thinking and reasoning ability of a person. Based upon all that you can think and reason with, you love the Lord.

Now, technically, the soul is how man relates to man (the human spirit is how man relates to God). However, the word soul is also used for that part of man which is immaterial. Throughout human history, people have separated the soul from the body, in theory. It is only recently, since the internet has come about, where I have seen a great many atheists actually deny the existence of the soul. They believe that their thinking is only juices sloshing around in the brain and firing off of electrical signals. Many of them maintain that there is no such thing as a separate entity which we know as the soul.

Tangent: It is fascinating how some people think. Many believe that, in some part of our evolution, we developed self consciousness. That is, we somehow evolved to the point where we recognized ourselves as an entity separate from all other living entities out there. That is, there was a period of time when we lacked self consciousness, and a later period of time when it evolved.

Tangent: I have seen at least two science fiction series where non-living beings suddenly achieved self consciousness I guess “making them human” allows for more of an emotional investment from the audience. Furthermore, they are much easier to write dialogue for if they have a soul.

Back to our context. The man asked about what should he do to received eternal life, and Jesus said, “You tell me first how you see it.”

Luke 10:27a-c And he answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul...

Jesus is allowing this man to answer his own question. And he continues, quoted from the Old Testament (that is, their Bible at that time).

This love of God must come from all of your ability to love. The feminine singular noun used here is ischus (ἰσχύς) [pronounced ihs-KHOOÇ], and it means, ability, force, strength, might. Strong’s #2479.

Now, it may be somewhat difficult to clearly differentiating what each of these things means: loving God from all of your heart, from all of your soul, from all of your strength (or, ability) and from all of your mind. I do not believe that the concept here is, our love proceeds separately from four different places; but that we love God with all that we are and all that we have.

In Deuteronomy 6:5, Moses speaks of loving God will all one’s heart, soul and might (strength). Loving God with one’s heart and soul is mentioned in Deuteronomy 10:12 11:13 13:3 30:6. The lawyer appears to have thrown in with all your mind for good measure (I do not find it in the LXX or in the Hebrew). However, Jesus, when summing up the Law, will say virtually the same thing that this lawyer has said.

Therefore, based upon this passage in Matthew 22, Jesus apparently agrees—to some extent—the assessment of this man of the Law (although they are answering different questions); and they even agree upon this additional phrase found in Deuteronomy (which appears to have dropped out of the Hebrew text).

Luke 10:26 He said to him, "What is written in the Law? How do you read it?" (ESV; capitalized)

Luke 10:27a-e And he answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind,... (ESV; capitalized)

The lawyer then adds one more thing: “You must also love your neighbor as yourself.” The subject and verb (you will love) come from the first thing that this man says.

It makes sense that, because we all must interact with other human beings, that ought to be a part of what saves us.

This lawyer has taken the better part of two verses, from two different books, and thrown them together. Deuteronomy 6:5 You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. He adds to this Leviticus 19:18b ...and you shall love your neighbor as yourself... (ESV)

Now, interestingly enough, this lawyer did not include any part of Leviticus 19:34, which reads, in part: ...You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt...

I believe that it is very likely that this verse came to the mind of the lawyer; and to the mind of Jesus. Should not this man have included the immigrants of their land as well, as who should be loved by the one seeking eternal life? It is entirely possible that the law expert remembered this verse, but did not include it.

The Lord, Who is remarkably good at reading people, knows the entire Old Testament, and He perceives that there is the slightest hesitancy or the slightest lack of confidence in the man’s answer.

Luke 10:27 And he answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself." (ESV; capitalized) (Deuteronomy 6:5 Leviticus 19:34)

Notice the remarkable similarity of this incident to one recorded by Matthew (which would also have taken place near the end of the Lord’s public ministry, which was probably after this interaction with a lawyer):

Luke 10:27 Answering, the man said, “You will love the Lord your God out from all of your heart, and with all of your soul, all of your ability and all of your mind. Also, you will love your neighbor as yourself.” (Kukis paraphrase)

Are we not both wondering, Just how does Jesus respond to this man’s answer? After all, this lawyer has both the question and the answer already; and he speaks to test Jesus. Nevertheless, the man’s answer is rather insightful. That cannot be denied. So, how should Jesus deal with all of this?

Notice what Jesus does not say. He does not say, “Okay, now you must set the Law aside and believe in Me.” Jesus says something very different.

Luke 10:28a And He said to him, "You have answered correctly;... (ESV; capitalized)

Jesus answers this man in a totally uncharacteristic manner. “You’re right,” Jesus tells him. How many times does Jesus converse with a pharisee, a scribe and/or a lawyer and say, “Yep, you’re completely right about that”? Possibly, this is the only time (or the only time that is recorded).

What is this man right about? This is what he said: “You will love the Lord your God out from all your heart, with all of your soul, with all of your ability and with all of your mind. [You will] also [love] your neighbor as yourself.” To love the Lord your God out from all of your heart, soul, strength and mind would suggest a full knowledge and understanding of God (as full as God has allowed us to understand Him). Would that not include faith in His Son? At present, yes. But, in the Old Testament, salvation/justification was by faith in the Revealed God, as we read in Genesis 15:6 (the Revealed God in both the Old and New Testaments is Jesus; but He is not revealed as Jesus in the Old Testament).

If we understand salvation to be inherent in the law expert’s answer (whether or not the law expert himself was saved at this time), then all of this narrative holds together. Remember that most of what Jesus taught was the Old Testament. He taught the Law of Moses as it should be taught; Jesus taught the words of the prophets as they should be taught (which doctrines were being distorted by the legalistic teachers of that era).

How does a person love the Lord God with all of his substance without actually knowing Him—and therefore, without actually having believed in Him?

Luke 10:28a He said to him, “You have answered [this question] correctly. (ESV; capitalized)

We are going to find out that there is a chink in this man’s armor (this expert in the Law); and he personally knows where this problem is (well, he is aware of one of his problems, maybe not all of them).

Jesus seems to know how this is going to play out. He seems to know that this man is going to reveal his hand. Jesus is very good at reading people and He also knows how to get to people.

Illustration: This illustration may be too old for some of you to get, but there was a news person named Barbara Walters, and she would often do interviews with various celebrities; and very often, during the interview, the celebrity would tear up (and there would be a full face view of that celebrity on the screen as he or she teared up). Barbara Walters knew how to probe a sensitive area, an area appropriate for her interview, but something that might cause the interviewee to respond emotionally. She knew how to do this. She was such an expert at it that parodies of her would have this as a point of reference for humor. However (and I have strayed from my point), she knew how to reach a person emotionally as few interviewers could do.

Jesus knew how to reach men and get to their core. He would not necessarily reveal their weaknesses to others, but the other person often would recognize his own weakness when talking with the Lord.

Luke 10:28b Keep on doing that and you will live [forever].” (Kukis mostly literal translation)

Jesus tells the man to keep on doing what he just said, and he would live forever.

Note that I interpreted this by adding the word forever, but that is not found in the Greek text. Some suggest that Jesus is quoting (or, more accurately, paraphrasing Leviticus 18:5 You shall therefore keep My statutes and My rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the LORD. (ESV; capitalized) See also Proverbs 19:16 Whoever keeps the commandment keeps his life; he who despises his ways will die. (ESV)

Perhaps Jesus’ point here was, by following these laws, which the lawyer correctly quotes, that he will considerably improve the quality of his own life. However, these are the words of Jesus:

Luke 10:28 And He said to him, "You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.” (ESV; capitalized; emphasis mine)

Steve Ellis: While this is a rather well-known parable, there are just a few points I’d like to cover. First, notice that the lawyer was testing Jesus. It was really a challenge from a self-righteous man. Implicit in this man’s question to Jesus is an understanding of the resurrection of the believing Jew as evidenced by Daniel 12:2. Second, the lawyer’s response to Jesus was a quotation of Deuteronomy 6:5 – a text that was recited twice a day by every faithful Jew. Third, Jesus is not advocating a system of works for salvation in His response in verse 28. Rather, Jesus is teaching this man the same principle that He taught Peter in Matthew 19:27-30, i.e. “many who are first will be last.”

Ellis continues: Jesus averts the lawyer’s attempt to find a loophole in the requirement of the law by using the parable to teach the lawyer the same principle found in Hosea 6:6 – “For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.” In other words, God is more interested in the believer understanding and executing the intent of the law rather than the letter of the law. The irony of the parable is that the despised Samaritan, who had nothing to do with the fact that he was born into a despised race, knows how to show his neighbor unconditional love whereas the respected and educated priest did not.

Dr. Daniel Hill sees this slightly differently than Ellis does: And Jesus tells him just how correct he is at this point. He quotes also from Leviticus 18 and tells the man that if he loves god and loves his neighbor he will have that exception, supernatural quality of life forever.

Luke 10:25 And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" (ESV, capitalized)

A lawyer from this era would be an expert in the Mosaic Law. He is probably aware of the many comments made on various verses and passages from rabbis in the past.

Luke 10:26 He said to him, "What is written in the Law? How do you read it?" (ESV, capitalized)

Jesus takes an instant read on this man, and can tell that he has an opinion on this matter. So He says, “You tell me your thoughts first. How do you read the Law?”

Luke 10:28 Then Jesus answered him, saying, “You have answered this question correctly. If you continue doing that, you will live forever.” (Kukis paraphrase)

With many of these religious types, Jesus has been confrontational and argumentative. Most of the time, these religious types were distorting the Word of God. But this man is not. Jesus tells him, “You’re correct.”

Now, hasn’t Jesus said, on many occasions, “Believe on Me and you will be saved”? But this man appears to have described a different way of gaining eternal life. And Jesus appears to be endorsing his view.

What might help is, Jesus has said, on another occasion, that the entire Law and the prophets hang upon these two commandments. In other words, obey those two commandments perfectly and you are obeying the mandates of the Law and the Prophets.

Because we have sin natures, we will never fulfill this commandment. This is why we need Jesus.

What I believe is the case here is, this man has believed in the Revealed God—he believes in Jesus—and in this dispensation—the dispensation of the Hypostatic Union (most of which falls under the banner of the Age of Israel)—what this man has described is, essentially, the spiritual life of that era. The believer who is able to use those two commands as a basic guide to life has the essence of the Law in that brief summary (and Jesus will later Himself summarize the Mosaic Law with these same two commandments).

The alternate view of this is, the man is not saved at this point, but that he will be saved later, coming to the conclusion that no one can fully obey these two laws. That would leave him at a loss.

Although we do have insight into this man’s motivation, we are not told whether he has exercised faith in the Revealed God or not.

Jesus, the Law and Salvation (Luke 10:25–28):

Sometimes salvation takes a few seconds. The gospel is given, God the Holy Spirit makes it understandable, and the person believes in Jesus Christ. Boom, flash; and it’s over.

However, there are also times when salvation is a process, where certain barriers must be gotten out of the way first. With a gentile, one might be able to simply say, “You cannot be saved by the Law; this is not what it is designed to do.” Or, as Paul wrote to the Galatians (gentiles): Galatians 2:16 ...yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. (ESV) Many people in Galatia had believed in Jesus Christ, were saved; but now the Judaizers were coming to them and saying, “You must obey God’s Law, the Law of Moses.” These people were not brought up with the Law, so Paul, by a few clear statements, can set the Law aside.

However, when dealing with an expert in the Law, when dealing with someone who has been brought up with the Law all of their lives, dismissing the Law so casually is hard to do. Jesus cannot look at this expert in the Law and say, “Listen to Me—set the Law aside, it won’t save you. Alright? Faith in Me saves you!”

This is not really dealing with the Law. Jesus needs to meet this man where he is, stuck on the Law, and bring him along from there.

Luke 10:25 Behold, a certain lawyer stood up, testing Jesus with the following question: “What should I do in order to inherit eternal life?” (Kukis paraphrase)

We know that this lawyer is testing Jesus and we might assume that he believes the Law is key to his salvation. So Jesus essentially says, Okay, let’s go with that assumption.

Luke 10:26 Jesus looked right at him and said, “What does the Law say? How do you read it?” (Kukis paraphrase)

Jesus is going to allow the man to change the Law to reflect its essence and go with that. When the man sets up these boundaries for the Law, he is subjecting himself to these various boundaries.

Illustration: I used to be a math teacher, and in most math subjects which involve say 4 or 5 or 6 steps, when a student is stuck back on step 2, then they are not going to move to step 3 or 4 or 5 or 6. You have to go back to step 2 and get them over that hump; then they can move forward.

This man, this expert in the Law, has grown up with the Law; it is always on his mind, and, even if Jesus says to, he is not going to just set the Law aside. (And, to be clear, Jesus would never preach to set the Law aside.)

So, what is another approach? Start with the Law providing salvation and follow that out to a point at which the hearer will recognize, “I cannot be saved by the Law.”

Illustration: In geometry, this is known as an indirect proof. Let’s say that you are trying to prove X; so what you do is, you assume not-X to be true, and that assumption should lead you to a clear contradiction of things that we know for certain are true. If you are led to a contradiction, then your original assumption, which led you to a false conclusion, is false. If not-X is false, then X must be true.

That is what Jesus is going to do here. He is going to assume that this man can be saved by the Law. Let’s first of all simplify everything. Let’s not worry about every jot and tittle of the Law, let’s boil it down to its essence and go with that.

The man gives a good summation of the Law. We know it is good, because Jesus Himself says the exact same thing when summarizing of the Law at a later date. So He and this man are nearly perfectly in synch when it comes to the Law.

Luke 10:28 Then Jesus answered him, saying, “You have answered this question correctly. If you continue doing that, you will live forever.” (Kukis paraphrase)

Jesus essentially compliments the man. “You’ve got it right. Just keep on doing that and you will live forever.”

Is that true? Not exactly. Jesus is making an assumption that is true, and that assumption is going to lead to a contradiction. The man himself—probably expecting a different response from Jesus—is now going to think about what he has said, what Jesus has said, and then look for a point of clarification.

The man, getting a positive response from Jesus, then starts to think about what he said and what Jesus said.

In any case, this man cannot simply just drop it. He cannot seem to say, “Okay, I am right; Jesus said I am right; so I guess I will be off, continuing to live my truth.” Something makes this man remain with Jesus and to probe further, despite being proclaimed right.

Let me suggest that this lawyer did not come to see Jesus alone. He came with a few friends of a similar persuasion, and they have talked things over, they have talked about Jesus, and they have talked about different ways that they might talk legal circles around Jesus. These men probably know some things about one another.

So Jesus proclaims this man right—no need for an argument here, no need for a debate—and this lawyer is sort of stopped in his tracks. Let me suggest one more thing—these lawyers have talked to one another about Samaritans (half Jews) and gentiles in language that was none too kind.

Now, even though it seems that I am reading a lot into this, I am simply providing some likely background information. This entire conversation moves along fine without knowledge of this man’s friends and what they know about each other—but this adds some depth to the narrative. It helps you to understand one set of circumstances which would require this man to continue speaking with the Lord, despite being acknowledged as giving a correct answer.

All the time, Jesus is looking at this man, taking a read on him; and Jesus is looking at this man’s friends as well. By being people-smart, Jesus knows what is happening between these friends. He may have even heard them.

Again, we have a view into the motivation of this lawyer, who has a desire to justify himself before Jesus. Or maybe he is justifying himself to his friends who are with him. In any case, this is the second time that we are told what the lawyer is thinking.

I don’t know if the lawyer expected the response that he got from Jesus, because it was decidedly non-confrontational.

This man thinks about things—possibly he is thinking very fast—and he seems to be giving some authority to the Lord. However, he also feels that he must justify himself at this point. I don’t think that he is trying to justify himself to Jesus, because he is meeting Jesus pretty much for the first time. Jesus has looked the man over and evaluated him; but the man does not know this.

Recall that this is taking place in Samaria, and very few Jews had a good relationship with Samaritans. Generally speaking, there was great animosity between the two peoples. So, do the people around this lawyer know how surly he has been toward non-Jews?

If he is intending to justify himself, that would indicate to me that he has reason to do so. Maybe his conscience is motivating him; and maybe he is with people who have seen another side to this man beyond the one standing before Jesus, implying that he loves his neighbor just as he loves himself.

Now, what does Jesus know about this man? My guess is, very little; but allows for this man to define himself and whatever misgivings he himself might have.

This is true in many churches where the Word of God is taught accurately. So often, the pastor will teach something and various members of the congregation will be thinking, “Who is telling him all about me? I thought that was a secret!” But this happens when the Word of God is taught; sometimes, It cuts so close to the bone that congregants believe the pastor is talking directly to them.

If you attend a church where the Bible is taught, how many times have you heard information which was very applicable to your life and circumstances right now? How many times have your heard teaching that made it clear that you come up really short in this or that area? I can personally testify that this happens a lot to me (possibly because I come up short in a lot of areas).

Luke 10:29a And the [law expert], wishing to justify himself,... (Kukis mostly literal translation)

Sometimes we have to speculate about what is going on in a person’s mind (and all speculation should be carefully done and clearly pointed out); but here, we are told by the Bible what this man was thinking. He wanted to justify himself—interestingly enough, before this crowd and Jesus—that is his motivation for what he is about to say.

It is interesting that he has this motivation to justify himself, because Jesus has just told the man, “You’ve got it; you are correct. You have just summed up what is necessary. You just scored 100 on your pop quiz today.”

That we know this man’s motivation at this point, as I mentioned earlier, is quite fascinating. I would suggest that Luke’s recording of this incident (which he himself did not witness) has a reason to record this man’s motivation.

The Scriptures are the Word of God; and yet, they are also the words of man. The former is emphasized all of the time by believers; and the latter is emphasized all of the time by unbelievers (who most naturally reject the divine nature of Scripture). For the believer, he ought not forget the human side of the recording of the Word of God (just as we should not forget the human side of Jesus). Again, since Luke is recording an incident which he did not witness, and yet he adds in something which is unseen—this man’s motivation—we should consider other options besides, the Holy Spirit revealed this to Luke. Does God the Holy Spirit help to guide Luke in recording God’s Word? Absolutely! Does that mean that everything that is human about Luke is set aside for this important task? No! Emphatically, no! Therefore, I think that one might reasonably postulate that Luke did not simply pull this man’s motivation out of thin air—which Luke does not generally do—but that Luke has the most logical and reasonable reason for knowing this man’s motivation—the man himself tells this story to Luke. Even though this statement that I have just made is clearly speculation, it also makes sense. No other disciple records this incident; and what is happening here would have been quite meaningful to the law expert himself. Who else would have had such a crystal clear memory of this event than the man who directly interacted with Jesus? This entire incident is recorded in thirteen verses—the interaction between the lawyer and Jesus, followed by the story of the good Samaritan, which is then followed by more interaction between this lawyer and Jesus. So, again, let me suggest that Luke knows all of this information in all of this detail because an eyewitness to this event told him about what happened; and the inclusion of the lawyer’s motivation suggests that the person who recounted this event to Luke was the law expert himself.

I believe that we can cautiously come to the conclusion that Jesus knew exactly what He was doing, in this approach to this particular man. I would suggest that this man believed in the Lord as a result of being shown that the Law was a dead end. He believed that he was keeping the Law, and Jesus is going to reveal to him that he is not, despite his personal self-righteousness.

We would think that what the man said and Jesus agreeing with him would have ended the conversation. It did not. This man begins to consider what he said, in the light of the fact that Jesus has agreed with his analysis.

So this expert in the Law feels that he must take this one step further, in order to justify himself. So he asks this question:

Remember, he has just told Jesus that he should love the Lord with all his soul and mind; and that he ought love his neighbor as himself. And Jesus tells him, “You’re right!”

