Luke Chapter 6
Opens with the disciples eating corn on the Sabbath. This account is a little more abbreviated than Matthew's account. Perhaps because Luke is writing more to Gentiles who maybe wouldn't have though this incident was that much of a big deal anyway?
2022 - Look at the details though...They plucked and ate some grain, rubbing them in their hands. So they were eating raw grain, as they walked along. The Pharisees had more of a problem with the "harvesting" and "processing" of the grain on a Sabbath than they had with the fact that it was not the disciple's grain. How is this not stealing? But that is not what the Pharisees saw. Perhaps the point is that they really didn't care about the ethics of the situation at all, they only wanted to discredit Jesus and his followers with respect to the Law. They wanted to get people to stop listening to what Jesus was teaching. They were not about "law enforcement" at all. And Jesus' answer is not about law enforcement either. Jesus' says that the Law was never meant to make people starve on the Sabbath. Or even to be hungry on the Sabbath. And then he tells them that he has the authority to break the law if he wants to anyway, just as David broke it before.
9 And Jesus said to them, "I ask you, is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to destroy it?" [Luk 6:9 ESV]
Jesus heals the withered hand. If inaction results in evil, then action is called for, even on the Sabbath. We are talking here about God's laws, not man's. In man's terms, if not interfering results in a wife or a child being beaten, then we should interfere, even if we go onto another's property or into their house to stop the evil. Similar analogy is international humanitarian aid. But God's law...perhaps this analogy is only applicable in contrasting the Mosaic Law and the gospel. In the church, all things are lawful, if they are not evil. Evil is about what is in our hearts, not about the law. This was not the case under Mosaic law. Evil was rigidly defined, though in a limited way. The Mosaic law did not allow for what if questions.
Good FB post. You cannot just stand and watch evil that you could do something about.
The twelve apostles called and listed. I think the implication here is that when Jesus told Simon and Andrew to follow him, and told James and John to follow him, they were being invited to be his disciples. He had MANY disciples. But this account, both in Mark and Luke, implies that it was only later that Jesus chose 12 to be his closest pupils, and titled them apostles. And this happened only after a night of prayer.
2021 - Yes, that is surely how this reads. They were first called as disciples, and spent time with Jesus and followed him around the country, but they were not "the twelve" until this point, after a full night of prayer. They had seen many miracles by this time. I would say it was only at this time that Jesus began to instruct and inform the 12 as a group apart. He was setting them up to carry on his work after he was gone. He couldn't do that with hundreds or even 50's. The group had to be down to size.
A great crowd has gathered. Jesus finds a level place and begins healing diseases, and casting out demons. Anyone ill who touched Jesus was healed. They must have pressed in upon him in desperation.
Then the sermon on the mount. Luke's account is a little abbreviated from Matthew (which is the reading for tomorrow.) I had not noticed before that something as important as the Sermon on the Mount comes right after the withered hand, his family thinking he'd lost it, and blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. These are some remarkably huge lessons and events all coming in what seems to be a very short period of time. Not all the "same" day, but in a pretty short time.
2021 - As I read vs 17, it seems almost as if Luke is purposely separating this "sermon on a level place" from the "sermon on the mount". I won't take a dogmatic stand about it based on a single verse, but this seems very weighty to me, and Luke was a historian. Luke would likely have found a way to emphasize that there were two such sermons, at different times and in different places. There are notes from MSB below where he calls this the sermon on the plateau. Apparently we don't know for sure if there were two or just one. At this point, I am in the "two sermons" camp.
In Luke, Jesus is starkly contrasting the present world with the world to come. In future, we will have the opposite of what we have here. The hungry will be filled, but the filled will be hungry. But we aren't going to be hungry in heaven. The poor now will be rich, but the rich will be poor. But there won't be rich and poor at all will there? MSB addresses this. The account in Matthew uses the definite article - blessed are the hungry, blessed are the poor in spirit, and so on, where Luke uses a personal pronoun. Blessed are you who are poor, as opposed to blessed are the poor. MSB says this is about more than material wealth, and points to spiritual wealth. I get that...but the literal is usually true also...
vss 22, 23 - we are to rejoice when persecuted for Jesus' sake. When we are persecuted for our belief and our stance for Him. This is not about the socially awkward. The Asperger's people. The class nerd, or like that. This is about persecution for believing in and proclaiming the truth of God.
vss 24-26 state the negatives of vss 20-23. Goes so far as to say "Woe" to you if you're rich now, because that's all you're going to get. You're done with riches. Sure raises some serious questions. Will there be wealth in heaven? What's the point of flipping everything in heaven? Isn't salvation the same for all? Why would you reward the poor if they are just barely spiritual? If they are just saved, but really do nothing, don't suffer for Christ...they're just poor? What is the basis for riches to them in heaven? I don't get these things.
