Luke Chapter 9

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

The twelve are sent out.  Luke's account is very nearly just like Mark's, far more brief than Matthew's account. 

2021 - This is the "sending" when they were to take nothing.  This verse:

1 And he called the twelve together and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases, [Luk 9:1 ESV].  Over ALL demons, and to cure diseases.  The implication here is that only the 12 were sent out, not a ton of disciples but only the apostles. 

1 And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction. [Mat 10:1 ESV]  Here is the corresponding verse in Matthew. The twelve were sent out.  It must be another place where he "sent them out by twos".  What a thing to forget.  I need to identify both of these "sendings" and compare and  contrast.

Here is an interesting thing though.  These accounts in Matt 10 and Lk 9 seem unarguably about the same event.  In Matthew, they could heal EVERY disease.  In Luke they have power over ALL demons.  Jesus truly equipped them for a powerful demonstration, and powerful sign that the one they followed was no ordinary prophet, as of old, but something entirely new, qualitatively different.  In hindsight it is obvious.  The Pharisees surely should have recognized that something new was going on.

2022 - This verse:

6 And they departed and went through the villages, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere. [Luk 9:6 ESV]

With all the healing that Jesus was doing, and now the 12 going all over the place healing and casting out demons, and then the 70 sent out by twos healing and casting out demons, wouldn't there be a population explosion?  So many people who would have died young live on to an old age.  Is there any possible way to document such a thing?  Roman census seems the only way...when were they?  Do we have a before an after?  What do they show?

2022 - The Christology book makes the case that by this time, the title of "prophet" in Israel was associated with a single, future prophet who would appear - as possibly Elijah - and be associated with expected eschatological events.  They no longer expected prophets in every other town, or whole schools of prophets as we see in I Sam - 2 Chron.  Isaiah and Jeremiah were not the only prophets of their times either, but there were many others.  But by NT times, they are only looking for one, and his appearance will signal the end times.  This adds considerable significance to the appearance of John the Baptist and of Jesus saying that he is, in fact "an" Elijah, but that Elijah still will come.  A still future Elijah.  And when we see the power that Jesus bestows/infuses here as to the 12, we see why the interpretation of many would have been that Jesus was not A prophet, but THE expected prophet that would restore Israel to the promises.  My goodness, here we are again - the more we learn the more completely and precisely everything falls into place and makes sense. This verse:

7 Now Herod the tetrarch heard about all that was happening, and he was perplexed, because it was said by some that John had been raised from the dead, 8 by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the prophets of old had risen. 9 Herod said, "John I beheaded, but who is this about whom I hear such things?" And he sought to see him. [Luk 9:7-9 ESV]

Note in each case that it was not a "resurgence" of prophets in the land that people thought was happening, but a single prophet reappearing. 

I note also this time that the way Luke writes it, Herod did not think Jesus was John the Baptist come back.  Herod knew he'd killed John, so he eliminated him, and wondered if this was Elijah or maybe another OT prophet. 

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

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

2025 - Something here to notice about vs 13:  13 But he said to them, "You give them something to eat." They said, "We have no more than five loaves and two fish--unless we are to go and buy food for all these people." [Luk 9:13 ESV].  "You give them..." is in the imperative mood.  Jesus is commanding them to do this, and they must have felt entirely helpless to do so.  I would have!  But they were the 12.  They had just returned from casting out demons and healing every illness where ever they went.  They had seen all this power - this "transferable" power Jesus had given them - but they could not imagine where so much bread might be.  We are just like them.  We see God do the impossible one day and the next we think some tiny need of ours is too much for him.  What a strange kind of amnesia we have, forgetting all the times God said yes, along with perfect recall of times God said no.  We miss so much that He wants to give us.

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

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

These verses:

22 saying, "The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised." [Luk 9:22 ESV]

This is the first time recorded of Jesus foretelling his death.  He tells them to keep quiet about it all.  Very specific though, that he would be killed, and on the third day raised.

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

2022 - This verse in particular:

26 For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. [Luk 9:26 ESV]

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

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

Luke moves next to that very thing.  The transfiguration coming sequentially in the narrative does tend to show that Jesus first predicts this unprecedented event, and then it actually occurs.  This makes a lot of sense. 