I do not think that this lawyer expected the answer from Jesus that he got. He probably had a point to make, but that got neutered by Jesus’ response.

So the man poses a question to Jesus. What about this term, neighbor, associate, a person who is close by? Just exactly who are we talking about? I believe that this is a legitimate question. What I mean by that is, the man actually wants to hear what Jesus will say here and that Jesus’ words are going to impact his thinking.

This question seems to reveal a chink in the man’s armor. This guy is probably pretty decent toward other Jewish people with whom he interacts. But what about those who fall outside of that group?

Remember the context of some of these chapters (at least Luke 9–10). Jesus is leading His disciples back to Jerusalem for the last Passover, but they are traveling through some Samaritan cities. It is interesting that the lawyer is here and that he asked this question to justify himself.

Luke 10:29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?" (ESV; capitalized)

Since this lawyer is looking to justify himself, is he saying, “Is my neighbor pretty much anyone?” Or is he saying, “When talking about my neighbor, we are referring to fellow Jews, right?”

Dr. Daniel Hill: That is a very disappointing statement. This man, because of his law background, sees a need for justification or vindication or commendation of self.

Hill continues: [This man] so accurately quotes the Old Testament passages that cut through all the Law and emphasizes the Love of God and then wipes it all out by getting involved in the legal issue of who is and who is not one’s neighbor. It is this type of thinking, however, that is a stumbling block, a distraction from grace, even to the Christian today.

That Jesus has agreed with this man might have surprised him; but he begins to think—just who exactly is my neighbor? After all, each city is made up of a grouping of people, not all of whom are Jewish. Many of the people around this man—which could be half Jewish or less—may not receive this man’s full-throttled approval or even some measure of kindness from him. There may even be some Samaritans present who would question that this man really follows what the Bible mandates: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Maybe some of these men are looking at him right now. That would certainly explain why he felt that he needed to justify himself.

As we proceed further into this narrative, remember that Jesus is leading His disciples toward Jerusalem, but they are walking through Samaria, which is made up of half-Jews, many of whom believe that they also have a relationship with the God of Moses.

Given the first half of this verse—that this man wishes to justify himself—likely suggests that this man did not have a good attitude towards those who were not 100% Jewish (like these Samaritans, for instance).

Luke 10:29 The law expert, hoping to justify himself, asked Jesus directly, “Just who exactly is my neighbor?” (Kukis paraphrase)

One of the fascinating things about this narrative—the story of the good Samaritan—is the many words found here which are unique to this narrative. So far, I have come across six or seven hapax legomena (words found only one place in the New Testament—these are given in the chapter study of Luke 10 (HTML) (PDF) (WPD)). Now, on the one hand, I would suggest that these terms are medical terms with which Luke would have been familiar. However, at the same time, Jesus is speaking all of this (all of the story of the good Samaritan). So, when hearing this narrative (Luke received all of his biographical material from others), this particular narrative must have stood out to Luke, as Jesus used so many unusual medical terms. There are also terms associated with travel found only here and nowhere else. Luke is also an historian; and part of being an historian is having a good feel for the place of things. There is a vocabulary associated with movement and travel; a vocabulary which is found only here in this narrative.

Most often, when Jesus gives a parable, we have some word which describes it as a parable. Furthermore, a parable is often a story that most people in His audience can all relate to. Yes, I’ve done that; or, yes, I have witnessed that; or, yes, I know exactly what you are talking about. This does not seem to be the case with the story that Jesus tells below. I would suggest that Jesus’ account of this good Samaritan is not a parable but a recent event which took place in that or a nearby city. This was something which actually happened and most of the people listening to Jesus actually knew about this event.

Although we previously read, this law expert was looking to justify himself; he asks a rather penetrating question, “Who exactly is my neighbor?” The lawyer is asking about the person that he is supposed to love. Also, regardless of his motivation, this is a reasonable question to ask.

This entire narrative has a beginning, a middle and an ending. Luke 10:25–29 is the beginning of this narrative. No Samaritan has been mentioned yet, good or bad.

Based upon the lawyer’s additional question (“Just exactly who is my neighbor?”), Jesus will respond with the story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30–35). This is not a parable, it is a story or a narrative; it is the telling of events which actually took place. Since Jesus is speaking these words in a Samaritan city or village, much of Jesus’ audience is aware of it. This actual event and the fact that Jesus cites it, is going to grab the attention of His audience.

We are now moving into part II of the story of the good Samaritan. In part I, a lawyer, testing Jesus, asked, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (Luke 10:25b; ESV) The discussion for this section was probably longer than you expected it to be.

And the lawyer does. “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” (Luke 10:27b; ESV) The man’s answer comes from combining two different passages from the Torah of Moses.

Well, Jesus tells the man, “You’re right. That is an excellent summation of the Law.”

The lawyer thought about this for a time and I believe that it occurred to him that, he was not loving toward everyone—and I have suggested that there were people there who knew this (perhaps lawyer friends). However, maybe the Torah command was not to love everyone, but just to love one’s neighbor.

But he [the lawyer], desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?" (Luke 10:29; ESV)

Remember that this takes place in a Samaritan village, and it is very possible that this lawyer was not too kind to Samaritans.

There are thirteen verses given over to this interchange, the true story which illustrates the concept of being a neighbor, and a final conclusion. We do not normally find this much detail given for a single interchange between Jesus and a man who seems, on the surface, to be predisposed to be negative to the gospel message.

What is even more strange is, Jesus does not allow them to progress to a point where He gives the man a clear gospel message. Jesus appears to give the man a legalistic approach to God, and then tells him, “Go and do this.”

My assumption is, at this point, the expert in the Law will soon recognize that he is deficient in his own summation of the Law. Jesus will point out this deficiency, but in such a way to maintain this man’s privacy. Then Jesus will trust His Father to bring someone else onto the scene to witness to the expert again. At this point, he is not ready yet for the gospel message.

Based upon the detail of this story, I believe that it was the Law expert himself that told Luke all about this incident, which includes the story of the good Samaritan (a true event, not a parable).

Now, Jesus will illustrate who a neighbor is by citing a true incident which recently took place. Those in His audience all know about this event.

Luke 10:30b ..."A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho,... (ESV; capitalized)

Jesus will use what I believe is an actual event (not a parable) to communicate to this man where he is deficient (and yet, even in a public setting, allows this man his complete privacy). This man more or less believes that he is keeping the Law. The problem is, even he himself recognizes that there might be a problem. Given some time and some introspection, he should admit to himself, “I am not really keeping the Law; not even my summation of it.”

Jesus is going to focus this man’s attention on someone else, on a man who gets robbed and beaten half to death.

Jesus begins to talk about a man who travels from Jerusalem to Jericho; and His audience recognizes the situation that he is in. Being robbed is not an uncommon occurrence along some roads.

This particular story is so detailed as to make me come to the conclusion that it actually occurred, and that Jesus is using it as an illustration. Jesus immediately defines that place where this man is. He does not say, a certain man is walking along a certain road between cities, but this man is going down a specific road between two specific cities going in a specific direction. With these first few words, this sounds like the recollection of an actual event which has taken place—something that many there listening to Jesus are familiar with. People traveled between Jericho and Jerusalem all the time.

Dr. Daniel Hill: The road from Jerusalem to Jericho descends about 3,000 feet in about 17 miles. It is a road that is full of steep grades and switchbacks and was an ideal place for robbers to prey upon unsuspecting victims. The fact that the man is traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho would indicate that he was a Jew. We find that robbers attack him, strip him of his clothing, beat him and leave him to die.

Although Herod the Great had removed many of the robbers throughout region where he ruled, it is nearly impossible to solve this problem forever and in every place. So, this was a problem which apparently plagued that area over periodically a long period of time. The man to whom Jesus was speaking, and the crowd listening to them both, understand and can relate to what is being said.

Often adults have a strong interest in the news, especially if it is an incident which takes place nearby. Very likely, this Law expert may have already heard something about this incident. Jesus is not giving a common, everyday incident that many of the people have personally experienced. He is describing a very specific incident which actually took place.

Sometimes when traveling from city to city, there are thieves on the road who will rob those who travel that way. Here, they surround the man in Jesus’ story.

Getting the exact words down to reflect was Jesus is saying is quite difficult to do. But the general idea is easy to understand. These thieves removed the man’s clothing (that which they wanted) and anything else valuable that he was carrying, and they beat him pretty badly.

The thieves assaulted this man and then left him for dead. They got what they wanted; and they did not concern themselves with this man’s life. He will probably die. He was no longer their concern.

The man is left behind half-dead. There is no concern for his welfare by the thieves. If he died, he died. They got what they wanted from him. They were vicious and cold-blooded.

Luke 10:30 Jesus replied, "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. (ESV; capitalized)

Interestingly enough, Jesus does not identify the man. Is he a Jew, a gentile, a Samaritan? We don’t know. However, I don’t think that Jesus is simply making up a parable here. I would lay odds that this news item was known to most of His audience.

Two reasons why we know this is not a parable: (1) this is not an event which most people there have experienced or have witnessed and (2) in a parable, the people generally represent someone or something. After we go through this parable, I would be fascinated if you told me who these people all represent.

Luke 10:31a Now by chance a priest was going down that road,... (ESV; capitalized)

Jesus continues with this story, which was possibly ripped from the headlines (why wouldn’t Jesus use a current news story to make a point?).

There is the man who has just been robbed and stripped of his clothing; and he is lying along side the road, left for dead. A priest is coming down that same road.

The man who walks by him is a priest of Israel, a man we would assume to be a paragon of virtue. We would think, if anyone, this man would stop and render aid. But he does not.

Luke 10:31b ...and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. (ESV; capitalized)

A very important aspect to this story is, the priest saw him. The priest looked right at him and assessed the situation. The priest sees this man and decides to pass along by, on the other side of the road.

I can come up with a number of reasons why this man did not stop. There are robbers along the road so he needs to be circumspect. Hard to be circumspect if you are helping along a man who is seriously injured. Perhaps he determined, “This man is going to die; so there is really nothing for me to do here.” No doubt, this man rationalized what he did here. What he did not do is stop to render aid.

Luke 10:31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. (ESV; capitalized)

So we have a priest who comes across this man who is half-dead and dying; but the priest goes to the other side of the road.

Dr. Daniel Hill: One would think a priest would be very good at loving God and loving others but here the priest, who no doubt knew as much about the Law and the commands to Love as did the lawyer who was listening to this story, made a point to get avoid the helpless man.

Luke 10:32a So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place... (ESV; capitalized)

Similarly, there is a Levite in this same place. Levites were a part of the religious class. One family of Israelites was given over to religious activity, and those were the Levites. Two branches of the Aaron family line (Aaron was a Levite) were drawn upon for the Hebrew priesthood.

The Levite looks at him again, probably assessing the situation in terms of his own situation. Then he decides to walk by on the other side.

What happened was, the Levite drew closer and closer, to the point where he could determine about what took place, that this is a fellow man, and he has been severely injured. At that point, the Levite crosses the street and continues his travels, but on the other side of the road.

The Levite goes by, sees the man, and he also goes over to the other side of the road and passes by him.

Dr. Daniel Hill: Levites, who assisted the priest, were more itinerant in their ministries. They too would have well know the command of the Law to love God and love others and would be expected to help fellow travelers in need. But this Levite also made a point to avoid the helpless man.

Luke 10:32 So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. (ESV; capitalized)

Now a Levite walks by this man, assesses the situation, and crosses over himself to the other side of the road. Then he just walks on by.

Luke 10:31–32 Just by chance, a certain priest was traveling along that road. When he saw the man laying half dead along the road, he passed by him on the other side. Similarly, a Levite was also traveling along that road, and he also saw the man and he also passed by along the other side. (Kukis paraphrase)

A priest has walked by this man, and crossed over to the other side of the road to avoid him. Then a Levite does the same.

Gary North: Why did they pass him by? Perhaps they feared that the man’s assailants were still in the neighborhood. Better to walk away quickly and avoid danger. Or perhaps they believed he was dead. If a Jew touched a dead man’s body, he became unclean for a week. “He that toucheth the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven days. He shall purify himself with it on the third day, and on the seventh day he shall be clean: but if he purify not himself the third day, then the seventh day he shall not be clean” (Num. 19:11–12). This was a nuisance, but it was not a disaster. It meant that he could not enter the temple (Num. 19:13). Perhaps they had business to conduct at the temple.

People have a number of reasons for avoiding something like this. I would think that, best not to get involved or this is not my business would be at the top of the list for many. But, fundamentally, it is a person thinking that his own business on that day supercedes what he has just seen. As he continues on his way, he may certainly rationalize to himself, “That man is dead or very nearly so. There is really nothing I can do.”

Time and place: Jesus is speaking to a crowd which includes Samaritans, and He is recalling a true incident where a man was traveling from Jericho to Jerusalem, and he is attacked and robbed. The man is left for dead. A priest later walks by, sees the man, and crosses over to the other side of the road, to avoid this man. Then a Levite does the same thing.

Luke 10:33a But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was,.... (ESV; capitalized)

Two men, a priest and a Levite, have seen this half-dead man, and they just kept on going. But a Samaritan sees the man while traveling and he goes up to him. Remember the other two men avoided him by walking over to the other side of the road and proceeding from a distance. They came up close enough to see what was going on, and then went to the other side of the road and kept on walking.

There has been an historic animosity between the Jews and the Samaritans. The Samaritans believed that they had the right to worship the same God as the Jews and to attend services at the Temple; and the Jews did not. As a result, they reviled one another. The priests would have been a first line of defense to keep Samaritans out of their religious services.

Dr. Daniel Hill: Now in contrast to the priest of Israel, the Levite of God, we have a man from the country of Samaria. The Samaritans were scorned by the Jews because of their mixed Jewish and Gentile ancestry. And Jesus specifically uses a Samaritan in the story because while a Jew may consider helping another Jew, no Jew would ever think of helping a Samaritan and yet here, in the irony of the parable, a Samaritan will stop and give aid and comfort to this helpless Jew.

Dr. Hill has assumed that this man is a Jew. I don’t know that to be the case; and I don’t see how that might change anything, one way or the other.

When the Samaritan got close and could see this half-dead man, he could see him better and was emotionally moved; meaning that he was concerned for the man and his predicament. Neither the priest nor the Levite really gave the man enough thought to become moved for this man. The priest and the Levite simply were moved to the other side of the road, to avoid any direct contact.

The other two men thought of themselves, where they were going, what they had to do. But the severely injured man—they just left him there, perhaps just assuming that he would die soon anyway.

Luke 10:33 But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. (ESV; capitalized)

The Samaritan sees the man and has compassion for him. He quickly determines in his own mind what he might do for the man. His compassion is more than simply feeling emotional about this man. He actually helps this man and develops a longer term recovery plan while helping him.

He came close to the man and began to bandage his wounds. The Samaritan moved closed enough to help the man.

Most of us, in our medicine cabinet, have a variety of bandages. Or we know that we can pop down to the local pharmacy and purchase them. This Samaritan would not have had an attache of bandages with him. He would be taking cloth from his own clothing and using this on the man. He is ruining his own shirt in order to help this man. People typically did not have much more than a change of clothes. In most cases, this clothing would have been made in his home.

The Samaritan also poured olive oil and wine on the man’s wounds, which would have been an expense to the Samaritan. The oil would have provided moisture and cleansing; and the wine would have disinfected the wounds. The use of these two items would have been common in that era. It would not be unusual for a man to be carrying these two items.

Notice that we have the participle here and the main verb was in the previous phrase. The action of the participle precedes the action of the main verb, no matter where they occur in the sentence. So the Samaritan pours oil and wine on the man’s wounds and then he bandages the man up.

The present (continuous) tense suggests that the Samaritan did this more than once. The Samaritan took his time to tend to this man’s wounds.

The Good Samaritan Stops to Render Aid (a graphic); from iBelieve; accessed September 20, 2024.

The Samaritan had some kind of a pack animal with him, and he lifts the man up onto this animal, so that he can be moved from laying the road to the nearest town.

The Samaritan knows of an inn—perhaps he just stayed at the inn—and he goes there with the man. Whether he went back to where he had been or forward to where he was going, we do not know.

Among the Jewish people, in and around Jerusalem where the Temple was, there would have been inns (similar to our

modern-day motels). There is not a plethora of archeological evidence about inns that I am aware of. The inn at Bethlehem (where Jesus was born) is discussed the most.

A typical inn with buildings arranged round a courtyard (a graphic); from Leen Ritmeyer; accessed October 25, 2024. This is a larger set of buildings than I would have imagined. Jews had to assemble three times a year for three specific festivals. At least during one period of time, people would go to specific cities to register their lands, births and/or to pay taxes.

This story about the good Samaritan is told by the Lord, but with great detail. It is certainly a true story and not a parable. Parables generally have a completely different approach. A represents X; B represents Y; and the interactions of A and B are really representing the interactions between X and Y. The hearer has a very specific opinion about A and B; and later, realizes that he should have the same opinion regarding X and Y.

However, that is not what is taking place in the story of the Good Samaritan. The Samaritan, the priest and the Levite are exactly those people. They do not represent anyone or anything else. All three men have come across a man beaten half to death. The priest is not representative of the religious institutions of that day nor does the Samaritan represent his entire people. These people are simply who they are.

In a parable, people understand the basic story; but the key is, what is analogous to what? That is why a parable is given, to actually explain something else. When Jesus tells a parable, the story sticks with those hearing it. They often develop an opinion about the parable; and often, when they think about it later, realize what the parable was really about. That is not what is taking place here. Jesus is recounting an incident which actually took place.

This is a story and no one represents anything else; no one is analogous to anything else. Therefore, this is a true story (I have made this point several times, because how many times have you read the words, the parable of the good Samaritan? Both e-sword, in its section headings, the New Testament for Everyone and the Lexham English Bible all use this exact phrase. It’s not.

Bear in mind that this man had been robbed and stripped of anything valuable, so the Samaritan was not doing this, expecting some kind of reward in the end. This beaten man may not even be able to thank him at this point. He may not have even been conscious.

Luke 10:34 He [the Samaritan] went to him [the beaten man] and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. (ESV; capitalized)

The Samaritan, who, like everyone else, has places to go and people to see, nevertheless stops to render aid. He also develops a longer range plan to save this man’s life.

This is the ancient world. There is no doctor’s office where the Samaritan can take this man.

Luke 10:35a And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper,... (ESV; capitalized)

The next day, the Samaritan apparently needed to travel. He took out two day’s wages from his pocket and hands them to the innkeeper.

As I write this today, two day’s wages might be $200, or it might be $600. But, to whomever has spent two days working, that is a considerable amount of money to leave on behalf of this injured man who was a stranger to the three men he encountered after being beaten and robbed.

The Samaritan has a life, he has a business, he has things that he has to do. Carrying the man all over the place would not have been practical, nor would it have helped the injured man. The man needed to be resting for a few days or even a few weeks, allowing his wounds to heal. However, the Samaritan did not have that sort of time.

The Samaritan is going to follow up, but he is unable to stay with the beaten man to the point of full recovery. Therefore, the Samaritan strikes a deal with the innkeeper.

Luke 10:35c ...and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.' (ESV; capitalized)

The Samaritan promises that, if there is more money spent on this injured man beyond the two denarii, then he would be certain to reimburse that innkeeper. He opens up a tab with the innkeeper.

It appears, by this, that the Samaritan is just not wandering about aimlessly, looking for good deeds to do, but that he had places to go and people to see. He had to return to his own life and see to his own responsibilities. However, he sees to the needs of this man, developing a longer range recovery plan.