((((2020-(Copying in this note from the Matthew 5 reading in 2020. This is the explanation, I just didn't get to it until Matthew 5). So this year, I didn't mess up and read this too soon. I read Luke 6 yesterday, which was his recording of this same sermon. I had some problems with Luke 6:24-26, which are the "woes" that say woe of you are rich now, because you're done with being rich. Woe if you are full, because you are going to be hungry. I note now that these woes are not recorded in Matthew. I am reminded that Matthew was there, and Luke was not. I believe the Bible is what it should be. I don't think you can cut out the parts you don't like and just keep the stuff you do. But I do not understand Luke's woes.
Further information from MSB. There, it calls this the "Sermon on the Plateau", because a different word is used. MSB allows that this could have been preached at a different time than the one in Matthew. Hence, not everything is the same. Same subject matter, same outline, same beginning and ending, but Luke's is shorter and has these woes. MSB goes on though that they are most likely different writer's recounting of the same event. MSB says that both Matthew and Luke have translated this sermon from Aramaic to Greek. MSB seems really sure that Jesus delivered the speech in Aramaic. Not sure how we could possibly know that. MSB notes that Luke leaves out parts that would only have been meaningful to the Jews - like the Mosaic law part. BUT, there is not one thing in MSB about vss 24-26 - those three woes. It occurs to me that the whole point of these three woes is simply that those who focus on the comforts of this world, like wealth and food and the good graces of all men, will at some point realize that these things are transient and fickle, and they will at some point seek something more lasting, more permanent, more "filling" and more "comforting". They will realize that despite all their material wealth and goods, they are in fact still hungry, and still poor. This is not a new idea, I've heard this all my life. It just took a very long while for me to connect that with these woes. Those who "have" will ultimately see the importance and significance of spiritual things. And very likely, if they listened to this sermon and still didn't catch on, they are unlikely to catch on later, under less abundant circumstances, and so end up hungry, poor, weeping, and shunned. That is all this means. It is like I had a mental block about it yesterday...and last year. Copying this back to the Luke 6 notes yesterday.
2023 - This year, I would say that those who focus on wealth, food, and the good graces of men - IN PREFERENCE TO focusing on the things of God - will end up in hell, and we might want to add hunger, lack of any kind of economy, and everybody selfish in their own suffering to the characteristics of hell. It seems to me, this year, that Luke wasn't talking about the "future" on this earth, but about eternal things. This too removes any "implied condemnation" of those with plenty based solely on the fact that they HAVE plenty while others do not. This is not an advocation of socialism on Luke's part. Also copying this over to Luke 6.)))
2021 - A little more on the "compare and contrast" idea between Matthew 5 and Luke 6, specifically Matt 5:2-11, labeled The Beatitudes and Luke 6:20-23, labeled likewise. But the construction is very different. Here is a comparison:
20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said: "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. [Luk 6:20 ESV]
3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. [Mat 5:3 ESV]
These are very different. In Luke, Jesus seems to be addressing the physically, monetarily poor. In Matthew, he is talking to the spiritually poor. But...look at how the verse ends in Luke. "Yours is the kingdom..." The kingdom is not about earthly physical wealth. That's not what determines entry. It is where are spiritually that is important, is in fact the ONLY factor. Seeing them side by side this way kind of pushes me back towards different versions of the same sermon.
Luke's wording is very physical, from start to finish:
21 "Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied. "Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh. [Luk 6:21 ESV] Luke is sticking with physical allusions and Matthew is speaking spiritually.
Here is the similar statement in Matthew:
6 "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. [Mat 5:6 ESV]
Again, it is very clear that Matthew is speaking spiritually, and Luke leaves us to figure out that he is speaking spiritually, though he uses entirely physical language. Matthew is "helping his readers out" with the proper interpretation, Luke is expecting more from his readers. Never saw this contrast in delivery before. What a great study to compare Matthew and Luke in other places and see if that is a common thing between them.
And with all this in mind, we come to the woes, and seeing how Luke has used physical language just previously, though we can easily figure out that he is speaking physically, it makes very good sense to also interpret the riches and the hunger in the woes in a spiritual sense. In fact, it would be questionable to do it any other way.
(One other item of interest, if not of significance: Only Luke in the NT uses this word for laugh. He uses it in 21 and 25. It is nowhere else in the Bible. It is not the common word for laugh.
vss 27-31. Starts with this "specifier":
27 "But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, [Luk 6:27 ESV]
"you who hear...". Is that phrase important? Are these instructions for the literal people who were on that mountain and not for everyone for all time? 2021 - No. It is for those who have ears to ear. For the elect, for those whom God chooses to hear it.
