Week 26 Study Page - Luke 11-24

Back to Bible Reading Page

Week #26 Study Page

Luke 11-24

About the Book(s)

Luke

Date of Authorship: mid-late 60's AD.

Author: Luke was a physician and a Christian convert who traveled and ministered with the apostle Paul. Luke is a Gentile, which makes him unique among all other Bible authors.

Provenance: Many have speculated that Luke would have had extensive opportunities to research the subject while Paul was imprisoned in Caesarea (Palestine) for two years, from 57-59 AD. During that time, it is likely that Luke was collecting written evidence, listening for authentic oral accounts in the Christian community, and interviewing eyewitnesses. One can imagine Luke traveling with Paul in the short number of years in-between Jesus earthly ministry and when the Gospels were written and circulated, and deciding to take all of these early accounts of Jesus ministry(some of them likely partial and episodic) and edit together an authoritative birth-to-resurrection account for Theophilus (Luke 1:3) and also for use in ministry.

Purpose: Luke does us a favor and explicitly states the purpose of his Gospel in 1:3-4. We'll discuss the themes of the Gospel of Luke below

"since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

As you Read Notes

Luke 11:2-4: The Lord's Prayer According to Luke

Luke is one of two gospel writers to record what we call "The Lord's Prayer;" the other is Matthew (this means that it is the last time that we'll read it in our reading plan). Take a look at these two passages side by side:

“‘Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.’
Matthew 6:9-13

“‘Father,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come.
Give us each day our daily bread.
Forgive us our sins,
for we also forgive everyone who sins against us.
And lead us not into temptation.’”
Luke 11:2-4

The are a few differences between what Matthew recounts and what Luke records. Just by glancing you can see that Luke's account of the prayer is shorter than Matthew's. It is clear that Luke's version is the same, but simply missing certain lines which appear in Matthew's version. This does not make Luke's version inferior to that of Matthew, on the contrary Luke's prayer may highlight for us the most important and cherished elements of Jesus' teaching on prayer according to the earliest Church with his shorter version. When we pray the 'traditional' Lords prayer, we're used to praying Matthews version, but why? I'm not sure - it's not any more inspired than Luke's. The fact that these two prayers are different in length of content goes to show that the Lord's prayer is not a magical set of words to be repeated, but a prayer template provided by Christ to tell us what kinds of things that we should pray for. While it is certainly not harmful to pray the exact words of the Lord's prayer, I don't think that is what Jesus was teaching us to do in these passages, and i think that the difference between Matthew's and Luke's account of this prayer make clear that praying Matthew's version word-for-word is not a requisite discipline of the Christian faith.

Did anything else about these two texts stick out to you? Where is the ending. . . you know the "for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen" part? If you're reading the NIV 2011 like i do you'll notice that this text has been moved down to a footnote because, in Christianity's effort to preserve the most-accurate text of the New Testament, Scholars have discovered that this ending is only included in later manuscripts. While we have evidence that the church was attaching this ending to the Lord's prayer as early as the first century AD (in a document known as the Didache). The best textual annalists of Matthew reveals that it was likely not a part of the original manuscript - so it has been removed.

John Cassis, a motivational speaker, tells a hilarious story about The Lord's Prayer from when he was serving as the team chaplain of the 1985 Chicago Bears (greatest defense of all time, don't @ me). to read that story, click on the link below:
https://garybartlett.wordpress.com/2008/09/28/betting-on-the-lords-prayer/

Luke 11:53 & 20:19: Narrative Markers of Opposition

Lets return to the major sections of Luke we listed last week:

1-3 Birth Narrative
4-9a Galilean Ministry
9b-19a Road to Jerusalem
19:b-24 Jerusalem Ministry

One thing to notice about Luke's gospel is the kind of resistance that Jesus is facing at every turn. Luke records a key moment of opposition in Jesus ministry at the beginning of every major section after the birth Narrative. First, the people of the synagogue in Nazareth attempt to throw Jesus off a cliff at the beginning of the Galilean ministry (Luke 4:29). Second, the pharisees and the teachers of the Law "began to oppose him fiercely..." at the beginning of the road to Jerusalem section (Luke 11:53). Finally, just after Jesus arrives in Jerusalem, we're told that the teacher of the law and the chief priests "looked for a way to arrest him immediately" (Luke 20:19). Clearly, Luke wants to show us how severely Jesus was opposed and resisted by the powerful and influential Jews of his time.