The Samaritan also made certain to return to the inn and see if any additional expenses were incurred in order to take care of this man (who is probably unable to move about on his own).

The Samaritan has things which he must attend to, but he will be traveling back along this way and he will stop in at the inn to see what has taken place and if additional funds are needed to make things right with the innkeeper.

Luke 10:35 And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, 'Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.' (ESV; capitalized)

Like the Levite and the priest, the Samaritan had things to do and places to go. He put his own life and responsibilities on hold while seeing to this man’s needs. He will take care of his business and then come by this way again to wrap things up.

This narrative all began with an expert in the Mosaic Law asking Jesus the thing (s) he must do in order to gain eternal life. Jesus throws this question right back at him, asking, “What do you think?” The man had a ready answer: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself." (Luke 10:27b; ESV). Jesus does not dispute his answer. Instead He says, "You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live." (Luke 10:28b; ESV). The lawyer thinks about this for a short moment and asks Jesus, “Exactly who is my neighbor?”

Jesus then tells him about a man going from Jericho on up to Jerusalem who is attacked, beaten and robbed. He was beaten so badly that both a priest and a Levite saw him and walked right by him on the other side of the street, choosing not to engage. But the next man to see him is a Samaritan.

Luke 10:33–35 “A certain Samaritan, traveling along this same road, saw the man and went towards him. When he saw the half-dead man, he was emotionally moved. He came towards him and bandaged the man’s wounds, pouring olive oil and wine on them. He placed him onto his own pack animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him there. The next day, he gave the innkeeper two denarii, and he said, ‘Please take care of this man. If you spend more to take care of him, then I will repay you upon my return.’ (Kukis paraphrase)

The Good Samaritan by Rembrandt (a graphic); from wikimedia; accessed September 20, 2024. It appears that this painting is under the control of Department of Paintings of the Louvre; and the Netherlands Institute for Art History is given credit for the photograph.

Gary North: The wounded man was not a ritualistic threat to a Samaritan, who would not be entering the temple [courtyard]. The Samaritan was willing to examine the man closely to see if he was alive. He was also willing to assist him with his wounds. He took him to an inn, paid for his lodging, and promised the innkeeper that he would return and pay for any additional expenses incurred by the innkeeper in treating the wounded man.

North continues: This was selfless assistance. The Samaritan had no guarantee of repayment. Still, he helped the man. Why? Because he understood that the man was his neighbor. They were both on the same road, facing the same risks. They shared a common environment. They were therefore neighbors. The Samaritan understood Jesus’ ethical principle, which we call the golden rule: “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise” (Luke 6:31). The Contemporary English Version renders this: Treat others just as you want to be treated.

Dr. Daniel Hill: Notice what the man did to help. Came to him where others avoided him Bandaged up his wounds, got down in the dirt and dust with him and cleaned the wounds, wiping away the blood, getting into the wound to help the poor man Poured on the wounds oil and wine to help heal and clean. These were valuable commodities and yet the Samaritan used them to help the man Put him on his own donkey, he had to walk but knew the man could not. Took him to an inn, took care of him through the night. Paid for the logging. And then promised to pay for whatever else is needed. Now at any point he could have stopped helping and would have done far more than the priest and the Levite were willing to do. But instead he went the extra distance in his love. Here you have the lawyer asking who is my neighbor, and would have argued that a Samaritan could ever be considered a neighbor of a Jew and yet hearing a parable about a Samaritan helping a Jew - unbelievable! And a perfect illustration of the love going beyond the mere words, beyond the impersonal, to the personal extending of one’s self in the labors of love.

Hill then references 1Corinthians 13:1–3 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. (ESV)

Hill then concludes: The only profit that can ever come from love is when it is given away. Instead of asking who is our neighbor, we should ask who can I be a neighbor to? The point is simply that our neighbor is anybody who needs us, anybody whom we can help.

At this point, Jesus has concluded the story of the Good Samaritan and He has a question for the lawyer. This is the conclusion of the story of the Good Samaritan, so allow me to reintroduce the context.

When asked to summarize the Law, a lawyer said to Jesus, “You will love the LORD your God with your whole heart [fig., your entire inner self] and with your whole soul and with your whole strength and with your whole understanding,' and 'your neighbor as yourself.” Luke 10:27 (the Analytical Literal Translation), and the man is quoting Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18.

Then, the lawyer, hoping to justify himself, asks Jesus the legitimate question, “Just who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:29b)

Having recounted the story of the good Samaritan, Jesus then asks the lawyer this question:

Luke 10:36 Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” (ESV; capitalized)

There is the priest, the Levite and the Samaritan; which one appears to be most the neighbor to this man who had been taken down by the thieves?

Obviously, it is the Samaritan who acts as a neighbor to the man who was beaten and robbed. He demonstrates love. He demonstrates the love found in the verse, Love your neighbor as yourself. Recall, that the expert in the Law seemed to have a problem with the concept of neighbor. He knew that he was supposed to love his neighbor, so who exactly is that? Are there some people that I run into that I can set this rule aside?

The concept of love when it comes to other people—neighbors if you will—is more than just a neutral relaxed mental attitude. There are times when the mature believer must act with compassion toward others. He must take actual and positive steps to help others.

In most cases, love being a mental attitude, we interact with others without subjecting them to a flurry of mental attitude sins (like jealousy or anger or arrogance). We keep these mental attitude sins under control by naming our sins to God (silently, when we are in a group setting). However, there are circumstances where love requires us to act in a positive manner, as did the Samaritan.

Application: This is certainly not the Lord teaching socialism. Socialism is about giving the state complete authority over you and your business; and over much of the money that you generate. In return, the state gives you and whomever they want whatever it wants to give; but they always keep the cream off the top for themselves. Furthermore, they will investigate any citizen who seems to have too much of anything.

Application: The Lord is too often inaccurately portrayed as the first socialist. That is far, far off the mark. What Jesus is speaking of here is simply a man who is helpless, and the response to this from three other men, a priest, a Levite and a Samaritan.

Jesus will not conclude his recounting of the good Samaritan by saying, “And this is exactly why there needed to be a state-run medical center in that town.”

Jesus does not suggest that the Samaritan report the other two men to the authorities because they were not fulfilling a state-imposed social contract.

Socialist Citizens/Socialist Leaders (a graphic); from Facebook; accessed February 13, 2023.

Luke 10:36 Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” (ESV; capitalized)

It is interesting the way that Jesus put this. Given the entire context, one might expect Jesus to ask the question, Which if the three men showed love to their neighbor, the man who was beaten and robbed? Jesus asks this in a different way. [Jesus asks] “Which of these three would one consider to you to be a neighbor to the one falling among the thieves.” (Kukis mostly literal translation) I think the idea is, Jesus was asking, “Which of these three acted like a true neighbor—one who showed compassion—to the robbed man?”

In other words, Jesus is not dividing these men into groups and allowing this or that group a pass. One man behaves like a neighbor and the other two do not. Furthermore, the race of the injured man is never spoken of. Why? Because that is not an issue when it comes to what should be done for him.

This legal expert was looking to take the term neighbor and use it to limit his own liability. He wanted to limit his personal responsibility to some. He wants for this word to allow him to exclude some people whom he does not consider his neighbors. Jesus understood that immediately. The law expert wanted to specify, “The Levite living next door to me—he is my neighbor; but some half-breed Samaritan, he is not really my neighbor, so what exactly do I owe him?” This is possibly what was in the law expert’s mind; and what Jesus was doing was taking the word neighbor to expand his realm of responsibility. The lawyer wanted to constrict his responsibility and Jesus was not allowing him any convenient limitations.

Jesus asked this man, who of the three is the true neighbor to the man who had been robbed. Obviously, this was the Samaritan; and the legal expert agreed with this.

You see how Jesus completely turned this around on the lawyer. The lawyer wanted the word neighbor to be restrictive, to reduce the number of people that the lawyer was obligated by law to love. Jesus not only removed all restrictions with this story, but He used this actual event to illustrate what love actually looks like.

Luke 10:37b And Jesus said to him, "You go, and do likewise.” (ESV; capitalized)

Jesus told the man, “Depart now and you consistently do the same thing. You now have a measuring rod by which to measure yourself and your own actions.”

Now, why didn’t Jesus say, “Believe in Me, and you will be saved”? Logically, this Law expert needs to determine for himself that, he cannot meet this standard of loving his neighbor. You and I know that he cannot meet this standard; and Jesus knows that as well. However, the lawyer is not yet ready to admit this. Jesus, Who is an expert in the realm of human psychology, can see this.

Jesus needs to allow this man to think and to put together all that he has now learned. Is it possible that he will never come to the realization that Jesus is the key? Yes. Nevertheless, Jesus does not push him then and there for a decision, for further conversation, for anything more. The man has enough to ruminate on. Will he come to the conclusion that he is imperfect and does not deserve to be saved (which would be the correct understanding and application of what Jesus has taught him so far)?

Application: Sometimes, when interacting with an unbeliever, you cannot always take him all the way there. Sometimes you have to give him enough information to ruminate over; and let God take it from there.

Application: Sometimes, our interactions with unbelievers are not going to end in a conversion (obviously, most of the time). Best we can do is plant the seed and not to be complete idiots. There are times that we should take a read on a person and whatever he actually says or asks, and stick only to that.

This is what Jesus did. The man gave a reasonable yardstick to measure himself by. He summed up the Torah with two commands (just as Jesus will do on another occasion). Essentially Jesus is telling him, “Go with that. You meet that standard.” (Obviously, the man cannot.)

Illustration: When a basketball player needs to take the ball to his team’s side of the court to shoot the basket, he does not do this all by himself. He belongs to a team. Two or three men move the ball from one end of the court to the other, and a fourth man might be the one to take the shot. We are on that kind of team. Sometimes you point a person toward a important and relevant point of doctrine and leave it there. We act and speak on the basis of circumstances and on the basis of the Bible doctrine in our souls. Not every single interaction with an unbeliever needs to end with, “And if you want a relationship with God, then you must believe in Jesus Christ. Do you understand the issue?” Sometimes, if the unbeliever you are interacting with knows you are a Christian, then your best interaction with him is not to be a complete jerk. If he thinks or talks about you, will he say, “That is one more Christian who is an effing hypocrite”?

Even Jesus, the world’s greatest evangelist, meets this man right where he is and gives him something to think about which may lead him to being open to the gospel message. Not right then; not five minutes from now, but sometime in the future.

Luke 10:37 He [the lawyer] said, "The one who showed him mercy." And Jesus said to him, "You go, and do likewise.” (ESV; capitalized)

The verbs go and do are both present tense, imperative mood. However, they would be understood in different ways. The first verb is the present middle/passive (deponent) imperative. Jesus is not saying, “Now you go, and you keep on going.” Jesus is telling him to simply go back to his life, which he interrupted momentarily to speak with Jesus. He will go here, he will go there; he will simply continue with his life.

The second verb is the 2^nd person singular, present active imperative of poieô (ποιέω) [pronounced poi-EH-oh], which means, to do, to make, to construct, to produce; to carry out, to execute [a plan, an intention]; to practice. Strong’s #4160. Then an adverb is added: homoiôs (ὁμοίως) [pronounced hom-OY-oce], which means, likewise, similarly, so, equally, in the same way. Strong’s #3668. Jesus is telling the lawyer to go and keep on doing likewise; keep on acting in a similar manner to the Samaritan. Jesus is pretty much giving this man a full-time job here. How many people will this lawyer come face to face with that he is obligated to love and, as a result, take some sort of action (like the acts of the Samaritan). And those to whom this lawyer must show love to are not limited by the word neighbor.

The implication is, “Now, if you want to be saved by the Law, then go out there and act like the Samaritan acted.” Not only does this command push a few buttons, but a honest man will come to the conclusion—at some point—that “I do not reach this standard of behavior. Not every day, not all of the time.” Jesus will depend upon some honest introspection by this man.

I personally believe that this lawyer understood enough at this point to go his own way. I think that he will ponder this interaction with Jesus and even monitor his own behavior and his own compassion (along with related shortcomings). He will take note of his own behavior. When does he stop and render aid? When does he see someone who needs help and he crosses the street to avoid that person?

Dr. Daniel Hill sees it differently, not believing this man to be able to apply what Jesus has just said: There is no doubt that the lawyer understood the point of the parable and the issue of mercy. But the understanding, the knowing, the knowledge does not mean there is application.

Gary North: The parable of the good Samaritan deals with the question of loving one’s neighbor. The Samaritan was the wounded man’s neighbor because he helped the man when the opportunity arose. The opportunity arose because they were both travellers on the same road. The priest and the Levite were also travellers on that road, but they did not help. They refused to act as neighbors. Jesus chose the highest ecclesiastical officers as His examples of how not to serve as neighbors. This deliberate provocation could not have been missed by members of both groups. He was making it clear that the concept of neighbor is broader than either race or confession. It has to do with shared circumstances and close proximity. It also has to do with need or weakness. It has to do with the golden rule (Luke 6:32).

At some point, this lawyer will have to conclude, if he is objective, is that he is not always the good neighbor. Sometimes he is, but certainly not always. There are times when he will cross the street to avoid helping his neighbor. The conclusion he is forced to is, if he does not love his neighbor as himself, then he is not able to follow the law well enough to attain to eternal life.

The final narrative of Luke 10 is about Jesus in the home of Martha and Mary. I have a keen interest in scope and sequence of the gospels (particularly when it comes to Luke) and the two charts which I often refer to are my chapter-by-chapter description of the book of Luke and Ken Palmer’s Harmony of the Gospels chart (which I have modified). Both of these are found in my introduction to Luke (HTML) (PDF) (WPD).

Most of Luke, starting in Luke 10 and going halfway through Luke 18 is exclusive to Luke. This portion of Luke focuses primarily on the teaching of our Lord (with limited narrative). So far, throughout Luke 9–10, I have shown that each section seems to lead into the next section. Luke 11 does not begin with a phrase taking us from the Martha and Mary narrative to the teach us how to pray narrative. Furthermore, Luke 10:38 will not provide us with a clear transition of one narrative to the next. There is no phrasing which takes us from the narrative of the good Samaritan to Martha and Mary, as though these narratives occurred in chronological succession. Unfortunately, this is not how it will appear in your translation.

There is another problem. If this is the same Martha and Mary found in John 11, then they live in Bethany (John 11:1). This places us very close to Jerusalem. So that means that Jesus and company were on the border of Galilee and Samaria and, suddenly, picked up the pace to get to Bethany. That is also problematic.

Jerusalem, Bethphage and Bethany (a map); from Faith Bible Church accessed October 4, 2024.

So, if we are in Bethany right here in the narrative, then we have already passed through all of Samaria and Jesus is about to go up the mountain road to Jerusalem, coming in from the east side. This is also where we are, midway through Luke 18. At that point, we return to the synoptic gospel fold, as it were. Because of where we are geographically, this also fixes our time. So, this means we are about to begin the final week prior to the crucifixion. Matthew, Mark and Luke begin to agree on event after event at that point (halfway through Luke 18). But we are in Luke 10. There are 8½ chapters to go to take us to the point of where we are already.

Luke 13:22 He went on His way through towns and villages, teaching and journeying toward Jerusalem. (ESV; capitalized)

Luke 17:11 On the way to Jerusalem He was passing along between Samaria and Galilee. (ESV; capitalized)

Do you see what a mess this is? We cannot be in Bethany right now, just outside of Jerusalem; and yet be on our way to that place in Luke 13:22 and 17:11. Jesus cannot be traveling between Galilee and Samaria, wind up in Bethany (Luke 11:38), but then find Himself back between Samaria and Galilee (Luke 13:22 17:11). This would not make any sense.

If Luke is strictly a chronological study, how are we Bethany almost to Jerusalem; and yet Luke 13:22 and 17:11 have Jesus progressing between the regions of Samaria and Galilee, making His way through towns and villages, teaching and journeying in the direction of Jerusalem? I will provide a map so that you can see that this makes no sense.

Galilee, Samaria and Judæa (a map); from Quizlet; accessed October 31, 2024. If you can find Jerusalem on the map, we are close to Jerusalem in Luke 10:38, but a long distance from Jerusalem in Luke 13:22 17:11.

This gives us several options (and more than one of these options may be true): (1) this is not the same Martha and Mary named in John 11. If that is the case, then we are no longer in Bethany. (2) This is the same Martha and Mary, but they moved (to Samaria, to the border of Samaria? This seems unlikely). Or (3) the exact chronology of Luke 12–18a was not known to Luke. He twice makes reference to some of this teaching taking place on this journey from Galilee through Samaria going toward Jerusalem, but this does not jive with Martha and Mary being in Bethany here at the end of Luke 10. Luke 10 (where Jesus might be in Bethany) cannot chronologically take us to Luke 13:22 and Luke 17:11 followed by Luke 18.

How is Matthew different from Luke? How is Mark different from Luke? Matthew was with Jesus throughout most of His public ministry, and so we would expect everything in Matthew to be in a chronological order. Peter was also with Jesus all of this time, and Mark is really Peter’s gospel. Therefore, the book of Mark is also in chronological order. Luke was not there with Jesus. Luke did not travel with Jesus. Luke has never met Jesus.

Given that Luke amassed his biography of Jesus from speaking to perhaps a dozen people, there were going to be some important teachings which accidentally ended up untethered to a particular time (and sometimes, untethered to time and place). Luke, having read the gospels of Matthew and Mark (that seems to be the general consensus), does not want to simply throw these sermons away (which sermons make up the bulk of Luke 11–18). “Hmmm, this sermon by Jesus is really good, but I cannot figure out when He gave it so I guess I won’t include it.” That is a thought which Luke never had.

So if we are in Bethany here at the end of Luke 10 and we are going up to Jerusalem in Luke 18:31 (which is where Jesus would be, the moment He walks out of Bethany), then that places Luke 11–18a in a mostly unknown time and place. The two verses cited above (Luke 13:22 and 17:11) tells us that some of this teaching took place on the way to Jerusalem when traveling through Samaria. Therefore, that had to take place prior to Jesus being in Bethany (which is where we might be in this final section of Luke 10). Again, I only see three options: (1) this is a different Martha and Mary; (2) Martha and Mary moved; or (3) Luke’s narrative—at least chapter 11 through chapter 18½—is not strictly in chronological order as the rest of Luke is.

My belief is, Luke had material which he just had to include (as it was not found in Matthew or Mark), but he was unable to match it up with the chronological narrative that he had developed, so he just throws it all together into this middle section of the book of Luke. I lean toward the third explanation that chapter 11 begins a section we might label The Teachings of Jesus; Other Teachings of Jesus; or Miscellaneous Sermons of Jesus. When considering who Luke is and how he gathered together the material for his gospel, writing a section like this makes perfect sense. I would also suggest that this is a different Martha and Mary, simply because Luke would have logically placed this narrative in Luke 18, had it been the same Martha and Mary found in John. Luke, knowing the geography and location of Martha and Mary, would have known where to place this narrative. Maybe he did not know where Martha and Mary lived and that helps to explain why this is not in perfect chronological order.

I mention this information right here, because if this is the same Martha and Mary found in the book of John, then this means, geographically speaking, the second half of Luke 18 starts right here, after Luke 10.

Keeping this information in the back of our heads, let us begin the final incident of Luke 10.

I could give many other examples. My point is, if you do not know the Greek, it appears that we have moved from the previous narrative chronologically to this narrative. That is what the English tells us in the English Standard Version along with most other translations.

There is a lot to be said about the first five words in the Greek—which I don’t think are anywhere literally translated—but I will reserve that commentary for the chapter commentary on this verse: Luke 10 (HTML) (PDF) (WPD)

In any case, these first five words appear to take us from the previous situation to the next situation, if we only know the English translations. In other words, we still appear to be progressing in the same narrative and that is because the ESV (and other generally accurate translations) make it seem that way.

