I recommend trying to break down this passage into individual events; as small as possible. For instance verses 8 and 9 are about those coming falsely in His name. That would be one small event, and there are other references like that all through out. Once you have that breakdown, you can better compare with Matthew and Mark. Make notes and jot down questions as you go through the process. Here again, various translations will help.
Once you have your own notes and questions, then go through a commentary or two. For this passage, there may not be enough to use in a study Bible or one-volume commentary. I recommend something you can find on Blue Letter Bible or some other multi-volume commentary. Adjust your notes and questions accordingly. Once through your own study, go back through with the questions below:
- In Matthew and Mark the quality of the temple on which the disciple(s) comment seems to be the buildings, Mark has the "stones", but in Luke it's the "beautiful stones" and "gifts". What sort of "source" do you think might have been used by the three writers? Why a difference here?
- Jesus' response in each Gospel is almost exactly the same. In Jesus' comment, the stones are the material used to build. If the question is slightly different, but the answer is the same, what does this tell you about the "source" for all three Gospels?
- To whom is Jesus talking, Matthew and Luke have "the disciples" but Mark says, "Peter, James, John, and Andrew privately". Consider that Mark's source is thought to be Peter, why do you think there would be a difference here?
- The disciples ask Jesus "when these things will happen" in one way or another. What "things" do you think they are asking about?
- Jesus' intro in each account begins with "See that no one mislead you". What does this tell you about a consistent theme of the "end-times"? How often has this happened already?
- Many are misled/deceived by those claiming to be the Messiah. Why do you think that would be? What do you think would have to be true for that to happen to "many"?
- So false-messiahs and wars and news reels of war are not the end. So why do you think Jesus leads with this statement?
- Nation rising against nation, earthquakes, and famines all make up the next part. Luke adds "terrors and signs from heaven", but does not have the reference to "birth pangs". Why do you think he would make that change? What do you think is Luke's point?
- At this point the three Gospel accounts start to differ greatly and it gets somewhat confusing to try and connect them. Luke and Mark seem to be closest, but still have differences. In essence there may have been "editorial choices" about the order and element of Jesus' statements. But even it wasn't the issue, what do these differences tell you about this section of the Gospels?
- The next section in Luke is the legal persecution (v.12-19), but there are even smaller elements to be seen in this one. By looking at the other gospels, how many sections to do you divide this one into?
- Notice that much of the sayings in this section are actually distributed around Matthew (10:17-22), it's not just Luke who did that. So it's possible some of this material doesn't belong to this discourse at this time on the Mount of Olives. Why do you think that might be? Why do you think the gospel writers would have any such liberty with the material?
- Common features are the persecution is an opportunity for witness, the Holy Spirit will give the right words, family will betray family members, and endurance saves. What do these common factors tell you about the church and persecution?
- The destruction of Jerusalem is foretold in verses 20 to 24. The parallels in Matthew and Mark are Matt 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20. Luke's description differs in key points from Matthew and Mark. Matthew and Mark speak of a "great tribulation" in those days and Luke leaves that particular description out. He still refers to a persecution but it more on Jews than on the world at large. From Matthew and Mark what do you surmise about the timing of the destruction of Jerusalem? How is the timing different from Luke? Or is it?
- In Luke 25 through 28, Jesus describes His return. The parallels in Matthew and Mark are Matt 24:29 to 31 and Mark 13:24 to 27. Luke's description is less detailed, and has only one Scripture reference ("the Son of Man coming in a cloud" Dan. 7:13). What do you consider the point and timing of Matthew and Mark as opposed to Luke? What significant differences do you see?
- The next section I see (you may see more or less) is in verses 29 to 33. The parallels are in Matthew 24:32 to 36 and Mark 13:28 to 32. In all three Jesus says to watch for signs. Considering the vast and terrifying array of signs He's mentioned, to which of them do you think He refers right here?
- Read this small section carefully. Consider all that has gone before, and then the specific wording in all three Gospels. What do you think Jesus means by "...all these things..." that will take place before the generation passes? Just consider the plain surface meaning.
- Matthew and Mark both have this immediately following statement that 'no one knows the day or hour' which is missing in Luke. Why do you think, if they are to watch for signs, would Jesus then say no one knows the day or hour?
- This section is probably the single most problematic for commentators. What sorts of explanations were you able to find, and which explanation best fits the facts for you? How clear were those explanations from the text? Were they the "plain sense" or was there some grammatical/literary gymnastics necessary?
- The last section (for me) of this discourse in Luke is in verses 34 to 36. The parallels are Matthew 24:43 to 51 (includes a long parable of readiness) and Mark 13:33 to 37 (includes a short parable of readiness). Luke's description is simple and direct. Matthew and Mark are more involved with the parable and so on. How do you see the tone in Luke similar and yet different from Matthew and Mark? What does that tell you about how each writer was able to use the material slightly differently?
- Luke wraps up with a simple declaration of Jesus' week in Jerusalem. The other Gospels (including John) have a lot more detail on that week. Luke is heading to the crucifixion and doesn't waste a lot of time on the week. Why do you think that Luke is different here? What does that tell you about Luke's point of his Gospel and audience?
Two final questions: 1) when was the last time you heard a sermon or lesson on readiness for Jesus' return? 2) How ready are you for Him to return?
No comments:
Post a Comment