Luke 16:18 Divorce

Luke 18:16 records a brief and to-the-point teaching of Jesus on the subject of divorce. This passage receives a lot of attention and is often argued over because it seems to prohibit re-marriage after divorce. I don't think that this passage here in Luke prohibits a divorced person from getting remarried, let me explain why. On first reading it may seem like this passage treats remarriage as a separate (second) sin after divorce, but i find it likely that Jesus is here discussing the event of divorce and remarriage as a singular event. It would be extremely rare for someone in Jesus time to divorce and remain single, they would re-marry, in fact it is likely that the majority of divorces in Jesus time were for the purpose* of remarriage. Therefore I read this passage as condemning primarily divorce as sinful and not offering a judging the event of remarriage (which is more common and often further removed, chronologically, typically, in our society than it was then). This passage in Luke is probably the same teaching that Mark records in Mark 10:11, that passage makes it especially clear that Jesus is treating divorce&remarriage as a singular event and condemning it as sin. My best understanding of God's word is that re-marriage after a divorce is not sinful.

However, Divorce is sin, is to be regarded as evil, and God hates it (Malachi 2:4). There is no way around it in the Bible. Jesus words here in Luke and Mark are clear on the matter. In the parallel passage (to Luke and Mark) of Matthew 5:32 makes and exception in the case of "infidelity" (Greek word is pornia, which could refer to a range of sexual misconduct), for the guilt of adultery to the offended party, but that does not mean that the divorce was not a sin, it just means that the guilt of the sinfulness of the divorce lays with the offending party. God's design for marriage is a union between a man and a woman that lasts for a lifetime, divorce represents a transgression of that design, and is sinful. There are cases where a christian may need to pursue a divorce for their own safety or the safety of their children. This does not mean that divorce is good, but it does mean that it could be necessary. There is good news, Jesus died on the cross to take away the penalty for our sins, even divorce. The divorcee is no greater sinner than he or she that is proud or envious, and while none of those sins are good, the grace of our Lord covers over all of them - thank you Jesus.

Earlier I stressed how important it is to read the teachings of Matthew in light of what surrounds it (be it narrative or parables). so what on earth is this singular verse about divorce doing sandwiched in between the parable of the shrewd manager and the parable of the rich man and Lazarus??? the backstory you need to know is that, among the Pharisees there were two competing schools of theology / philosophy named after two rabbis , Hillel and Shammai, the latter was conservative and prohibitive of divorce in nearly all circumstances, while the former was more liberal and permitted divorce for almost any reason. Jesus is speaking directly to the Pharisees in this block of instruction so he decides to drop some divorce truth on them to settle their argument.

Luke 22:69: Jesus Before The Elders

In Luke's account, Jesus is arrested Thursday night, imprisoned in the house of the high priest overnight - this is where Peter denies him three times - and then appears on trial before the Sanhedrin - who Luke calls "the elders of the people" on (good) Friday morning. Jesus' testimony to them is the same (or nearly so) as is recorded in Matthew and Mark: "from now on, the Son of Man will be seated a the right hand of the mighty God." This declaration of Jesus is nearly impossible to understand if you don't recall what we read in Daniel 7, a passage that was the center of the Jew's expectation of, and anticipation for a savior:

“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,[a] coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority,glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."
Daniel 7: 13-14

Luke 24: Resurrection Appearances

One of my favorite parts about the gospel of Luke is the confusion and doubt that he paints the disciples with on Easter Sunday. Luke records Jesus announcing to his disciples - on three separate occasions - that he would be killed and rise from the dead, but when they hear the report of the empty tomb, they have no idea what is happening. Peter runs out to the tomb and see's the abandoned burial clothes and Luke says "he wen't away wondering to himself what hat happened." The disciples on the Road to Emmaus are looking at Jesus as they talk to him and they don't recognize him. Finally when Jesus appears to all of them in verse 36 - they think they're seeing a ghost. What i find fantastic about Luke is that he goes from recording this confused uncertainty of the disciples at the end of his gospel to recording the apostles' certainty, bravery, and fearlessness to spread the message of Jesus resurrection in the beginning of the book of Acts (which Luke also wrote).

Luke is the only gospel writer that does not include any of Jesus resurrection appearances in the region of Galilee in his gospel (in the gospel of Mark Jesus tells the disciples to go to Galilee to meet him there). A synchronized reading of the 4 gospels shows that after Jesus appears to the women at the tomb, others, and all the disciples in Jerusalem, he instructs them to go to Galilee where he will appear to them again (John 21:1, Mark 16:7, Matthew 28:10). So why - in Luke's Gospel - do the disciples never leave Jerusalem after the resurrection? I've written it a number of times already in the notes the last two weeks and if you haven't believed me yet you will now: Luke is arranging his gospel thematically in geographical stages. He keeps his resurrection account to the appearances in Jerusalem because his whole gospel has led up to Jesus arrival in Jerusalem, and his second book (Acts) is going to tell the story of these disciples (still in Jerusalem) breaking out from there to Judea, Samaria and to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8). Geography is just so important to Luke the author, that he keeps his resurrection story limited to Jerusalem

Joel NielsenJune 20, 2018Madison Church of Christ