However, note the translation I give these first five Greek words: And during their travels,... (Kukis mostly literal translation) The words which take us from the Good Samaritan to the next increment of this chapter are this: And during their travels,... (Kukis mostly literal translation)

These words do not advance us in the narrative from first Jesus speaks with a lawyer in Samaria to then next, Jesus goes to the home of Martha and Mary. The actual connecting words are very general and they do not suggest that these incidents are in any way connected. We are not going from one incident to the next. So, it is these words which tell us, for a period of time, we are going to leave a strict chronological study. From Luke 10:38 to Luke 18:31, and during this time, we will study a few things which Jesus said during His travels.

In fact, I have been looking for a phrase like this for the past year or so. I knew that, at some point, that we were no longer in chronological order, and it is this little phrase beginning Luke 10:38 tells us that we are not.

Unlike all of the connecting phrases which we have previously studied, this is the first phrase which gives us a great deal of leeway when it comes to determining where we are with regards to time.

Jesus and His disciples traveled about, and during these travels, this other thing also happened. That would be a really extended paraphrase of the five Greek words found here.

Luke speaks of a certain village. This is because Luke receives this information from a variety of sources, he does not always know every single detail. One detail he lacks is the name of this village.

Jesus and His disciples are moving about. We have no idea as to the size of their entourage. They come to a certain village here, which is unnamed. My only explanation as to why this might be unnamed is, Luke just did not catch the name of the village (and these could be very small villages that we are speaking of; whose names would otherwise be unknown). All we know, based upon the connecting text, is that this took place while Jesus and His disciples were traveling about (which takes in a very wide swath of time).

Again, Luke did not actually witness any of these events; he hears this information from other first-hand witnesses. So, now and again, when he is taking notes, he leaves out an important piece of information. During the interview, he forgets to ask, “Now where exactly did this happen?” Or, “At what point in the Lord’s ministry did this take place?” It was so easy to get caught up in the Lord’s teaching so that Luke forgot to inquire about time and place.

Therefore, there is this very large section of Luke which has no specific time frame for it. These things took place during the Lord’s public ministry, but Luke was unable to be more specific than that (this is the material between Luke 10:38 and halfway through Luke 18).

Luke 10:38c And a woman named Martha welcomed Him into her house. (ESV; capitalized)

Jesus and His disciples are welcomed into a home there; and, all we know at this point is, Martha and Mary appear to be the ones who live at this home and possibly own it (the Greek suggests that Martha owns it). There could be a lot more going on here; but we do not know what that might be.

Notice how this is phrased. There is both Martha and Mary living at this home, but this is presented as Martha’s home. Perhaps they live together; perhaps not. But this ought to stand out. Martha either has the larger home, better for the entertainment of guests; or she is the go-getter of the two sisters. Even if they live together, it is Martha’s house.

As previously discussed, if this is the same Martha and Mary from the book of John, then we are in Bethany, which geographically (and chronologically) takes us right to the middle of Luke 18.

Luke 10:38 Now as they went on their way, Jesus entered a village. And a woman named Martha welcomed Him into her house. (ESV; capitalized)

Based upon most English translations, It appears that we pick up the narrative right where we left off in v. 37. Jesus and His disciples were in one village previously speaking to a lawyer; and now they move to another village. If this is not the Martha and Mary from the book of John, then logically, Jesus and His disciples would simply be in another Samaritan village.

The only occupants of this home named are Mary and Martha, and they are sisters. Have their husbands passed and they live here? Do they have servants? How many disciples are there at their home? Even though these are reasonable questions, this narrative never addresses them.

Mary, the sister of Martha, is sitting at the Lord’s feet and taking in Bible doctrine. He is teaching her face to face. It is highly unlikely that He is teaching her and her alone. This is probably a teaching session for His disciples, and Mary is very interested, so she sits at His feet.

Because Mary was such a common name in that era, there is no reason to attempt to identify this Mary with any other Mary in Scripture.

We know in retrospect the amazing importance of the Lord’s teaching at this time; and that this was an event which would never be repeated—certainly not for Mary and Martha.

It is possible that neither Mary nor Martha fully appreciated this, but clearly, Martha appreciated this less than Mary did.

Luke 10:39 And she had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord's feet and listened to His teaching. (ESV; capitalized)

In John 11, there is a family of Mary, Martha and Lazarus (apparently all siblings), and they all live in Bethany. We find out in this same passage that Mary is the one who anointed the Lord’s feet and washed them with her own hair. Because Luke 7:38 and John 12:3 are two separate incidents, we do not know if this is the same Mary in both incidents. The other option is, these are two very similar incidents, but the woman in Luke 7 is not Mary. Given that Martha is a homeowner and Mary is there, either Mary completely cleaned up her act after Luke 7 (which is why she is with her sister Martha); or the woman of Luke 7 is simply a different woman. If this is the same woman, what an amazing arc there has been in the life of Mary, over a very short period of time!

In case I have confused you, there is a Mary and a Martha who live in Bethany. They have a brother, Lazarus. That Mary did wash the Lord’s feet with ointment, using her own hair to wipe His feet (compare John 11:2 and 12:3). There is a separate incident where an unnamed woman does the same thing in Luke 7 (much earlier in the Lord’s public ministry). Given the context of Luke 7, that woman was of very questionable character (as many at that meal apparently knew). We do not know this woman’s name. Did Mary wash the Lord’s feet twice with her hair? Did she only do it once and someone else did it in Luke 7? We don’t know.

We do not know if this is the same Martha and Mary here at the end of Luke 10 (which is what we are now studying) as is found in John 11:1–12:3. I do not believe that these are the same Martha and Mary. However, Luke 10:38a removes us from a strict chronology (meaning that, this could be the same pair of sisters).

The very long passage found in the book of John suggests that these two woman and their brother are quite significant in the early church (which would explain the depth of explanation given by John). As previously discussed, if this is the same Martha and Mary, then there might be some confusion in our location or timeline (however, Luke 10:38a eliminates any confusion in this regard). The easiest assumption to make here is, there are two pairs of sisters named Martha and Mary.

Luke 10:38–39 And during their travels, Jesus [lit., He] entered into a certain village. And a certain woman, Martha by name, received Him into [her] home. There was also a sister called Mary, and she was sitting down at the feet of Jesus. She was hearing His teaching [lit., word]. (Kukis mostly literal translation)

Tangent: Let’s say that this is the same person here as in Luke 7, the same person who washes and moisturizes the Lords feet with her hair, and using very expensive oils on his feet. Why is she named here but not there? In the context the previous incident—given that the woman’s character is hinted at—maybe Luke did not say her name simply to preserve her privacy back in Luke 7. There is no need to preserve her privacy in this passage. Nevertheless, the simplest explanation is, these are different women.

Now, although it sounds as if Martha is doing all of the work and Mary is just sitting around neglecting her duties. However, we do not know that to be a true representation of what these women are doing. Do they have servants? Do they have a staff of any sort? Are there others there? And perhaps Martha is stressing about things which do not necessarily need to be done at this time.

In any case, Martha appears to be distracted from what Jesus is saying as she has many tasks and duties to perform. After all, if Jesus is there, then His disciples were also there or nearby. Martha could be overseeing the feeding of 15 or 20 people (or more!). So, she isn’t simply being a bitch about this. She no doubt has real concerns about everything that needs to be done.

Martha considers what is going on, and she finally takes a stand. She speaks up, speaking directly to Jesus, rather than to her own sister.

Luke 10:40c ...and said, "Lord, do you not care that my sister... (ESV; capitalized)

She asks the Lord whether or not He is concerned about her sister. So Martha is running about doing things, but her sister is sitting there at the feet of the Lord; and He is presumably teaching.

Again, we do not know the history of these two women. Is Mary’s background as sorted as we might think? Or is Martha simply the go-getter of the two sisters? In either case, Martha’s reaction and complaint seem reasonably valid.

Martha suggests that she is deserted and trying to do everything by herself at this point. This is her complaint and she is making this complaint directly to Jesus.

She may or may not have servants; and this meal preparation could involve 15 or more people being fed. So this was a large meal, even with servants.

There are many of us who might identify more with Martha than Mary, given the task set before them. We have no idea how many disciples are with Jesus at this point, but upon His arrival in Jerusalem, there were hundreds.

Since Jesus is, apparently, doing some teaching and Mary is listening to Him; Martha says, “Maybe you could speak directly to Mary, while you are at it, and get her to give me a hand.”

For all we know, Martha could have waited for Jesus to take a breath in His teaching, and suddenly she says all of this. Perhaps we see her walking hurriedly in and out of this room, carrying plates and other items in preparation for a large meal.

Jesus is in the home of Martha and Mary. Martha is running about, preparing the meal (or overseeing its preparation), and Mary is listening to the Lord teach.

Luke 10:40 But Martha was distracted with much serving. And she went up to Him and said, "Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her then to help me." (ESV; capitalized)

Martha appears to be too busy to listen to the Lord, but she seems to be okay with interrupting Him and asking Him for a favor.

Martha has complained to the Lord that she is running around doing everything, and her sister, Mary, is just sitting there, at the Lord’s feet, listening to Him. Jesus listens to her complaint and then He responds.

Luke 10:41b ..."Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things,... (ESV; capitalized)

Although there are a number of times when a person’s name is doubled in Scripture, I think the only thing that Jesus is saying here is, “Listen, Martha. Listen carefully.”

Jesus points out that she is stressed out over many things, and is suggesting that she should not be.

We know that Martha is not at ease, she is not happy, she is not relaxed; and yet she should be happy, as the Lord of Lords, King of Kings is in her home teaching. This should be the greatest experience of her life, but it is not. She complains to the Lord about her sister and Jesus tells her, “You are anxious and troubled about many things,...” This is a once in a lifetime experience, and yet she has no personal benefit in her soul as a result. She lacks the spiritual capacity to appreciate what is happening.

This verse appears to carry over into the next one. A few translations present this as a continued sentence.

Luke 10:41 But the Lord answered her, "Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things,... (ESV; capitalized)

Jesus points out the obvious, that Martha is upset and very concerned about many things.

I believe that this is a reasonable translation of what the Lord said. The one thing would be salvation to those who have not believed; and Bible doctrine for those who have. This should be the point of concentration for all mankind. The gospel message for the unbeliever; and Bible doctrine for the believer. She lacks the latter.

Luke 10:41–42a The Lord answered her, saying, “Martha, Martha, you continue being stressed and troubled about many things, but few things are [really] important except one [thing]. (Kukis mostly literal translation)

Martha is continually concerned about the work that she must do and Jesus tells her that this is one thing in particular which is more important. That would be His Word.

Mary has figured out that being taught by the Lord is the most important thing for her to have.

R. B. Thieme, Jr. used to continually teach that learning the Word of God was the most important thing that we could do, as opposed to running around and doing things (witnessing, giving money to the church, feeding the poor, etc.). This is fully in line with what Jesus is teaching here. Both Mary and Martha could be up and around preparing the meal for Jesus and whatever people were with Him; but He testifies that what Mary is doing—carefully listening to Him—that is divine good. That is what she ought to be doing.

Luke 10:42b-c Mary has chosen the good part [for herself], which will not be taken from her.” (Kukis mostly literal translation)

It is interesting that Luke placed this narrative back-to-back with the one on the Good Samaritan. In the Good Samaritan story, it is clear that those who saw injured man laying on the side of the road should have stopped and rendered aid of some sort. They should have volunteered their reasonable service to a fellow human being.

Nevertheless, we have to be careful about going overboard when it comes to helping others. There is actually a time where help is requested and the mature believer refuses. Every circumstance has to be considered; and there is no magic percentage (offer your help 70% of the time). And, quite obviously, what could be more important than sitting at the feet of the Lord and hearing Him teach?

Application: Most of the time, when it comes to making decisions in the Christian life, God gives you enough information to determine what you should do. In most lives, there are only a handful of decisions which are questionable; which do not have a quick and easy answer. For most believers, in the two examples given (The Good Samaritan and the Duties of Martha and Mary) what a person should be doing should be easy to ascertain. Quite obviously, the more Bible doctrine that the believer has in his soul, the easier it is to make such decisions.

Luke 10:42b-c Mary has chosen the good part [for herself], which will not be taken from her.” (Kukis mostly literal translation)

What cannot be taken from Mary? The Bible doctrine in her soul. The information given to her by Jesus, which information she has taken into her soul by faith.

Luke 10:41–42 The Lord answered her, saying, “Martha, Martha, you continue being stressed and troubled about many things, but few things are [really] important except one [thing]. Mary has chosen the good part [for herself], which will not be taken from her.” (Kukis mostly literal translation)

Martha, who is focused upon works, is clearly stressed. Her sister Mary, on the other hand, is focused upon the teaching of the Lord, and that is the most important thing, the thing that could not be taken away from her.

Luke 10:41–42 The Lord then spoke to her, saying, “Listen, Martha, you are continually being stressed out and troubled about many things, but there is only one truly important thing, and Mary has chosen that good thing for herself (that is, the teaching of Bible doctrine). Doctrine in her soul cannot be taken away from her.” (Kukis paraphrase)

Steve Ellis: This pericope illustrates the need for us to focus upon spiritual priorities. Too many times we are like Martha – all consumed with the need to be constantly doing and providing rather than quietly meditating on the Word so that we may have long term focus. “To be occupied with the Person of Christ is more important than to be occupied for Christ. To devote oneself to the word of Christ, so as to be taught by Him, is more important than to be busy for Him…Those who would later minister for Him needed to learn that the ‘better part’ was to be preoccupied with Him and to be taught not to neglect Him in their ministry.”

It appears that there is a close relationship between this family and Jesus. That is, if this is the same Mary and Martha found in the book of John. Extra-Biblical sources suggest that they were childhood friends. Lazarus, whom the Lord will later raise from the dead, is their brother (perhaps this has already taken place?).

Bible translation used: The Scriptures 2009. Unless otherwise noted, all other quotations will be taken from this translation as well.

In the Scriptures 2009, instead of God, we have the word Elohim, which is a transliteration from the Hebrew. The other name for God, YHWH (or Jehovah, Yahweh, Adonai, Lord, JHWH, Y^ehowah) is represented with the actual Hebrew יהוה. The reason for there being so many different words used here is interesting. Originally, the Hebrew was written without vowels—not just YHWH, but every single Hebrew word. Because the Hebrew Scriptures (which we know as the Old Testament) were read aloud so often, the reader could look at the Hebrew consonants and know the word that was there. In fact, the Masoretes, who preserved the Bibles' pronunciation, introduced diacritical marks in the 7th century a.d. (these are vowel points, which was added above and below the original Hebrew text). Up to that time, every word in the Bible was read aloud except for one, and that was YHWH. When the Jews came to this proper name, they said, Adonai (= Lord). As a result, the Jews preserved the pronunciation of the Biblical text for all but one word. Of the nearly 100 translations of the Old Testament to which I refer, any one of those eight forms may be found—and one of them, the Message (I believe) uses God. Furthermore, Bible translations are not necessarily consistent at this point. One place we may read Lord, and elsewhere we may read Jehovah in the same translation.

Introduction: Luke 10 is a series of incidents which take place while Jesus is beginning to travel through Samaria to Jerusalem for the final time. Jesus stayed in the Galilee region prior to this trip and then remained in the Judah region—in Jerusalem—after this trip.

The first five incidents of this chapter appear to take place, one after the other. The final narrative of this chapter—the one about Martha and Mary—does not immediately follow the previous five incidents. In fact, it leads us into a new section of Luke.

New Testament Map of Palestine (a graphic); from Quizlet; accessed October 18, 2024. The maps from this era differ somewhat with regards to the size of Samaria and its exact boundaries. There were ways for Jesus to travel from Galilee to Jerusalem without spending much time in Samaria.

Nevertheless, the several incidents of this chapter appear to take place in Samaria.

Even though we are only in Luke 10 (there are 24 chapters in the book of Luke), we are in the final months of the public ministry of our Lord in this chapter.

It is likely that Luke 11–18½ are not in any sort of chronological order (including the final narrative of Luke 10). I will attempt to fully summarize this in as few points as possible.

The Chronology of Luke 9–19

1. There are nine incidents in Luke 9:18–50 which can be matched with the same incidents in the same order found in Matthew 16:13–18:6 and also in Mark 6:27–9:37. These incidents can be more clearly seen in the Harmony of the Gospels Chart which is found in The Introduction to Luke (HTML) (PDF) (WPD).

2. Given the location of these incidents in Matthew and Mark, they take place right before Jesus enters into Jerusalem for the last Passover of His public ministry. He will fulfill the shadow image of the Passover by becoming our Passover Lamb on the Roman cross. That will take place in the very near future (from the narrative that we are studying). Jesus will be in Jerusalem perhaps 2–3 weeks after Luke 10 (except for the final narrative of Luke 10).

3. Then, after Luke 11–18½, we have five parallel incidents which occur prior to Jesus ascending into Jerusalem (the sixth incident) found in Matthew 19:13–21:1 Mark 10:13–11:1 and in Luke 18:15–19:28. Again, refer to the Harmony of the Gospels Chart.

1) Notice that there is perhaps a single chapter of Matthew between the passage named here and the one cited in point 1; and a single chapter of Mark between the passage named here and the one named in point 1 above.

2) However, we jump from Luke 9:50 (point 1 above) to Luke 18:15 (point 3 above). That is 9½ chapters. Why is there be so much material in the book of Luke?

4. Next we have Jesus during holy week, which series of events precedes the crucifixion. Between Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem to right before the Passover dinner with His disciples, there are over twenty incidents found in all three synoptic gospels in the same exact order. These incidents are found in Matthew 21:1–26:20 Mark 11:1–14:17 Luke 19:29–22:14.

5. We have this consistent chronological flow of incidents in both Matthew and Mark.

6. In Luke, we have this same flow of incidents, but in between the first nine incidents and what follows are the chapters 10–18½ in Luke, which section is approximately a third of the book of Luke. I have been wondering about the scope and sequence of those chapters for the past two years or more.

7. In Luke 10, there is language which leads us from one incident to the next, with the exception of the Martha and Mary narrative. Therefore, most of Luke 10 simply follows Luke 9, but it is not material recorded in either of the other two synoptic gospels.

8. In Luke 10:38, we have a key phrase—mistranslated almost everywhere—which intentionally does not take us chronologically from Luke 10:37 (the end of the Good Samaritan event) to the Martha and Mary narrative which follows (Luke 10:38–42).

9. So, in Luke 10:38–18:14 we have a set of Jesus’ teachings which are all gathered together in this middle section of Luke. Luke appears to maintain to a pretty consistent chronological sequencing of events between Luke 1:1 to Luke 10:37. Then, at Luke 18:15 and following, Luke continues with this careful sequencing of events. We know this, because we can match these many narratives with those found in Matthew and Mark.

10. Only in the middle of Luke do we have 9½ chapters which are not as carefully sequenced. I have no way of tying the events of these 9½ chapters to Matthew or to Mark.

11. Nevertheless, this fits with Luke’s method of gathering these narratives for his book. He would have had some teachings of Jesus not clearly tied to this or that series of incidents. He places all of these teachings in this middle section of Luke, providing as much contextual information as he has.

1) Why would Luke do this?

2) If he placed these teachings at the beginning of the book of Luke, they would not make sense, as Jesus has not been introduced.

3) If these teachings were placed at the end of the book of Luke, this would be after the crucifixion and resurrection. That would suggest that these things were taught post-crucifixion. But they weren’t.