2021 - Reading it this year, there seems little doubt that Jesus was referring to the transfiguration.  One must wonder though, if "see the glory" was a better translation, then by the time we get to the ESV, why wouldn't they translate it that way?    Interlinear says Luke uses Strongs G932, basileia.  It is used 162x in the KJV.  In all but 18, it is it translated as some form of kingdom.  There are 18 miscellaneous translations of the word, but they are not listed.  Would need to look them all up to see what is there.  If you already "know" this reference is to the transfiguration, then the sequence going from Jesus words about the kingdom to the transfiguration in the next sentence makes it clear.  But from the words themselves, we have to conclude that Peter, James, and John saw the kingdom.  I just cannot get to "royal splendor".  Looked at the MSB note again.  It refers back to the note in Matt 16:28.  It reads like this:

28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." [Mat 16:28 ESV]  The word for kingdom here is also G932.  Kingdom.  However, in Matthew the subject is seeing the Son of Man, where in Luke it is seeing the Kingdom itself.  In Matthew, I can just get to "seeing the Son of Man as he will be when his kingdom comes".  These verb tenses and qualifiers are not in the text, just saying that I can interpret the meaning of the text, so that it fits the events described, if I use this phrasing.  And that is enough about that for today...

2022 - In vs 26, "glory" is Strong's G1391.

In vs 31, the "glory" of Moses and Elijah is Strong's G1391.

In vs 32, the "glory" of Jesus is Strong's G1391.

Surely Luke's use of the same Greek word in all three of these verses is a strong argument that Jesus WAS referring to the coming transfiguration back in vss 26. 27.  Or at least that Luke understood it that way when he wrote these verses.  This seems quite compelling.

Or...maybe not.  Jesus said they'd not see death until they saw the "kingdom", the "basileia" of God.  Jesus DID NOT SAY here in Luke that some would see his glory, Jesus said they see the kingdom.  Jesus was using 1391 to refer to his second coming.  So the only way we make vs 27 about the transfiguration is to see the transfiguration as a preview of the glorified Christ, and make his reference to the kingdom equivalent to his glorified appearance.  Sort of a "some of you - in fact, you three guys right there and no one else - will see me appear in a week or so exactly as I will appear at the Millennial sheep and goat judgment when I come back to earth from heaven.  What is common to the coming of the kingdom and the mount of transfiguration is the physical appearance that Jesus will had and will have.  Jesus looked "glorified" to Peter, James and John on the Mt of Transfiguration, and he will look this same way for ALL to see when he comes again.

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

Luke adds some detail to the transfiguration, saying not only that Moses and Elijah were there, but they spoke of his departure.

2026 - Consider the deaths of Moses and Elijah.  Moses died on a mountain, no one knows where, no grave, no stone, nowhere to memorialize.  Elijah taken up i to heaven, never seen again even after a long search.  Jesus in a tomb not his own, but he didn't stay.  The women asked to where the body had been moved.  No known resting place. Then taken to heaven until he could no longer be seen. The manner of death of Moses and Elijah combined in the manner of death of Jesus. 

Some interesting details.  Apparently the three were nearly asleep when this all starts, and they wake up and see it just at the end.  They offer to build three tents.  This is taken by Luke as quite a faux pas on their part. 

2021 - I don't get the faux pas.  The MSB note says that Peter was referring to the Feast of Tabernacles, or Booths.  During this feast, worshipers would set up tents on the roof or the garden and stay in them to remind them of the time in the desert.  So MSB says what Peter was saying was that he wanted to stay in that place.  Perhaps - though it is not clear - this occurred during the week of that feast.  But...if that is what it is about, why is it such a faux pas.  Luke's opinion is that Peter didn't realize what he was saying, that is, didn't realize his mistake.  So.  MSB does not help to clarify the situation.

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

2024 - This verse:

31 who appeared in glory and spoke of his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. [Luk 9:31 ESV].  Really hadn't noticed this verse before.  It reads about the same in NASB95.  They spoke of Jesus "accomplishing his departure".  What a phrase to describe what was coming!