Love your enemies. Don't just love them, do good for them, don't ask for the stuff they steal from you to be returned, let them keep it. Don't hit back. Leave all this to God, let Him repay. The principal is then stated. Doing good only to those who do good to you earns nothing. Anyone would do that. Everyone does that. But it is different to be merciful even to those who harm you. God has mercy on those who sin against Him, those who disrespect and abuse His mercy. To be like the Father, we too must forgive those who don't earn it, don't deserve it. I don't think this is a renouncement of all our worldly goods. But it is about not seeking vengeance. It is about forgiving those who absolutely do not deserve our forgiveness. We should do this, because God does this. AND, if we can't do this for others, what right have we to expect it for ourselves from God??? (Not one word on these verses in MSB. These verses are concerning in a time of violence, riots, looting, and increasing lawlessness. What do I do if they crash through my front door? Do I say - hey, why don't you guys crash through the back door too? Or do I open fire? Enemies...can strangers be enemies? If they're from a country we're at war with, sure they can. But what about the lawless mob? Are they enemies? Or just a lawless mob? What do I do here????)
2020 - The point, the principal, is that we need to behave differently than the world behaves. We need to observe how God deals with enemies and to practice the same. God forgives the undeserving...if they repent. God gives many many chances to the lost. He gives chances to nations, to families, to dynasties. But ultimately, there is justice to all. There is a limit. In all the questions above, we need to be charitable, to withhold vengeance, to forgive until it hurts, and maybe until forever. But I don't think these verses mean we're to starve to death because the neighbor asks for our last bit of food. I don't think that. I think you share, and you ask payment, but you don't starve. God never ever relinquishes justice. He never says "Ok, go ahead and worship idols if you want, I forgive you." Never does that. But He is immeasurably patient. And so should we be. Perhaps the limit of our patience is a measure of our faith, of our Christ-likeness. But I'm not sure that drawing the line at some point is a sin at all. That's another point. Jesus isn't telling them "Thou shalt not..." He is telling them "You should behave this way - this is where the bar is..." Maybe.
2021 - You cannot take just this one passage, this one verse, and build a whole house on it. The NT has much to say about charity, and about enemies. Never forget that Paul talks about people earning their keep. He talks about putting out those who will not repent and respond to church discipline. But...none of those are enemies. This is a very "un-worldly" passage, to be sure. I trip over it every time because it is so difficult to think this way. This requires practice or we will never do it. It does seem that this is a personal behavior lesson, and not a church or nation lesson. When they mistreat "me", I am to behave this way in return. It is all addressed to the "singular" person. It does not therefore prohibit taking care of your family? Don't know. This one is difficult every year! Ah. One other thought. Vss 20-26 we have decided are all about spiritual things, though worded physically. Vss 27-36 though, pretty much ARE about the physical. They are not about getting along with others spiritually but daily, practically, physically. I don't see how you can read them any other way.
Matthew 5 also speaks of loving your neighbors, but at the end of several instructions which all start with "You have heard it sad..., but I tell you...." Divorce, oaths, lust and such things are the topics, and the last is to love your enemies, and this section in Matthew starts with that same phrase. Luke just picked out one of those phrases in his abbreviated account. So with the bigger context of Matthew, the point is that what the people hearing this sermon had always been taught - based on Mosaic Law - did not take into account was the heart, or the spiritual! Under the teaching of the scribes and Pharisees, it was ok to hate those who cheated you, to lust in your heart, etc, so long as you didn't do it physically. But Jesus' teaching in Matthew is that if you do it in your heart, you are guilty. Same with our feelings of hatred and dreams of retaliation against "enemies". It is not ok to hate those who abuse you, even if you don't physically do anything in retaliation. We are to truly love them in our heart despite their abuses. We are to take that abuse without letting it give rise to hatred inside us. SO, though Luke appears to be talking in a purely physical sense, once again, it is the spiritual that is in view, and the physical actions called for come out of a right attitude spiritually, and attitude of forgiveness and love, not of vengeance. Finally! I think this is the right way to look at it.
And one more thing....
This little compare and contrast study between Matthew and Luke emphasizes the reason there are four gospels. The most important words ever spoken by man, the words of Jesus Christ, comprise far more information than can be related by a single gospel. The words of this man are the E=mc2 of God's word to man. While they can be written simply, they also explode into implications for all men in all times, and can never be fully comprehended. Having four perspectives keeps us from error on the one hand, but far more than that, shows us just how very much is actually contained in these relatively few words.
Then he talks about generosity. The "measure" we use to give is the same one that will be used to give back to us by God. If we give stingily, in small measure, then God blesses us in small measure. He still blesses...but we get what we give. I need a lot of work on these last two.
Look to yourself, clean up your own life before starting to mess with fixing up others. Be careful about criticizing others when you have quite a few noticeable problems of your own!!!
We are known by the fruit we bear. The fruit tells any who observe what is really inside. What comes out of our mouths is who we are. We speak what we have stored up inside. Just as in Matt. Look back up there, it is expanded quite a bit.
Houses with proper foundations. Surely this is about reading and studying, and not about houses. The stream is going to rise, and the fate of the house will depend on the foundation that it is sitting on.
So much today...I am just tired from trying to take it all in. Point after point after point.