4) So, the logical thing to do would be to place these teachings somewhere in the middle of the book of Luke.

12. I first became aware of this oddity in Luke as I went through Luke 8–9 and noticed the series of events which could be easily matched with the other two synoptic gospels, but that there was this large set of chapters (Luke 10–18½) which did not fall into the synoptic gospels scope and sequence as per Ken Palmer’s Harmony of the Gospel Chart. It was only recently that I realized that Luke 10:38a was the key that told us where this middle section actually began.

13. Beginning with Luke 10:38, we will listen to the teachings of Jesus untethered to a set of events. In this way, the middle section of Luke stands apart from the rest of Luke, as well as from Matthew and Mark.

I realize that the vast majority of Christians do not concern themselves with such things. Of course, what is key is the content of these teachings. However, if we approach the book of Luke with a critical eye, then there must be an explanation for this middle section in order for the entire book to make sense.

Luke 10 will pick up where Luke 9 left off (remember, we are now summarizing Luke 10). But the final narrative of Luke 10 is not tethered chronologically to the rest of Luke. This final narrative begins the middle section of Luke.

Luke 10:1 And after this [the incidents of Luke 9] the Master appointed seventy others, and sent them two by two ahead of Him into every city and place where He Himself was about to go.

There are two readings for this verse, seventy or seventy-two; and which one is correct is not really a theological issue of any sort.

Jesus is going toward Jerusalem for the final time, and He will be traveling through Samaria. His advance team will go first to determine whether or not he should go into this or that village.

Luke 10:2 Then He said to them, “The harvest indeed is great, but the workers are few, therefore pray the Master of the harvest to send out workers into His harvest.

Jesus recognizes that there is a great deal of positive volition in Samaria, but this positive volition is not to be found in every village and town. Furthermore, the time He has remaining is very limited. Therefore, Jesus sends out an advance team to determine where the pockets of positive volition are.

As an aside, this is another one of the many indications that Jesus did not use the attributes of His Deity in His day-to-day life. He does not use His omniscience to determine where the positive volition is.

Jesus speaks of His disciples as going out as lambs into a country filled with wolves. This means that they are helpless, apart from God. This means that there is some severe opposition out there.

Luke 10:4 “Do not take a purse, nor a bag, nor sandals. And greet no one along the way.

Jesus’ advance team is being sent out immediately. They are not taking any time to prepare to go out. Jesus is giving them a very specific assignment, and they are not to allow themselves to be waylaid along the way. They need to stick to this assignment, as Jesus is advancing toward Jerusalem, intending to be there during the Passover.

Luke 10:5 “And whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace to this house.’

Jesus is anticipating that they will be invited to stay at certain homes when doing this advance work.

Luke 10:6 “And if indeed a son of peace is there, your peace shall rest on it; and if not, it shall return to you.

The phrase son of peace means that there is a believer who lives at this house. Peace resting upon the house means that God’s protection and provision is in place for that house for that period of time. If there is no believer there then there is no automatic peace and prosperity for the house or for the people in it.

Luke 10:7 “And stay in the same house, eating and drinking whatever with them, for the labourer is worthy of his wages. Do not move from house to house.

These believers are to take refuge in the first house where they are invited. They are not to go from house to house to find the best deal (the best meals, the best accommodations, etc.) What they eat and drink will be considered their wages for this assignment.

Luke 10:8–9 “And into whatever city you enter, and they receive you, eat whatever is placed before you, and heal the sick there, and say to them, ‘The reign of Elohim has come near to you.’

The people are not to be finicky. They are to eat whatever is placed before them. It appears that Jesus is, for this short period of time, suspending the dietary laws.

Luke 10:10–11 “And into whatever city you enter, and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, ‘ Even the dust of your city which clings to us, we wipe off against you, but know this, that the reign of Elohim has come near to you.’

If members of this advance team are not welcome, they are to leave and wipe off the dust from their sandals. This is a sign that they are taking nothing of that village with them.

This time the advance team warns that the reign of God was near to the people of Samaria. The King was willing to speak with them, but not every village was willing to hear Him.

Luke 10:12 “And I say to you that it shall be more bearable for Seom [= Sodom] in that Day, than for that city.

Jesus warns that a city filled with negative volition faces great discipline in the future. “It will be more bearable for Sodom in that day,” Jesus warns.

What exactly does that mean? God sent angels to deliver the four believers from Sodom. A city with negative volition, one which refuses to hear the Lord, will find itself completely destroyed, with no one being delivered out of it.

This understanding is applicable in the Day of Judgment, in the day of Christ (seven years after the rapture).

What follows (vv. 13–16) appears to be a message given by Jesus after the advance team has left to go into the various Samaritan cities. However, much of this message seems to be about positive and negative volition toward Jesus Christ and toward the believers who represent Him.

Luke 10:13 “Woe to you, Corazon [= Chorazin]! Woe to you, Běyth Tsaia [= Bethsaida]! For if the miracles which were done in you had been done in Tsor [= Tyre] and Tsion [= Sidon], they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.

Jesus speaks of various gentile cities, and how they would have changed their thinking long ago had they seen the miracles that these Samaritans would see.

Luke 10:14 “But it shall be more bearable for Tsor and Tsion at the judgment than for you.

Jesus is prophesying here that there will be positive volition in some gentiles cities, which means that these cities will fare better for the judgment to come.

Luke 10:15 “And you, Kephar Naum [= Capernaum], who are exalted to the heaven, shall be brought down to She’ol.^a Isaiah 14:13, Isaiah 14:15.

Jesus quotes from Isaiah about these various cities in relation to the towns and villages His advance team would go into. Capernaum is in Galilee. As we will find out in the book of Acts, much of Judæa will turn against Jesus (particularly Jerusalem).

A city rises and falls based upon its attitude toward Jesus Christ. So Capernaum has, for the most part, embraced Jesus over the past three years. So Capernaum is exalted to the heaven. However, it will be brought down to Sheol (the place of the dead) for negative volition. It is both a fascinating and sobering thing to read about Capernaum in the gospels (it is named 16X in the gospels), but it is not found in the epistles or in the book of Acts. Where is their positive volition?

Much of the tenor of the book of Acts is God turning away from His people and toward the gentiles.

Luke 10:16 “He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.”

The advance team would do healing and they would possibly give the gospel message; and they would tell of Jesus willing to come to their village. If the people reject the advance team, then they are rejecting Jesus. The believers in the advance team are not to take this as a personal affront.

This is a general prophesy of any group of believers. We, as believers, speak for Jesus.

Luke 10:17 And the seventy returned with joy, saying, “Master, even the demons are subject to us in Your Name.”

The people that Jesus sent out were quite jazzed as to the response of the people; but even more so when it came to their own personal powers.

Luke 10:18 And He said to them, “I saw Satan falling out of the heaven as lightning.

Jesus appears to be speaking prophetically here. Satan existed in heaven, but when he rebelled against God, he was cast out (although he apparently can return at specific times to accuse believers).

Luke 10:19 “See, I give you the authority to trample on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and none at all shall hurt you.

Jesus speaks of the authority and power of these 70 (or 72) believers. They have such power over serpents and scorpions because Satan has fallen out of heaven.

Luke 10:20 “But do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rather rejoice because your names have been written in the heavens.”

Jesus tells them that it is more important that their names are written in the heavens. Their temporary powers are great and all, but more importantly, they are saved forever.

Luke 10:21 In that hour יהושע [= Jesus] exulted in the Spirit and said, “I praise You, Father, Master of the heaven and of the earth, that You have hidden these matters from clever and learned ones, and did reveal them to babes. Yes, Father, because thus it was well-pleasing in Your sight.

In order to understand the gospel message, it has to come from God. People who have a natural intelligence or people with a strong academic background are not able to understand the gospel message unless God the Holy Spirit reveals it to them.

Luke 10:22 “All has been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is, except the Father, and who the Father is, except the Son, and he to whom the Son wishes to reveal Him.”

God the Son understands God the Father and vice versa. We only understand God the Father as He is revealed by Jesus. All Divine information, apart from some specific topics (like the laws of divine establishment, creation v. evolution, apologetics) can come only from God. We do not discover theological imperatives except by the gracious revelation of God.

Luke 10:23–24 And turning to His taught ones He said, separately, “Blessed are the eyes that see what you see, for I say to you that many prophets and sovereigns have wished to see what you see, and have not seen it, and to hear what you hear, and have not heard it.”

The taught ones are those whom Jesus has been teaching. Like so many people in this world, they do not really understand their contemporary events. The fact of Jesus being there before them and teaching is one of the most amazing things in the world. Prophets and sovereigns wished to see this day themselves, but they were born at the wrong time. Jesus followers and the Samaritans were seeing amazing history take place, yet how many of them appreciated what they were seeing? How many realized that they live in the day that prophets spoke of?

Luke 10:25 And see, a certain one learned in the Torah stood up, trying Him, and saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit everlasting life?”

This narrative begins with the words, and behold. This suggests a continuation of the previous narrative.

A lawyer, in this era, was a person who was thoroughly trained in the Law of Moses (also called the Torah).

Luke 10:26 And He said to him, “What has been written in the Torah? How do you read it?”

Rather than give this man a straightforward answer, Jesus asks him, “How do you understand it from the Scriptures?”

Luke 10:27 And he answering, said, “ ‘You shall love יהוה [= YHWH, Jehovah, Y^ehowah] your Elohim [= God] with all your heart, and with all your being, and with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ Deuteronomy 6:5 and ‘your neighbour as yourself.’ ” Leviticus 19:18.

The lawyer chooses two separate passages from two books and quotes them. He presents these two passages as a summation for the Law—specifically as a summation of his responsibility in the Law.

There is another incident where someone asks Jesus for the two greatest commandments, and this was His answer—the same as the lawyer’s.

Luke 10:28 And He said to him, “You have answered rightly. Do this and you shall live.”^b Leviticus 18:5.

Jesus tells the man, “You answered your own question correctly. Do this and live (forever).”

Now, Jesus’ answer may seem strange, because this is not the gospel message with which we are familiar. Nevertheless, stick with me on this narrative.

Luke 10:29 But he, wishing to declare himself righteous, said to יהושע, “And who is my neighbour?”

The man, wishing to demonstrate that he is righteous, asks, “Just exactly who is my neighbor.” Spoiler alert: this lawyer is looking to limit his obligation by limiting who his neighbor is. However, Jesus’ explanation will expand greatly his obligation.

Let me suggest that, if this man’s neighbor is a Jew, he receives decent treatment from the lawyer. He his nearby neighbor is a Samaritan, his level of personal consideration is considerably less.

Jesus will answer the man’s question with an illustration—an illustration ripped from the headlines, as it were.

Luke 10:30 And replying, יהושע said, “A certain man was going down from Yerushalayim [= Jerusalem] to Yerio [= Jericho], and fell among robbers, who, both stripping and beating him, went away, leaving him half dead.

Even though we have the wording, a certain man, this is not necessarily a parable. There are many specifics in this story.

Furthermore, parables usually refer to a similar parallel circumstance which is actually quite different from the original. The parable usually has a clearly defined right and wrong answer or explanation; and this informs us regarding the original story. There is not some parallel spiritual truth which this represents, which is why this is not a parable.

Luke 10:31 “And by a coincidence a certain priest was going down that way. And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.

We would think the most spiritual person around would be the priest. But when he sees the injured man, he walks around him.

Luke 10:32 “And likewise a Lěwite [= Levite] also, when he came to the place, and seeing, passed by on the other side.

God dedicated one branch of the Israelites to spiritual matters, and that was the Levites. However, this Levite saw the injured man and walked around him, going to the other side of the street to avoid him.

Luke 10:33–34 “But a certain Shomeroni [= Samaritan],^c journeying, came upon him. And when he saw him, he had compassion on him, and he went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. And having placed him on his own beast, he brought him to an inn, and looked after him.

Samaritans did not travel with some sort of a first aid kit. Wine and oil were carried and used for drinking and for moisturizing. He certainly did not have a set of bandages among his traveling possessions. He would have had to shred some of his own clothing in order to bandage up the injured man. That would have been at great personal expense. If you wear collared shirts and look in your closet, you might have 20 or even 50 collared shirts. It was unlikely that this Samaritan had more than one or two shirts. Unless he was smart about it, he probably ruined a shirt in order to bandage up this man.

Luke 10:35 “And going out on the next day, he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him, ‘Look after him, and whatever more you spend I shall repay you when I return.’

By the next day, the Samaritan took this injured man to an inn, left some money behind, promising to come back and check to see if money more was spent.

Luke 10:36 “Who, then, of these three, do you think, was neighbour to him who fell among the robbers?”

Jesus turned this story around a bit, but asked, Who was really a neighbor to the man who was beaten and robbed?

Luke 10:37 And he said, “He who showed compassion on him.” Then יהושע said to him, “Go and do likewise.”

The answer is obvious. The Samaritan acted like a neighbor to the injured man, meaning that he acted in love (a non-emotional love). He showed great consideration for this man, this stranger. “You do the same,” Jesus insisted.

What about the gospel message? This lawyer believed that there was something that he could do in order to win God over. Having Jesus accept his way of salvation, it might take him a few days or even a few months to realize, “I am not acting like the Samaritan. I can’t meet this standard.” And at the time, God would send someone to him with the gospel message of salvation through Jesus Christ.

Luke 10:38 And it came to be as they went that He entered into a certain village. And a certain woman named Martha received Him into her house.

There is a Martha and Mary pair of sisters in John 11. This does not mean that these are the same people. In John 11, they have a brother Lazarus, whom Jesus raised from the dead.

The main problem with matching these pairs of sisters up is, where they live. The Martha and Mary of John 11 live in Bethany, which is right outside of Jerusalem (I believe that it is between Jericho and Jerusalem). At this point, Jesus is walking through Samaria toward Jerusalem. Jesus will be in Jerusalem mid-chapter 18. What happens between Luke 11 and Luke 18 was discussed at the beginning of this abbreviated study of Luke 10.

Because of the first few words of this narrative, this could have happened at any time, so where Jesus and His disciples are in Luke 10:1–37 is unrelated to where they are in vv. 38–42. So, it is possible that this is the same Martha and Mary of John 11.

Luke 10:39 And she had a sister called Miriam [= Mary], who also sat at the feet of יהושע and heard His word.

Luke 10:40 But Martha was distracted with much serving, and coming up she said, “Master, are You not concerned that my sister has left me to serve alone? Speak to her then, to help me.”

We do not know how many people were with Jesus at this point in time. If this is the last stop for Jesus prior to Jerusalem, then He will have hundreds of people with Him (we know this because it becomes very difficult for an onlooker to come up to Jesus and speak with Him). However, this could have taken place at another time.

Even if it is logical for the followers of Jesus to break up into groups when lodging, the number of people with Jesus would have still been fairly large.

I am suggesting that Martha is preparing food for perhaps a dozen people; perhaps twenty, perhaps even more. That is certainly a possibility.

Luke 10:41–42 And יהושע answering, said to her, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and troubled about many matters, but one only is necessary, and Miryam has chosen the good portion, which shall not be taken away from her.”

Jesus tells Martha that she is overly concerned about other matters, when the most important thing is the teaching that Jesus is doing.

Jesus says that this cannot be taken away from her. Once the doctrine is in her soul, that is something that cannot be removed.

The Luke 10 chapter study is now posted online. (HTML) (PDF) (WPD) This is everything which we have studied along with a word-by-word exegesis of the entire tenth chapter and three original translations. Also included are verse and passage translations chosen from over 100 other sources.

As you observed in Luke 10, the commentary of Luke 11 also has specific words which appear to be links. These words are linked to definitions in the chapter studies (which was done on the 2^nd draft) (what you are reading here actually represents the 3^rd draft). What you read here will be integrated back into the text of the Luke 11 chapter study (HTML) (PDF) (WPD) when we complete chapter 11 in the emailed study (you are reading the emailed study). At that point, the internal links (which are primarily definitions) will work.

The chapter study is a word-by-word, chapter-by-chapter study of the book of Luke. Each chapter is a separate document (by the 3^rd draft, each chapter is essentially a book with 300–500 pages). Writing and assembling this study is a process which takes place over many years, taking this study to the 3^rd draft stage. It appears that I began the book of Luke in 2018 and am nearly half way through it in the year 2024 (so far, I have done the 2^nd draft on every chapter; and the 3^rd draft has been done for chapters 1–10). Although I will still want to make improvements to the 3^rd draft, I don’t know that I will have enough time left in my life to do that.

Harmony of the Gospels:

You may recall that the book of Luke chronologically followed the life of the Lord from His birth to His intention to go to Jerusalem in Luke 1:1–9:56. We appear to continue this narrative (chronologically) with Luke 9:57–62 and 10:1–37 (due to the connective words which link these narratives together; the connective words suggest that we are moving forward in time in each narrative).

Recall that there were ten or more incidents found in Matthew, Mark and in Luke 9, all in the same order, thereby establishing a common time frame (in parallel passages in Matthew and Mark, Jesus is about to set out with His disciples to travel to Jerusalem).

The very end of Luke 9 and then all of Luke 10 have no parallels with the narratives of Matthew and Mark. However, there appear to be chronological connections throughout Luke 10, suggesting that these events took place successively while Jesus was in Samaria traveling south toward Jerusalem.

Apparently, Luke had a great many incidents and teachings which he wanted to include in his book, but he did not know where to place them in the chronology of the first ten chapters. Matthew and John lived the events which they write about. Mark appears to have taken Peter’s experiences and put them to writing, so the approaches of Matthew and Mark would have been chronological. However, Luke had no direct contact with the Lord. He spoke to a number of people before assembling his gospel (which is biography of Jesus). Therefore, Luke would not have had a chronological slot for everything that he heard during his interviews. He heard some important teachings of Jesus, but he, not living these events himself, could not place them in the chronology that he had established. Therefore, for the next 8½ chapters (beginning with Luke 10:37), Luke is going to give us a few incidents in the life of Christ along with some great teachings of Jesus. Luke’s dilemma is, he has these teachings which he wants to share, but he does not know where they belong chronologically speaking. So he simply puts them all together in this middle section of his book (from Luke 10:38–18:14).

At this point, you may want to take a look at Ken Palmer’s Harmony of the Gospels Chart, found in the Introduction to Luke (HTML) (PDF) (WPD). Most of what we find in Luke 11–18 is not found in the other gospels (there are some minor exceptions to this not found in his chart). This chart was once found online at http://www.lifeofchrist.com/Life/Harmony; however, now it is here: http://www.onthewing.org/user/Gospel_Harmony.pdf

You will see in this chart that there are large chunks of Luke (and of John) not found in Matthew or Mark. This is mostly Luke 10–18. Also, these are incidents and teachings (almost all teachings) which would not fit chronologically into Luke’s gospel where it is all placed. Luke has the material to record, but not a chronological place to put it.

In other words, pretty much all of Luke 1–10 is chronological and this is picked up again in Luke 18:15 (we know that it is chronological because it is matching up with the books Matthew and Mark). So this middle section of Luke (chapters 11–18) falls under the heading, oh, yeah, here is some other things that Jesus taught and did.

The books of Matthew, Mark and John are essentially eyewitness reports. Mark is writing down what Peter has told him; Matthew writes down what he personally observed; and John, decades later, writes down what he remembers. Matthew and Mark’s gospels would be chronological; John’s is more thematically arranged. But this is not Luke. Luke has interviewed a number of people (we don’t know how many; I would guess at least five and maybe as many as twenty). Some of those interviewed by Luke (the women) were with Jesus from the beginning, and they would have provided a very detailed chronological narrative, as we have been studying in Luke 1:1–10:37. Furthermore, this chronological narrative is going to start up again after about eight chapters.