2025 - Looking a little more closely at this verse also:    32 Now Peter and those who were with him were heavy with sleep, but when they became fully awake they saw his glory and the two men who stood with him. [Luk 9:32 ESV].  I don't remember noticing that Peter, James, and John were practically sleep walking when this happened.  Sort of a preview of what was going to happen in Gethsemane.  They saw the glory of Jesus...or they saw him glorified in his physical body, and Moses and Elijah also "appeared in glory".  Interesting...We believe that when New Covenant Christians die their spirit goes into heaven while their physical bodies stay here awaiting the rapture.  Maybe it does not work that way for Old Covenant saints?  What we have here is that either the spirits of Moses and Elijah appear, and are recognizable even in spirit form, or in fact this is a physical appearance in glorified form.  At the very least this is a relevant verse for arguing that the rapture is only for NT saints, and saying that we are not glorified until that time, while the OT saints are already present in heaven in physical form.  After all, Hebrews says that "they, without us, should not be made perfect".  But once Christ died for sin, he went and retrieved those in Sheol/Hades, and took captivity captive.  Perhaps we should read this as "made perfect the waiting souls of the Old Testament saved" and took them physically to heaven.

2025 - In vs 37 we are told they came down from the mountain "the next day".  So perhaps the three were practically sleep walking along as Jesus walked and prayed all night.  An interesting idea that perhaps encourages us to "prayer walk".  I don't do that because it seems wrong to combine "exercise time" and "prayer time".  I doubt Jesus was exercising on these all night walks (another significant difference!) but keeping was praying exclusively.  Still...a way to continue praying even as exhaustion comes on.  Perhaps even a more effective way to pray.

A cloud comes and overshadows them, and they are afraid to enter the cloud.  The voice from the cloud identifies Jesus as "My Son, my Chosen One", and tells them to listen to him. 

2021 - This verse:

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

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

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

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

2025 - This very Calvinistic verse:  45 But they did not understand this saying, and it was concealed from them, so that they might not perceive it. And they were afraid to ask him about this saying. [Luk 9:45 ESV].  It was CONCEALED FROM THEM.  Combine this with Jesus' speaking in parables instead of openly and you have a very strong case, except for the stiff-necked and stubborn, that God only reveals truth - even necessary saving truth - to whomever he will.

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

2022 - This verse:

48 and said to them, "Whoever receives this child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me. For he who is least among you all is the one who is great." [Luk 9:48 ESV].  Look at the progression:  receive a little child - receive Christ - receive God.  Least will be greatest.  How do these fit together at all???  I note that neither Christos or Theos appear in this sequence.  Jesus uses a personal pronoun for himself and calls the one who sent him "apostello".  I think "receives my sender" is what it means.  This comes right after the voice of God has identified Jesus as the Chosen One.  The Chosen One was sent.  God sent him since God chose him.  But I still don't see how to connect all this together.  And this "receiving" that we are to do?  Is that a natural consequence of salvation?  Because it is worded more like a precondition FOR salvation.

Ohhh!  Maybe we are indirectly still talking about the sheep and goat judgment.  Child is not literally child, but Jesus is using the child as a "visual aid" for what he is about to say.  This little child represents the children of God.  The child represents the saved.  At the sheep and goat, all those who gave a little child food or water gave Christ food and water.  How one treats Jesus' children is how you are treating Jesus, and by extension, how you are treating Jesus' father.  Jesus is a child just as the child on his lap is a child. 

This could be correct...but if it is, shouldn't we wonder why the premillennial sheep and goat judgment gets so very much attention here in this chapter???  After all, as I understand it, it concerns only the people living at the end of t/gt, and those will primarily be converted Jews and those who instead followed Antichrist through this 7 years.  Certainly important from an eschatological perspective, but is it a reason for the apostles to stop arguing about who is greatest?  Only if we assume that Jesus was operating under the assumption that the s&g judgment might well be in the lifetime of these apostles.  Is that a reasonable way to think of this???  It surely goes against my grain to think of it that way.  The rapture comes well before the S&G.  I won't be judged at the S&G.  So to whom is Jesus talking?  The MSB notes are very unsatisfactory here.

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

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

2022 - Vss 57-62.  Three people.  One said he'd go with Jesus, and Jesus says he has nowhere to go.  So this first one thought to "gain" materially by accompanying Jesus?  Note that this one asked to go.

The second one, Jesus tells to follow him, but this one makes an excuse.  He is "held" by the life he is living.  Some say he wanted to wait until he inherited materially the inheritance of his father.  He'd be more secure on the road with Jesus if he had a little bank account of his own to fall back on.

The third one it looks like asked to go with Jesus, but wanted to first provide long term support to his family.  This might take some time.  Again, the concern of the person was material first, and then to follow.  Jesus answer seems to say "Your commitment to me must be primary.  You cannot first take care of earthly business and then follow me.  That is unworthy of the kingdom".

Possible FB post.