Luke is going to talk to people who remember a sermon, or a series of sermons by Jesus. Maybe they cannot exactly place it into a chronological narrative, but they might remember what happened right before the sermon; or what caused Jesus to go off in that direction. But, since Luke cannot easily fit these into his two chronological narratives (Luke 1:1–10:37 and 18:15–24:53), he places this material in the center of the book of Luke, as the center of the Lord’s public ministry was teaching.

Luke could certainly ask the question, “Do you think that this took place in the first, second or third year of the Lord’s public ministry?” Many of those giving a report to Luke would have no idea. Their lives may have intersected with Jesus for a few days or even a few weeks, but they would not necessarily remember the year or how long Jesus had been teaching for.

I have been under the teaching of R. B. Thieme, Jr. for most of the past 50 years. He had an early period, a middle period and a late period. Although I can tell after listening to a lesson for 15 minutes which period this comes from, most of the time, I could not tell you what my personal experiences were when listening to that teaching. Only by looking at the year of a study and thinking back to that period of time am I able to match the teaching with my own life experiences at the time. This is why believers devoted to Jesus may have heard some of His teaching, remember it clearly, yet not know exactly when He taught it.

Introduction to Luke 11: Luke 11, like most of the chapters in this middle section of Luke, is all about teaching. Even when specific incidents are recorded, it leads to a teaching moment. Jesus first teaches His disciples what we know as the Lord’s Prayer. Then He teaches the parable of the persistent friend. He tells His disciples that, if they really want something, they can keep on asking the Lord.

When Jesus is seen casting out a demon, which demon had kept a man from being able to speak, He was accused of casting out demons by the prince of dung (Beelzebub). Jesus teaches why this is not logical. However, it is remarkable that those around Him were so ready to accept this false explanation. While teaching this subject matter, Jesus teaches about the man cleaned of a demon, but who then takes in 7 more spirits into himself. The connection here may be thematic rather than chronological.

A woman interrupts Jesus while He is teaching and He is does not speak very kindly towards her.

Jesus then speaks of the sign of Jonah and how the eyes are the light of the body.

The end of this chapter is devoted to the pharisees, the lawyers and Jesus. Jesus is asked to a meal, but He apparently is watched very carefully, so that the pharisee who asked Jesus to eat, notices what Jesus does wrong (in his opinion) and, apparently, points it out to others. Jesus reprimands the pharisees and, when a lawyer pipes up and tells him that he is offended too, Jesus reprimands him as well.

One of the things which stood out to me in this chapter were the words of Jesus. In many of his sermons and answers, he seemed to speak poetically. This may not always stand out, but if you read Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible, that approach is quite obvious.

Going back to Luke 8, I began to discuss the organization of the book of Luke. In Luke 9, there are the nine incidents which line up with the same events in Matthew and Mark. These events all appear to take place right before the Lord goes to Jerusalem for the last time. Going from the final half-dozen verses in Luke 9 and going forward, we seem to lose all semblance of a chronological order.

It is because of this understanding that we can put together a very accurate outline or overview for the book of Luke.

The first thirteen verses match up very closely to Jesus’ teachings found in the Sermon on the mount (Matthew 5–7). However, interestingly enough, the circumstances leading up to this teaching are very different. In Luke, Jesus is praying and the disciples ask Him about how they ought to be praying (they wait for Jesus to complete His praying before they question Him).

Jesus, in the context of the sermon on the mount, teaches many of the same concepts found in Luke 11:1–13.

Because these are different incidents, what we will study in Luke appears to be something that the disciples would have asked Jesus very early on in His ministry (within the first year). Then it would not seem odd for Jesus to teach these same things in the sermon on the mount weeks or months later.

What would not make sense is for Jesus to first teach the disciples and others how to pray in the sermon on the mount, and then for them to ask how should they pray 2.5 years later (that would be based on the assumption that the book of Luke continues chronologically (which I have already argued against). The point I am making is, Luke 11:1–13 (particularly the first four verses) would not have taken place during the final months of Jesus’ public ministry. His disciples did not suddenly wonder, three years into their association with the Lord, how does one pray, Lord? That would not make any sense.

The flase interpretation of this middle section of Luke is, Jesus just did a whole lot of teaching as He walked toward Jerusalem (for the last time), and Luke records all of that teaching. There are many problems with that theory. One problem with that theory is, the material covered here in Luke 11:1–13 sounds like the kind of information that Jesus would have taught very early on in His ministry. These are questions that the disciples would have asked during the first six months of their time as disciples. The final two verses of this chapter also suggests that this is occurring in the first year of His public ministry and not in the last (go and read them if you want; do you think that it is at this point, three years into the Lord’s ministry, when the religious types decide to do this?).

We have discussed the organization of Luke since Luke 9. It is logical that what we read in this middle section is not Jesus teaching near the end of His ministry, walking between Galilee and Samaria, on His way to Jerusalem for the last time. Some of this material may come from this period of time, but sections of this chapter clearly came from very early on in the Lord’s public ministry.

Luke 11:1a Now Jesus was praying in a certain place, and when He finished,... (ESV; capitalized)

When Luke writes a certain place, you get the impression that he would have liked to have included that bit more information here, but he just does not have the information.

Luke 11:1a Now Jesus was praying in a certain place, and when He finished,... (ESV; capitalized)

Most of the time, Jesus would go off privately to pray and here He is said to be in a certain place.

The impression that I get is, His disciples found where He was and stood nearby waiting for Him to finish.

The material covered in these first thirteen verses are also found in the sermon on the mount (Matthew 6:9–15 7:7–11). This is clearly the same teaching, but it is not the same incident.

Given the introduction (v. 1a), Jesus is not in the midst of 5000 people teaching them. Given the teaching of Matthew 6 and 7, the disciples would not have asked Jesus questions about how to pray, if He has already taught them how to pray in the Sermon on the Mount. Therefore, logically, this takes place very early in the Lord’s ministry, prior to Matthew 5–7. Therefore, prior to the chronological progression of Luke 7–10 (which we have previously been studying).

That Jesus taught the same material on different occasions is clear. He taught many of the same things in the sermon on the mount (in Matthew) and the sermon on the plain (in Luke); and some similar things in this first narrative of Luke 11.

That Jesus is teaching this information to His disciples based upon their questions to Him, indicates to us that Jesus taught them this material prior to the sermons on the mount and the plain.

When Jesus came to the end of His prayer, one of His disciples spoke to Him. This is another bit of missing information. Which disciple asked Jesus this question?

We have a particular way of praying in our culture where we usually bow our heads and we are looking down with closed eyes. I suspect that Jesus was looking up into the air and praying—probably with His eyes open.

So that there is no confusion here, it is customary in our culture to pray looking down with our eyes closed to give people in a gathering privacy. We are shutting out the rest of the world, including those around us, and speaking to God. There is no indication that a particular posture is required for praying.

On the other hand, you would not, in a church service, all be standing up and moving or raising your arms and speaking in tongues. Why? Both the movement and the speaking aloud would be a disturbance to others, and an intrusion into their prayers. Furthermore, our God is not a God of confusion, and nothing is more confusing than 20 or 50 or 500 people talking in nonsense sounds all at once.

Luke 11:1a-b Now Jesus was praying in a certain place, and when He finished, one of His disciples said to Him,... (ESV; capitalized)

When Jesus refocuses His attention from prayer to what is in front of Him. In front of Him is one of His disciples asking for guidance.

The disciples makes a request of Jesus: “Teach us, Lord, how to pray.” By using the word us, this disciple suggests that he is putting forth this question, but that the other disciples are with him, wondering the same thing.

Logic would tell us that a question like this would have been asked of Jesus very early on in His public ministry. His disciples had seen Him on many occasions go off by Himself to pray and He did this often enough for them to ask about it.

Interestingly enough, John the Herald taught his disciples how to pray (something which is not recorded elsewhere in the Bible). However, this disciple is aware of these teachings, meaning that he was originally a disciple of John’s (suggesting that this might be Andrew or his brother Peter asking the question).

The fact that John the baptizer is mentioned also indicates that these questions were asked early in the Lord’s ministry. John was mentioned more frequently at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry than at the end.

Luke 11:1 Now Jesus was praying in a certain place, and when He finished, one of His disciples said to Him, "Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his disciples." (ESV; capitalized)

So, one of Jesus’ disciples—perhaps Peter or Andrew—approached Jesus and asked Him to teach the disciples how to pray, noting that this is something which John the Herald taught his own disciples to do.

What I am struck by in the prayer that follows is just how much of it is directed towards our own thinking. God is saying, “I know what you want; I am going to tell you what I expect.” I do not mean this in a legalistic way, as in, “Do exactly what I want if you want Me to answer your prayers.” It is more like, “This is My character; now I want you to apply My character to your daily lives and to the things that you want to pray about.” As we go through this prayer phrase by phrase, this will become obvious.

Jesus disciples have asked Him how they should pray. He tells them, “When you begin a prayer to God, these are thing things which should be included in that prayer.”

Our prayers are directed to the Father; to God the Father. God is the Author of the divine decrees (I am aware that many present this is a single decree); we are living our lives in His universe, where He has made a great number of decrees back in eternity past, which decrees play out throughout human history. Therefore, we should focus upon Him; we should make our requests known to Him.

It should be obvious that this is a prayer designed for the believer. Unbelievers do not have a prayer line open to God, other than the prayer of salvation. “I have heard and I have understood the good news that Jesus Christ died for my sins; and I am believing in Your Son and I am asking you to stand by Your Word and save me.” What must accompany those words is the volitional choice that takes place in your soul to believe in Jesus. There is no magic formula prayer to be saved (that is, no specific set of words will save you). Salvation takes place as a result of an act of faith in your soul. Whatever you say to God in your salvation prayer, it should match up with the change in your thinking (you used to have one opinion about Jesus, but now you have changed that opinion).

Here we have the 3^rd person singular, aorist passive imperative of hagiazô (ἁγιάζω) [pronounced hawg-ee-AD-zoh]. This word means, in the imperative, make (declare, acknowledge as) holy (sanctified, consecrated, set apart, pure, cleanse); separate from profane things and dedicate to God; (ceremonially) purify or consecrate; (mentally) venerate. Strong’s #37. The subject is not God (that would be the 2^nd person singular), but the name of You. A more literal translation would be, Let Your name be set apart (be consecrated, be sanctified, be holy).

The name of God is representative of His character or His essence. Let Your Person be set apart (from the profane)... The aorist imperative is interesting. It is the command verb form that expresses a single, completed action, using the aorist tense in the imperative mood. The present tense is not used because that would imply that God, in some way, must continue and maintain this separation. The aorist tense means that this is a fundamental reality which cannot be changed.

Why would we pray this? This helps to set to proper mindset in the thinking of the believer who is making this prayer. It is almost as if the one doing the praying is saying, let me first understand and appreciate how your essence is separate from all else.

Luke 11:2a-c So he said to them, “When you pray, say, ‘Our father in the heavens, May your name be sanctified. (The Far Above All Translations)

Luke 11:2a-c He said to them, “When you pray, say, ‘Our Father in heaven, may your name be kept holy. (World English Bible)

Luke 11:2a-c Then He said to them, "Whenever you_p are praying, be saying: 'Our Father, the [One] in the heavens, let Your name be regarded as holy;... (Analytical-Literal Translation)

Much of the Law (or, Torah) in the Old Testament concerns itself with separating the holy from the profane. It distinguishes that which belongs to God and that which belongs to the cosmic system (which is the world order under Satan).

No matter how we feel about it, God, due to His perfect righteousness and justice, cannot have a relationship with the profane. His righteousness cannot be associated with the profane (which includes anything that is sinful). God’s justice must condemn unrighteousness. Apart from the cross, we are profane to God. Without the cross, we can have no close association with God.

So many gross parallels occur to me, but let’s consider a rotting animal along side of the road. In most circumstances, we would not want to have any association with the animal’s rotting corpse. The smell alone is hard to bear. This is what we are before God; we are rotting corpses; we stink. God is separate from all of that. It is only through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross that we have access to God. We must approach God through Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God.

Ultimately, there is only one way to finalize this separation—which separation is required by the holiness of God—and that is to cast all manner of creature into the Lake of Fire, and to save those who have believed in Jesus Christ. That is the only final solution. There are those who have chosen Jesus Christ; and those who have rejected Him. There is no complete separation until this final separation.

We live in a world where the separation between the holy and the profane is often difficult to recognize. God is not going to allow this confusion to continue on into eternity. At some point, He will separate us. At some point, God will institute the eternal division between that which is holy and that which is profane.

Within our own souls, as we pray something like this, we need to make such a separation ourselves between the holy and the profane. There are things which we should be associated with; and things which we should not be associated with. Part of our living here on earth is making those distinctions.

Just in case you try to over-apply this concept, this does not mean that you can only do business with Christians; and that you can only work for a business which has a Christian boss and Christian employees. God left us in the world, and the world before us becomes our mission field. The fact that we rub shoulders day in and day out with unbelievers is an opportunity to witness with our lives and with our verbal testimony.

In this era that Jesus was in—the dispensation of the Hypostatic Union—He offered Himself to Israel to be accepted as their King, their Messiah. A mass acceptance of Him as Messiah by the Jewish people would have ushered in the Kingdom of God. But that was not the response of the people of God (see Luke 4:16–30). They clearly rejected their Lord in Luke 4 (HTML) (PDF) (WPD).

This was the proper time for God to offer His kingdom to His people. However, there were too many among the Jews who rejected God—including a huge percentage of the religious class. As we will eventually see (even in this chapter), that live and let live is not an option for them. They had to get Jesus; and, at some point, they had settled upon killing Him (Matthew 12:14 Mark 3:6).

The disciples praying for this is a prayer for universal acceptance of the Lord, Who can bring in the Kingdom. However, God is a Gentleman (as R. B. Thieme, Jr. often said), meaning that He allows us our volition, even when we are on negative signals.

Luke 11:2e ...let Your decree in heaven also be [Your decree here] on the earth. (Literal translation taken from the Byzantine Greek text) (this is not in the Westcott Hort text; and therefore, not in many English translations)

When the Kingdom of God is brought to this earth, then God’s decrees are as powerful on earth as they are in heaven. Satan and his angels; and we are given a great deal of leeway in our life choices on this earth. We, even as believers, give in to our sin natures and we sin and we act against God. Right now on earth, this is allowed (although there are consequences).

This prayer is not just for God to bring His Kingdom and His will upon this earth, but it is a prayer where we learn to bend our own will in His direction.

Luke 11:2 And He answered them, “When you [all] pray [to God], say [this]: ‘Our Father, the [Father] in the heavens; make separate Your name [separate from the profane]. Bring in Your kingdom, let Your decree in heaven also be [Your decree here] on the earth. (Kukis mostly literal translation)

All prayer is directed to God the Father; and there is to be an acknowledgment of the holy and the profane (naming out sins to God prior to prayer is such an acknowledgment). Calling for and accepting God’s kingdom on this earth should also be a part of your thinking.

Luke 11:2 Jesus answered them, saying, “When you pray to God, say a prayer similar to this: ‘Our Father, our God in the heavens, make separate Your character and essence from the profane. Bring Your kingdom to this earth, so that Your decrees in heaven will also be obeyed on this earth. (Kukis paraphrase)

In your prayers, there should be an acknowledgment of God’s decrees. This provides us with a fascinating dichotomy in God’s plan. It really isn’t, but from the man-ward side, it seems to be. God, on the one hand, has decreed what will take place on this earth and when. On the other hand, God will tell us, “If you want something and you are sure of it, then you keep on praying for that. After so much time, God will get tired of it and He will just give you what you are praying for.” (Luke 11:5–9) Although I have certainly taken some liberties here with paraphrasing this passage, most believers understand what I am saying here. If God has decreed what will take place throughout human and angelic history, why exactly would we be encouraged to pray to God, and, in some instances, pester God with our prayers?

Let me give two examples from real life which might help to sort out this seeming dichotomy. When I was young and an early Christian (I believed in Jesus at age 21), there were things that I naturally wanted. I can think of several instances where I really wanted a particular woman to marry me. In retrospect, I know that, in probably every single one of those cases, had God answered my prayer the way I wanted Him to, that would have been a disaster in my life (which I was too stupid to recognize at the time). On none of those occasions did I go on a marathon prayer to get what I wanted. However, how many times have you really wanted something, and, in retrospect, you realize that would have been really bad had you gotten it? For me, I can remember many instances where I thank God that He did not give me what I asked for in my prayers or desires.

A second example of this principle is the 2024 (second) election of Donald Trump as President of the United States. I would suggest to you that overwhelming prayer from believers in the United States resulted in Trump being elected president. I believe that this is perhaps the most obvious example of God answering hundreds of thousands of prayers from nation USA (and many prayers from outside our country as well). I first wrote these words mid-November 2024, and at that point in time, there were still states that were counting votes—illegally—trying to overthrow this election of Donald Trump.

Luke 11:2 And he said to them, "When you pray, say: "Father, hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. (ESV; capitalized)

This translation is in line with the Westcott Hort text and Tischendorf’s Greek text.

This additional phrase comes from the Byzantine Greek text and Scrivener Textus Receptus.

Although the ESV is dead-on accurate here, I believe that my translation above gives you a better understanding of what Jesus said to His disciples.

We need food, shelter and clothing—all represented by the word bread in this verse. We need these things daily. This is a prayer for God to provide for us each day our needs. It is also a call for us to recognize that God is providing for us, day in and day out, of the things which are necessary for our continued lives.

There is one thing I want you to notice here: Jesus does not include the word please. He does not even include the words, if it be Your will, O Father. This is God’s guarantee to the Jews. They can simply point to God’s promises throughout the Scriptures and say, “Give us our daily sustenance.” When something is affixed to God’s promises, we don’t have to ask nicely for it. We can demand God give to us according to His Word, because this is our promise.

Luke 11:3 Our necessary subsistence [lit., bread] give that to us daily. (Kukis mostly literal translation)

Although I have maintained the word order and the additional definite article (translated that), most translators opted to rearrange the words in the English, making a translation of the additional definite article unnecessary.

The word bread represents our necessary subsistence. Calling upon God to provide our daily needs for us means that we understand logistical grace and God’s post-salvation relationship with us.

When it comes to forgiveness of sins, there is the ultimate forgiveness, promised us by Jesus’ death on the cross; and there is temporal forgiveness, which is our day-to-day walk as believers. When we sin, we no longer enjoy fellowship with God. We name this sin to God and we are back in fellowship.

In order for us to have any fellowship with God, our recent sins must not be an issue. God must temporally forgive us our sins. However, God’s interactions with us are based upon His justice. God cannot simply look at us and say, “Now, that Charley Brown, he is such a nice man. I really like that guy, except for that sin he committed on Tuesday. Since he is such a nice guy, I will forgive him that sin.” God cannot do that with us. That would violate His justice and righteousness, which are His points of contact with us.

Illustration: I suggested the idea of forgiving someone because they are a good guy. This is what politicians do; this is how both sides of the aisle act. So many of them are dirty; and if there is a way that they can protect themselves by protecting others, they will do it. They do not act out of justice and righteousness; they act out of self-preservation. “You cover me and I will cover you.” Can you imagine if Congress was legally subjected to the consequences of the crimes each one has committed? We might have 15 members of Congress unindicted. But they cover for one another; even Democrats for Republicans and vice versa.

Illustration (continued): However, when the politics dictates, they will use another’s wrongdoing to their own advantage. During the time I have been writing this, a Matt Gaetz was up for a cabinet position and it has been suggested that he made use of Congressional fund to pay off people who had accused him of wrongdoing. Even former colleagues of him have turned against him for this reason, when, I can guarantee you that they, or people close to them, have enjoyed the same payoffs. Justice and righteousness requires that, since this is public monies, that all of this be revealed (for all Congressmen and women). But the fact of these payoffs is used (or ignored) when politically convenient. This is the exact opposite of being just and righteous.

God does not forgive us our sins based upon some political connection to Him. He forgives us because Jesus Christ died for our sins and we have believed that. We have accepted God’s forgiveness in His Son. Therefore, we are forgiven. God’s just requirements have been met. All of the sins that we have committed have been paid for.

Jesus is teaching this prior to His death on the cross. The Jews knew that God would forgive them of their sins, but they may have had some difficulty explaining why. However, the reason why is in their Scriptures. Isaiah explained how this took place: Surely He took on our infirmities and carried our sorrows; yet we considered Him stricken by God, struck down and afflicted. But He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed. We all like sheep have gone astray, each one has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:4–6; BSB) Even in the Old Testament, it was clear that our iniquity was placed upon Him. Exactly how this was to take place would have been difficult for Old Testament saints to explain, but the punishment due us had to go somewhere. This is a theme of God’s perfect justice, found in both the Old and New Testaments.

To sum up, God forgives us our sins based upon His perfect righteousness and justice. In the context of this prayer, this would be temporal forgiveness (forgiveness in our daily spiritual walk).

Luke 11:4b ...for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us. (ESV; capitalized)

Jesus is teaching here that this forgiveness needs to come from us as well. There are many people who have wronged us; many who have sinned against us. You may have even prayed for the justice of God to come down upon Lucy Van Pelt because of the evil that she has fashioned against you. I know I have.

However, Jesus is telling us here, “Do not hold a grudge. Forgive those who are in your debt due to the evil things that they have done against you.” Jesus also died for their sins.

Especially if you are holding onto a grudge or anger toward another person. You must let that go. You must forgive them, otherwise you remain out of fellowship for as long as you cannot forgive them. Your hatred and anger are sins, no matter how much these emotions are justified.

Luke 11:4b ...for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us. (ESV; capitalized)

Application: If you are a normal person living a normal life, you can think of people who have done you wrong. That is a part of life. It is up to us to forgive them, to continue in our own spiritual walk.

Finally, we are to pray for God not to lead us into temptation; which I would understand as not to put testing before us that we are unable to bear.

The word found here is the masculine singular noun peirasmos (πειρασμός) [pronounced pie-rahs-MOSS], and it means, temptation, provocation, solicitation; testing; a putting to proof (by experiment). Strong’s #3986.

I believe that we can depend upon the fact that God will not tempt us beyond what we are able to resist. In fact, God does not tempt us at all; but He does allow us freedom of movement and choice in this life.

I have areas of strength and areas of weakness, like anyone else. Put me in a room filled with drunks and alcoholics, and I am not the least bit tempted to join them in a drunken binge. That is not because I am a great person; it is because that is an area of strength for me (at this point in time). If I never had another drink again, I would not miss it (well, I would miss beer with pizza or with Mexican food or wine with Italian food, but I could easily survive even that loss).

However, there are other areas where I could be tempted. We pray not to be put into a situation where temptation would overcome our better judgment.

Luke 11:4d ...but deliver us from the evil [one].’ ”.(Kukis mostly literal translation from the Byzantine Greek text and from Scrivener Textus Receptus) (not found in the ESV; not found in the Westcott Hort text, and not found in Tischendorf’s Greek text)

The verb is the 2^nd person singular, aorist (deponent) middle imperative of rhuomai (ῥύομαι) [pronounced RHOO-ohm-ahee], and it means, to draw to one’s self, to rescue, to deliver, to save; as a participle: savior, deliverer. We are demanding from God (imperative mood) what He has promised us. Strong’s #4506.

The word for evil is ponêros (πονηρός) [pronounced pon-ay-ROS], and it means, hurtful, evil (in its effect or influence on others), bad, grievous, harm [ful], malicious, wicked. Strong’s #4190.

This short phrase is not found in translations which primarily follow the Westcott Hort text (like the ESV).

Luke 11:4d ...but deliver us from the evil [one].’ ”.(Kukis mostly literal translation from the Byzantine Greek text and from Scrivener Textus Receptus)

Finally, we ask to be delivered from Satan and from his cosmic system. We are tempted from within, from our own sin nature; and we are tempted from without, by Satan (which temptations often appeal to our sin nature).

Matthew 6:13 reads: And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. (ESV) As mentioned earlier, the prayers given here and in Matthew 6:13 are nearly equivalent, although the circumstances surrounding the prayers are different. It would be reasonable for Jesus to privately teach this prayer to His disciples and later to teach this prayer to a large crowd of believers. There is no reason for these prayers to be the same, word-for-word.

Did Jesus leave off this last phrase or did the person telling Luke about this incident leave off this last phrase. We don’t know. Since it is found in Matthew, in the context of the same prayer, it is not wrong to include it here (it is found in the Byzantine Greek text and in the Scrivener Textus Receptus; but not in the Westcott Hort text or in Tischendorf’s Greek text).

There are passages in the New Testament which clearly do not belong there (like the false ending to Mark). However, there are passages like this where it is possible that text was added, but we do not know for certain (and it is far more likely that text has dropped out rather than text has been added).

Tangent: Allow me to say a few words about textual criticism, which would help explain that parenthetical statement. Copyists for hundreds of years very carefully transcribed each letter from an old manuscript to a newly prepared writing medium. There are two principle ways that text is dropped out. One is, the original manuscript becomes damaged or worn to the point where portions of it cannot be read. If you cannot read something, you cannot copy it. A second way that text is dropped out occurs like this: the word orange occurs two times close together in a manuscript (orange is just an arbitrary word that pops into my head). The copyist is copying along and copies the word orange; and then looks back up to to the original manuscript and his eyes fix upon that second occurrence of the word orange. He picks up copying from that point, so that all the words in between orange and orange are unintentionally dropped out.

Is there a way for this text to be added in? Certainly. Let me propose two ways: (1) the text is mostly unreadable, so that the copyist writes down what he knows from memory, accidentally confounding the texts from Matthew and Luke. (2) The copyist believes that this additional text ought to be here and simply adds it in (that is much more rare; copyists typically did not add any text to the Word of God).

Those who copied the Old and New Testament texts were extremely dedicated and well-trained. Most of them believed that they were copying the very words of God. Therefore, did not intentionally add or remove text. However, being human, sometimes errors crept in.

The claim has been made that the accuracy of the Bible manuscripts is actually superior to that of the preservation of Shakespear’s writings (which were preserved after the advent of the printing press).

Luke 11:4 ...and forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation [but deliver us from the evil (one)]." (ESV; capitalized; with the addition from the Byzantine Greek text)

There are three or four things which we are to pray to God. Temporal forgiveness of sins, guidance and ability to forgive others, not to be led into testing which is beyond our ability to pass the test, and to be delivered from evil and/or the evil one (few if any believers are pestered by Satan directly, but demons are certainly assigned to us, some of whom seek to inspire our enemies).

Luke 11:2–4 Jesus answered them, saying, “When you pray to God, say a prayer similar to this: ‘Our Father, our God in the heavens, make separate Your character and essence from the profane. Bring Your kingdom to this earth, so that Your decrees in heaven will also be obeyed on this earth. Every day we have daily needs, and we ask that You provide these for us. Also, we ask for Your forgiveness of our sinful debt against You, even as we learn to forgive others who are indebted to us. Finally, do not bring us into temptation but deliver us from Satan and from his evil cosmic system.’ ” (Kukis paraphrase)

Jesus continues speaking about prayer, but about a different aspect of it. Perseverance is an important aspect related to prayer and one which may seem counterintuitive.

Luke 11:5a And He said to them, "Which of you who has a friend... (ESV; capitalized)

The context of this parable is about prayer. The disciples of Jesus have asked Him how to pray. He gave an example of a prayer to give; but He is going to address some other aspects of prayer.

Obviously, we address God in prayer. However, Jesus is going to give us a parallel circumstance. Let’s say we really needed something from a friend; how could we get that thing?

In a parable, Jesus sets up a situation which is either familiar to His audience or they understand it, even if they have not experienced this exact situation themselves.

Every one of the disciples has a friend. When you have a friend, you often ask a favor of them. That is what is happening here.

The time that this favor is going to be asked is an inopportune time. You go to your friend at midnight to ask this particular favor.

The general concept is, what you are asking of your friend is inconvenient. The timing in particular is off. The favor itself might not be difficult for your friend to respond to, but you are asking for this at midnight, and that does not bring an immediate positive response.

You have a friend and you ask him to lend you $500. For many friends, this is not a big deal (I speak as an adult; this is a much bigger ask from a teen friend). However, let’s say you go to a friend’s house and make this request at midnight, after he and his family are in bed. That is a much bigger ask.

Ancient world homes were much smaller than our homes today. You might yell at the top of your lungs today from the front door, and, if all the bedrooms are in back, the occupants might not hear a thing. In the ancient world, the family might be sleeping right on the other side of their front door; or they might be near to it.

The focus here is upon a favor being asked—the favor itself is not difficult to grant—but your timing is bad (timing itself, is an interesting parallel to prayer).

Luke 11:5 And He said to them, "Which of you who has a friend will go to him at midnight and say to him, 'Friend, lend me three loaves, (ESV; capitalized)

I think we will set aside for the moment whether or not the friend actually has this bread on hand. I am assuming that he does because the friend does not say, “Listen, we have no bread prepared. Sorry.”

Luke 11:6a ...for a friend of mine has arrived on a journey,... (ESV; capitalized)

It’s midnight, you are outside of a friend’s house, and you explain your situation. Another friend of yours has come to you from a journey. Obviously, he came to you in the middle of the night.

In the parable, there must be a pressing reason for making such a request late at night, so Jesus puts together a backstory for troubling a friend so late at night.

The problem is, your traveling friend has come to you at the middle of the night from a long journey, but you have no food to offer him. We will reasonably assume that your traveling friend is quite hungry.

Again, this is not something that we can easily relate to today. In most American homes, you open up the refrigerator and there is a lot of food there. In the ancient world, storage of food was much more of a problem; and there was no way to store prepared food for any period of time. Therefore, food was not kept around for a long period of time. Maybe a day, maybe, in rare cases, two or three days.

The conveniences which we have are relatively new, even though we all take them for granted. That is, when you are born, and you have X, Y and Z around the house; you take those items for granted. As far as you are concerned, those things have always been around the house (in the kitchen, there is a stove, a refrigerator and plates and silverware. From the moment of your birth, those things were in your house. Therefore, the invention of and the accumulation of those items is not any sort of an issue to you.

In the from the mid 1800s to the early 1900s people had literal ice boxes. That is, they had a place for food, and someone often delivered a big block of ice to place in that box to keep things fresher (this is before my time even). When I was born, we had what was called an ice box, but it was really a refrigerator. It retained that name for awhile from its previous incarnation which was an actual ice box.

So, even though this parable is somewhat dated to the modern reader, the idea is, you have a favor that you need to ask of a friend and your timing is bad. You are asking this favor in the middle of the night and he has no interest in granting you that wish at that time. Six hours earlier or sox hours later, and the favor would be no problem.

Luke 11:6 ...for a friend of mine has arrived on a journey, and I have nothing to set before him';... (ESV; capitalized)

In v. 6, the person making the request makes his case for asking such a big ask in the middle of the night.

Luke 11:7a ...and he will answer from within, 'Do not bother me;... (ESV; capitalized)

The friend inside the house at midnight tells his friend outside of the house, “Listen, you are really putting me out here. This is a lot of trouble. Don’t bother me.”

Then he explains why. These are things that his friend on the outside is aware of, but they are repeated for us, the reader.

My guess is, when the door of a home was secured for the evening, that this may have been a more complicated process than it is today. Today, we flip the deadbolt; and we may set the alarm; and, in under 30 seconds, our home has been made relatively secure.

In the ancient world, this would have been more of a process; it would have taken time to close and lock the door; and it will be time to undo all of that.

Furthermore, they could not simply turn on a light in order to see what they are doing (there would have been candles which could be lit, but bear in mind, they did not have matches back then). So they would have to fumble in the dark to get enough light to see what they are doing.

Also, the friend inside the house complains, “All of my kids are in bed.” In that era (and in many cultures even today) the children and the adults are all sleeping together. For someone to get up and rustle about will wake up everyone in the household.

How many of the children might wake up and not go back to sleep? So granting this request upsets many apple carts, as it were.

The friend inside of the house says, “Listen, given the circumstances which I have outlined to you, it is a big problem for me to get up right now and grant you your request.”

Luke 11:7 and he will answer from within, 'Do not bother me; the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed. I cannot get up and give you anything'? (ESV; capitalized)

The question mark at the end of v. 7 (in the ESV) is explained by the entire context.

Luke 11:5–7 And He said to them, "Which of you who has a friend will go to him at midnight and say to him, 'Friend, lend me three loaves, for a friend of mine has arrived on a journey, and I have nothing to set before him';and he will answer from within, 'Do not bother me; the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed. I cannot get up and give you anything'?(ESV; capitalized)

Jesus asks, “If you were in a situation like this, where you have a friend showing up in the middle of the night who is hungry, which of you has a friend who you might call upon, even though it is midnight?”

The context of this passage is prayer. Jesus has already suggested a prayer for the disciples to make. Now He is going onto a different aspect of prayer—perseverance on the part of the disciples.

Luke 11:5–7 Jesus then spoke a parable to them about prayer. He said to His disciples, “Let’s say that a friend of yours has come to you at midnight from a long journey and you have no food to serve him. So you go to the home of another friend and bang on his front door, saying, ‘Listen, I have a friend here from out of town and I am out of food. Could I borrow three loaves of bread from you?’ But your friend from inside the home answers you by saying, ‘Listen, this is too much trouble for me. My door is shut and bolted; my children are here with me in bed. There is no way I can get up and find this bread to give to you.’ (Kukis paraphrase)

This is the set up for what Jesus is attempting to teach His disciples about persistence in prayer.

Luke 11:8a I tell you, though he will not get up and give him anything because he is his friend,... (ESV; capitalized)

Jesus then points out something interesting. The friend inside the house at midnight is not raised up on account of his friendship with the man outside. That is not the primary motivating factor.

The word found here is anaideia (ἀναίδεια) [pronounced ahn-ah’ee-die-AH], and it means, persistence, shamelessness, impudence, importunity. Strong’s #335. The key meaning is persistence.

The friend inside will give the bread to the man outside because of the man’s persistence. He just does not want to keep hearing his voice and his banging on the door. He gives in.

The man inside does not get up and answer the call because of friendship; he does so because of the persistence of the man outside his door.

The man inside is awake, roused from his sleep, and because his friend outside was so persistent, he will give his friend whatever he requests. That is the only way to get him to cease making this request and to go away.

The homeowner decides, “Do I listen to him banging on my door for the rest of the night, or do I get up, give him what he wants, and then go back to bed?” The latter approach seems to be the most reasonable.

Application: The parallel is this. There are times, apparently, when God answers your prayers simply because you keep praying for the same thing. One might be cautioned to recognize God’s sovereignty and omniscience and to also pray, “If this is Your will.”

Illustration: There have been things in my life which I have wanted. However, considering such things years later, it was a good thing that God did not fulfill all of my desires in life. How many times did you want something, and you prayed for it, but did not get it—and then, five, ten or twenty years later, you remember that desire and thank God that He did not give it to you? For me, this is many times. God has, on many occasions, given me a glimpse of what my future could have been, had He given me what I wanted in life.

Luke 11:8 I tell you, though he will not get up and give him anything because he is his friend, yet because of his impudence he will rise and give him whatever he needs. (ESV; capitalized)

Jesus says that this man gets up and honors the request not out of friendship but because of the other person’s persistence.

Luke 11:9a And I tell you, ask, and it will be given to you;... (ESV; capitalized)

Jesus is speaking to His disciples and he continues telling them about prayer. I would think that most of them when given the Lord’s prayer probably thought that was enough. But Jesus goes into much more detail.

Jesus is actually encouraging persistence. If Jesus said to ask one time, He would have used the aorist active imperative; but He instead used the present tense, which often means to keep on doing something (which is perfectly in line with the parable He just gave).

Illustration: God answers our prayers and He wants to answer our prayers, as this glorifies Him. In the early 1980's, I took my girlfriend at the time over to a house just built by a former roommate of mine, and I was amazed. I was totally knocked out by this house and loved it. Fast forward 10 years later and I find myself living in that same house. I don’t think that I prayed to live in this house, but it was pretty obviously in my own soul that I absolutely loved it. It was so far outside of my range that it was never a serious consideration. Yet, God had other plans.

There are things that we might seek after; and these might be material things, but not necessarily.

Again, there is some persistence involved, as Jesus uses a present active imperative, which suggests one continues seeking.

Now, this does not mean that, no matter what it is, if you keep asking and asking, God will give it to you. But, in some instances He will.

The more Bible doctrine that you know, the better your prayers will be and the more in line you will be with God’s plan. And the more doctrine that you seek after, the more you will receive.

Illustration: One of my consistent prayers—something I may pray for once or twice a week—is for the health and well-being of a person I know who has struggled with health problems for much of her life. I believe that God has, over the period of many years, answered this prayer (and continues to answer this prayer). I pray for this because I know that she is a blessing to many people that she has contact with.

There is a door, you want to have it opened; so you knock on it. Jesus said, “Keep on knocking and it will be opened to you.” These words hearken back to what He just taught about the persistent friend. He really needed the bread for a guest and he kept on knocking until his friend on the other side of the door acquiesced.

We might understand this to be a door of opportunity or an option which we might like in our lives or this can be intercessory prayer.

Luke 11:9 And I tell you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. (ESV; capitalized)

Jesus encourages His disciples to remain in communion with God and to make all of their requests known to Him. And if it is an important enough prayer, you might find yourself repeating it many times to God.

Jesus assures His disciples that anyone who keeps on asking will keep on receiving.

I don’t know if there is a nuanced difference between this and v. 9a. It appears to be confirmation of what Jesus has just said.

Let me suggest this. You keep on asking for something, but God considers two things regarding your prayer. God is concerned about what are you praying for and also, what is the desire behind your prayer. For instance, you may pray to become a millionaire (or more); but your desire in this is to become financially stable. God may not make you a millionaire, but He may give to you the financial stability which you have requested.

Luke 11:10 For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. (ESV; capitalized)

Jesus indicates to us that God will reward persistence. Or, God will honor our persistence. However, bear in mind that we may ask for one thing, but there is a desire behind that request. Many times, God answers the desire, but not the actual prayer.

Luke 11:9–10 I say this to all of you: ask God and He will give you what you ask for; seek after what He has planned for you, and you will find what you are looking for; knock and God will open up opportunities and options for you. Listen, the one who keeps on asking will continue to receive; the one who keeps seeking will keep on finding; and the one who knocks at the door, that door will be opened for him. (Kukis paraphrase)

Constant contact with God through prayer and persistence are keys to what Jesus is teaching His disciples.

One additional bit of information: when you pray for something, you may find that God provides you information which changes you. Again, with the praying to be a millionaire as an illustration: you may experience spiritual growth to a point where you realize that the amount of money that you have on your balance sheet is not necessarily a key asset in your life. At that point, you would probably cease making that prayer. However, you got something better than a million dollars—you received a doctrinal understanding of yourself and money.

In v. 11, there are several problems with the text. In the Byzantine Greek text (or the Scrivener Textus Receptus), Jesus asks three very similar questions in vv. 11–12. In the Westcott Hort text, there are only two questions being asked. The ESV has the second and third questions.

Luke 11:11a For who from among you [all], [if] the son will ask his father [for] bread, he will not give his son [lit., him] a stone [will he]? (Kukis mostly literal translation; from the Byzantine Greek text, the Scrivener Textus Receptus and Tischendorf’s Greek text)

Jesus appeals to the men around Him—the fathers—to consider their own dealings with their sons. “If your son asks you for bread, would you give him a stone?” is the question Jesus is asking, if we put all of this into the 2^nd person.

In the Greek, we have the negative m (μή) [pronounced may]. We may insert this into the sentence as a negative; or we can answer the question posed with a negative.

A Voice in the Wilderness If a son asks for bread from any father among you, he will not give him a stone, will he? The VW asks the question, and a negative answer is expected, but not stated.

Wilbur Pickering’s New T. And which father among you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Note that Pickering leaves out the negative altogether, but his question demands a negative response.

Jonathan Mitchell NT "Now [for] a certain [situation] from among you folks: the son will ask the father for bread – he will not give him a stone; Mitchell gives a fairly literal rendering, retaining the negative, but not posing this as a question.

Luke 11:11 What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent;... (ESV; capitalized; taken from the Westcott Hort text)

The ESV text, taken primarily from the Westcott Hort text, has one question in v. 11 and one question in v. 12. This is the second question in v. 11 for the Byzantine Greek text, Scrivener Textus Receptus and Tischendorf’s Greek text.

Luke 11:11b Or [if the son asks for] a fish, the father [lit., he] will not give him a snake instead of a fish. (Kukis mostly literal translation)

The Lord’s question continues to the fathers among His disciples: “Let’s say that your son asks for a fish from you; would you give him a snake instead?” The obvious answer is no.

Luke 11:11 For who from among you [all], [if] the son will ask his father [for] bread, he will not give his son [lit., him] a stone [will he]? Or [if the son asks for] a fish, the father [lit., he] will not give him a snake instead of a fish [will he]? (Kukis mostly literal translation)

There are two questions which appear to be repetitive (which is reasonable, because Jesus is teaching a principle which can be given a multitude of illustrations).

Luke 11:12 ...or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? (ESV; capitalized)

The third statement/question is very much like the first two. The sons asks for something (an egg), and Jesus asks the fathers, “Would you give your son a scorpion instead?”

An Understandable Version gives us the note: While at rest a scorpion rolls up in a ball that resembles an egg. Now, I don’t know if that is true, but it may help with my interpretation below, which may not be what you are expecting. Would the father hand the son something which looks like an egg, but suddenly, it unravels and it is a scorpion instead? Obviously no father would do this.

The interpretation here can get quite tricky. Remember, the context is prayer and Jesus is setting up a common analogy between a father and son, comparing them to God the Father and the believer.

On the surface, it sounds as if when you pray for X, God is not going to give you Y. But that is not the way to understand this. Sometimes you will pray for, let’s say, an egg; but God realizes that egg would be a scorpion in your life. For that reason, He would not answer your prayer exactly as you would want.

Let me give you a situation that many of us can relate to: we are young, we meet a person of the opposite sex, and we decide, “This is it; I am head over heels in love.” And then, you start praying for that person. You pray like there is no tomorrow that God will give you that person as a husband or wife. Now, you may think that she is a tasty egg; but God knows that she is a scorpion. Do you really want to be married for the rest of your life to a scorpion? God knows that you don’t; and so, He sometimes answers your prayers with a firm and final no.

Obviously, this circumstance of being asked for an egg by your son has never come up in your life (where handing him a scorpion was some kind of option); but let me offer an up-to-date parallel, which would fit with the interpretation that I have offered. You are a father (or mother) and your child has just asked you for something sugary before dinner (cookies, candy, a piece of cake), and you offer him a carrot or an apple instead. You don’t want to kill his appetite; and you do not want him eating empty calories before a healthy meal.

Have you ever prayed for something; or simply thought that, you would really like to have something, and then it turns out that getting that thing could be quite problematic? Or maybe you get it, and it causes you no end grief. Have you been married to a scorpion and this was someone that you, at one time, believed that you truly loved?

My point being, sometimes when God answers your prayer with a solid no, that is the best thing that could ever have happened to you.

Illustration: I recall once applying for two possible jobs, but the job I was offered was my second choice—by a lot. God gave me my second choice. Many years later, I found out that my second choice was a much better fit and the best thing for me. In fact, during that period of my life, the location of the second job was my third choice of where I wanted to live. God gave me my second choice for a job (I had two potential choices for the job) which was in the city of my third choice in terms of location (I had three potential choices). God knew and I did not. God put me where He wanted me; and God put me where my life experiences would be best. This was a long time ago, so I forget exactly what I prayed, but to this day, I remember how I rated my options. God, being omniscient, knew what my best options would be.

In any case, I hope that these illustrations give you a more nuanced understanding of how to interpret this passage.

Luke 11:12 ...or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? (ESV; capitalized)

As a father, would you give your son a scorpion instead of the egg? Of course not!

Luke 11:11–12 What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent; or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? (ESV; capitalized)

Luke 11:11–12 Is there any father among you that, if his son asked for bread, you would give him a stone instead? If your son asked for fish, would you, the father, give him a snake? Or if your son asked for an egg, would you give him a scorpion? (Kukis paraphrase)

Jesus continues teaching His disciples about prayer. Jesus has just asked His disciples these questions:

At this point, Jesus brings the substance of his answer to a conclusion. He does this by asking another question.

Luke 11:13a If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children,... (ESV; capitalized)

Every person to whom Jesus spoke has a sin nature; all of them have sinned. Yet, despite their shortcomings, they know how to give good gifts to their own children. The right treatment of their own children is inherent in them. So, can we not depend upon our own heavenly Father to give us what is best for our lives?

Luke 11:13b ...how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!" (ESV; capitalized)

Jesus then asks the question, “How much more is the Heavenly Father able to answer your prayers, even to send you the Holy Spirit, if requested?”

The disciples have not asked for God the Holy Spirit; although the Holy Spirit is their provision as disciples, to draw upon. So Jesus is speaking about more than just prayer here. He is telling His disciples, “You need to ask for the Holy Spirit.” The Holy Spirit would empower the disciples during this period of time, and they could ask for the Spirit.

Just so there is no misunderstanding, even though we are God’s disciples, we do not ask Him for the Holy Spirit. We are given the Holy Spirit at the point of salvation (1Corinthians 3:16 12:13). When we are out of fellowship, we have quenched the Spirit; but when we name our sins to God, He restores us to fellowship and the Holy Spirit (1John 1:9).

In the Church Age, we can quench the Holy Spirit, but we cannot lose the Holy Spirit (as was possible in previous ages—Psalm 51:11).

Luke 11:13 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!" (ESV; capitalized)

Jesus, speaking specifically to His disciples, points out that they, being evil, know how to give good gifts to their own children. “How much more will God the Father give you the Holy Spirit if you ask Him!” Hint: you need to ask for the Holy Spirit (Jesus’ disciples need to, not us).

What About the Parallel Passage in Matthew?

Among the translations, one of them in a footnote suggests that Luke edited Jesus’ words in order to make a point. I can guarantee you that Luke did not ever edit the Lord’s words. If Luke was given the report that Jesus said, “X, Y and Z;” Luke would not have decided to write, Jesus said, “X and Y.” Luke never had the thought, “No one really needs to know about that Z thing that the Lord talked about.”

This passage in Luke is similar to, but not the same as what is found in Matthew 7:7–11 "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father Who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him! (ESV; capitalized)

Now let’s compare to this passage: Luke 11:9–13 And I tell you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent; or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!" (ESV; capitalized)

Jesus is teaching the same principle, but to two difference audiences. In Matthew 7, Jesus is speaking to those gathered around Him for the sermon on the mount. In Luke 11, He is teaching His disciples, to whom He would give the Holy Spirit (He continues to answer the question asked of Him by one of His disciples in Luke 11:1). Quite obviously, like any other pastor-teacher, Jesus repeated Himself. Obviously, He could have spoken just about nonstop throughout His public ministry without repeating Himself, but repetition is necessary in teaching.

Application: On many occasions, I have gone back and listened to lessons by R. B. Thieme, Jr. 30 and 40 years after the first time I heard that same lesson. There is always a wealth of information to be found—and always material that I did not understand as well the first time through.

External Links
Luke Lessons #1–100 (html)	Luke Lessons #1–100 (pdf)	Luke Lessons #1–100 (wpd)
Luke Lessons #101–200 (html)	Luke Lessons #101–200 (pdf)	Luke Lessons #101–200 (wpd)
Luke Lessons #201–300 (html)	Luke Lessons #201–300 (pdf)	Luke Lessons #201–300 (wpd)
Luke Lessons #301–400 (html)	Luke Lessons #301–400 (pdf)	Luke Lessons #301–400 (wpd)
Kukis Homepage	Exegesis	Doctrines

We find some discontinuity when it comes to the sequence of a series of events in Matthew and Luke. The ESV (capitalized) was used for the direct quotes below.
Various Incidents found in Matthew and in Luke 7 & 10
Matthew	Luke
John’s disciples come to Jesus to ask if He is the Messiah. Matthew 11:2–3	John’s disciples come to Jesus to ask if He is the Messiah. Luke 7:18–20
Jesus tells these disciples to observe what they see and take that information back to John. Matthew 11:4–6	Jesus tells these disciples to observe what they see and take that information back to John. Luke 7:21–23
Jesus speaks eloquently and at length about John the baptizer. Matthew 11:7–15	Jesus speaks eloquently and at length about John the baptizer. Luke 7:24–30
However, the next incident in Matthew 11 matches almost word-for-word for a passage in Luke 10.
Matthew 11:16–17 "But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to their playmates, 'We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.'	Luke 7:31–32 "To what then shall I compare the people of this generation, and what are they like? They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling to one another, "'We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not weep.'
Matthew 11:18–19 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Look at Him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds."	Luke 7:33–35 For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Look at Him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' Yet wisdom is justified by all her children."
We continue in Matthew 11, but we jump ahead a few chapters in Luke:
No match in Matthew.	(Jesus gives instructions to the 70 or 72 disciples sent forth. Luke 10:1–12)
Jesus speaks of Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum. Matthew 11:20–24	Jesus speaks of Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum. Luke 10:13-15
“Whoever receives you receives Me, and whoever receives Me receives Him who sent Me.” Matthew 10:40	“The one who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.” Luke 10:16
Although these are parallel teachings, they were not necessarily given at the same time. Jesus prayed something similar in John 12:44–50 13:20
No match in Matthew.	The 70 (or 72) return and give a report to Jesus. Luke 10:17–20
Jesus public prayer to the Father. Matthew 11:25–27	Jesus public prayer to the Father. Luke 10:21–22
Matthew 11:25–27 At that time Jesus declared, "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. All things have been handed over to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him.”	Luke 10:21–22 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. 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."
Jesus says, “Come to Me, all who labor and are heavy laden...” Matthew 11:28–30	No match in Luke.
Jesus tells His disciples: “But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. For truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.” Matthew 13:16–17	Jesus tells His disciples: “Blessed are the eyes that see what you see. For I tell you that many prophets and kings desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it." Luke 10:23–24
Notice that we have skipped ahead two chapters in Matthew.
A lawyer testing Jesus about the greatest commandment. Matthew 22:35–40	A lawyer testing Jesus about the eternal life. Luke 10:25–28
Although these incidents have parallels regarding the two great commandments (Love the Lord your God...love your neighbor...), they are clearly different incidents.
No match in Matthew.	The story of the good Samaritan (which is a follow-on to the previous event with the lawyer). Luke 10:29–37
No match in Matthew.	Martha and Mary. Luke 10:38–42

This passage and others often had parallel applications. That is, this often about a contemporary figure, but it is also about Satan at the same time. This begins as a warning to the king of Babylon (Isaiah 14:4), but the text becomes a diatribe against Satan.
Satan’s Five “I wills”/Satan Cast from Heaven
Scripture	Text/Commentary
Isaiah 14:13 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;...	Vv. 13–14 are the five I wills of Satan. God, through Isaiah, is speaking to Satan, who said in his heart, “I will ascend into heaven.” The powers and abilities of angels must be quite amazing. He will set his throne on high, supplanting God, above the stars (angels) of God (Satan will rule over some of the angels).
Isaiah 14:14 ...I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.'	Satan asserts that he will ascend above the heights of the clouds, which is parallel to what was said in the previous verse. He says that he will make himself like the Most High, meaning that he will be like God, ruling over all things.
Isaiah 14:15 But you are brought down to Sheol, to the far reaches of the pit.	God warns him that he will be brought down to Sheol, which is the grave, into the far reaches of the pit. This is Satan’s everlasting future.
Isaiah 14:16 Those who see you will stare at you and ponder over you: 'Is this the man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms,...	The other angels will see Satan and stare at him and think about him. “Is this the one who made the earth tremble, the one who shook the kingdoms?” Satan desires to make himself as the Most High, but he will be brought down to a completely defeated and humbled state of being.
Isaiah 14:17 ...who made the world like a desert and overthrew its cities, who did not let his prisoners go home?'	Satan is said to make the world like a desert. One might suggest from this that Satan is behind the green movement, which seeks to reduce CO₂ from our atmosphere and fill our open spaces with wind and solar farms, rather than with forests. Nothing would make this world into a desert faster doing these things.
Isaiah 14:18 All the kings of the nations lie in glory, each in his own tomb;...	The kings of the world, even after death, lie in a glorified state (meaning that their country gave them great honor at their burial).
Isaiah 14:19 ...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.	Satan, despite having ruled over many nations, will not receive this sort of honor. For the evil that he has done, he will be loathed. An example of such a man is Hitler, who is loathed even by his own country. Satan is cast out, cast away, like a dead body trampled underfoot (as in war).
Isaiah 14:20 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!	Throughout the centuries, Satan has had great power and great authority over various nations. However, he will not be honored as great kings of the earth because he destroyed his own land and killed his own people. Isaiah, in his inspired utterance, calls for those who followed Satan to never be named.
Isaiah 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his sons because of the guilt of their fathers, lest they rise and possess the earth, and fill the face of the world with cities."	All of those devoted to Satan would be slaughtered. No matter how great, nations who have followed Satan and soldiers who have followed him would be destroyed.

Let’s say that I wanted to convert to Judaism, and I googled the fundamentals for a convert to Judaism. Here are two articles which I uncovered.
Two Examples
BBC	Rabbi Eliezer Melamed
Article: Converting to Judaism	Article: The Laws Relating to Converts
How to convert Different forms of Judaism have different conversion mechanisms, but this outline of what is involved covers the basics for all:	What follows are the subtitles for this article:
• discuss possible conversion with a rabbi • study Jewish beliefs, history, rituals and practices • learn some Hebrew • get involved with Jewish community life • believe in G-d and the divinity of the Torah • agree to observe all 613 mitzvot (commandments) of the Torah • agree to live a fully Jewish life • circumcision (men only) • immersion in a mikveh or ritual bath • appear before a Bet Din (a religious court) and obtain their approval	1. Judaism's Positive Approach to Converts 2. Relating to Converts 3. The Conversion 4. How Much Must the Convert Learn Before Conversion? 5. The Essence of the Conversion 6. Conversion in Practice 7. Accepting the Commandments 8. Defining the Acceptance of the Commandments.

Let me be more specific about the narratives and their locations in Luke 11:
An Outline of Luke 11
Passage	Brief Description
Luke 11:1–4	The first thirteen verses in Luke 11 are about prayer and they are clearly out of chronological order. This is the sort of question that His disciples would have had early on in the Lord’s ministry, not one they would be wondering about in the final months. In Luke 11:1–4, the disciples ask the Lord how to pray and He responds giving them what we call, the Lord’s prayer.
Luke 11:5–13	In Luke 11:5–8, Jesus provides a parable about prayer. “If you keep asking Me for something, I might just give it to you.” In Luke 11:9–11, Jesus spells out the meaning of the parable. Interestingly enough, the first thirteen verses parallel Matthew 6:9–15 7:7–11, which passages are a part of the sermon on the mount. Whereas the teaching is the same, the circumstances are clearly different (there is no reason to assume that Jesus taught something brand new every time He opened His mouth). This appears to be the case for many of the teachings found in Luke 11.
Luke 11:14–20	This narrative is, a house divided against itself cannot stand (did you think that Abraham Lincoln thought that up on his own?). Luke 11:21–22 is about the strong man; v. 23 is, if you are not with Me, you are against Me.
Luke 11:24–26	The unclean spirit that returns.
Luke 11:27–28	The horsey woman who interrupts Jesus.
Luke 11:29–32	The sign of Jonah.
Luke 11:33–36	The light that is in us (in believers).
Luke 11:37–54	Jesus denounces the pharisees and teachers of the Law. He is particularly harsh with them because they should know Who Jesus is, but they don’t.


Various Incidents found in Matthew and in Luke 7 & 10	Public Ministry Length of Religious Figures	Satan’s Intent
Satan’s Five “I wills” Satan Cast from Heaven	A brief review of Luke 10:17–20	Republicans Going to Church (a liberal meme)
Jesus as a long-haired socialist (a political cartoon)	Jesus was not a long-haired hippie socialist	Science, Natural Patterns and God
The Fibonacci Sequence and Nature (a graphic)	The Head of a Flower (a graphic)	A Shell and the Golden Rectangle (a graphic)
The Golden Rectangle and the Fibonacci sequence together (a graphic)	Flower Petal Arrangements (a graphic)	A Spiral Galaxy (a graphic)
Quotes from Famous Scientists about God	Charles Darwin Quote (a graphic)	Louis Pasteur Quote (a graphic)
Neil deGrasse Tyson on the Empowerment of Science (a meme)	Two Examples	Messianic prophecies from the Old Testament
The angel Gabriel prophecies to Mary about Jesus	What is even greater than seeing Jesus Christ in person and hearing Him teach?	Today is the greatest time to be alive
Jesus and the Great Commandment	Jesus, the Law and Salvation (Luke 10:25–28)	A Summary of the Interaction Between Jesus and the Law Expert
The Good Samaritan Stops to Render Aid (a graphic)	A typical inn with buildings arranged round a courtyard (a graphic)	What About the Innkeeper (asks Gary North)
The Good Samaritan by Rembrandt (a graphic)	Socialist Citizens/Socialist Leaders (a graphic)	Jerusalem, Bethphage and Bethany (a map)
Galilee, Samaria and Judæa (a map)	A Profile of Martha (from Dan Hill)	Worries and Concerns in the Life of the Believer (from Dr. Dan Hill)
Mary, Martha and the Priorities of Life (Dr. Dan Hill)	A Brief Review of Luke 10	New Testament Map of Palestine (a graphic)
The Chronology of Luke 9–19	Harmony of the Gospels	Jesus Makes His Way to Jerusalem
Organizing the Book of Luke	The Basic Outline of the Book of Luke	An Outline of Luke 11
Outline for the Book of Luke	What About the Parallel Passage in Matthew?

Outline for the Book of Luke
I.	The Early Years of Jesus	Luke 1–2
II.	The Ministry of John the baptizer; Jesus Genealogy	Luke 3
III.	Jesus Public Ministry, from His Temptation to Samaria	Luke 4–10:37
IV.	The Teachings of Jesus (not presented chronologically)	Luke 10:38–18:14
V.	Jesus Entering Jerusalem; the Crucifixion; the Resurrection	Luke 18:15–24:53