Can God Be Killed

This is the Bible study page for the Thursday Night Bible Study Group meeting March 16 to study Luke 23:26-56 (or as far as we get through).  The parallels to this passage are Matthew 27:24-61, Mark 15:15-16:1, and John 19:16-42.  It might be helpful to use all four to help create the scene with all the elements.

Be sure to make notes about all the various details that jump out at you; questions, observations, and just plain odd things.  After you have your own notes, I encourage you to review a few commentaries on Luke.  As always, Blue Letter Bible has some, but anything else you can find in print will also be helpful.

After you've done your own study, go back through with the questions below:

• In Matthew, Mark, and John (19:1), the writers state that Jesus is scourged.  Luke leaves out this detail.  Why do you think Luke would leave that part out?
• Scourging is not described in any of the other three Gospels.  We tend to make much of it, but none of the Gospels give it more than a sentence, and Luke leaves it out entirely.  Why do you think we emphasize something they minimized?
• Matthew, Mark, and Luke mention Simon of Cyrene who carries the cross for Jesus.  In Mark, he is referred to as "the father of Alexander and Rufus".  Many think this signifies some familiarity with his family in the early church.  Why do you think this detail significant enough for these three to mention?
• The Catholic Church has Fourteen Stations of the Cross on this road to Golgotha.  Some are in Scripture and some are "legendary".  What do you think is the point of going over those "stations" for this church tradition?
• If you've never seen this attraction, you will enjoy this.  This link goes to the official website where you can read about this Texas roadside attraction in Groom, Texas, on I-40.  Why do you think someone would spend so much money on such an attraction?
• Luke leaves out what we think of as a lot of detail, but he includes Jesus and the "weeping women" in verses 27 through 31.  To what do you think Jesus is referring here? 
• If it's possible that Jesus predicts the destruction of Jerusalem now for a third time, what do you think this might have to do with Luke's purpose in writing his account of Jesus?
• Jesus is depicted as being crucified between two others.  In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, they are criminals.  In John, they are just two others.  What do you think is the importance of Jesus being between two other people, criminals or not? (Maybe Mark 15:28?)
• During the time Jesus is on the cross, it's agreed that the soldiers divided up His clothes by casting lots (see John's account though for more detail), and Jesus was mocked by pretty much everyone close at hand around the cross.  Why do you think this was such an important detail?
• In Matthew and Mark, both the others crucified with Jesus are joining in the mocking.  Luke has a different detail, where one does, but the other professes faith in Jesus.  Why do you think this didn't make it into the other three Gospels? (How does Luke know this?)
• There is darkness over the land for three hours in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.  And in all three, He dies after.  Imagine the scene:  A major solar eclipse, and as Jesus dies, the sun emerges from the other side of the moon; it's light out again.  What do you think is the significance to that?
• In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, a centurion professes a modicum of faith in Jesus when he sees how Jesus dies.  How do you think this detail made it into the three Gospel traditions?
• Only in Luke do we have the quote, "Into Your hands I commit My Spirit" as Jesus dies (Psalm 31:5). In Matthew and Mark, it's a quote from Psalm 22:1.  What do you think is the essential difference between those two quotes?
• In all four Gospels, we have followers of Jesus witnessing the crucifixion.  In Matthew and Mark, we have women specifically, and several named.  In Luke we have some including women, but no one is named.  In John we have a similar list, but also a whole discourse where Jesus commends His mother into the care of "the disciple whom Jesus loved".  What does this tell you about the source for the Gospel details about the crucifixion?  
• Only in John is Jesus' side pierced with a spear.  John as specific testimony that he witnessed this, and also what Scripture it fulfills.  Why do you think this never made it into the other Gospels?
• Joseph of Arimathea goes to Pilate to ask for the body in all four Gospels.  Why do you think this detail is so important to the Gospel writers?
• In John, Nicodemus joins Joseph in caring for Jesus' body.  What might this detail tell you about John and Nicodemus?
• John has a detail that the tomb was in a garden close to where Jesus was crucified.  The others include no such location clue.  But all agree it was a stone tomb, three agree that no one had ever used it.  What do you think it means that "no one had yet been laid in it"?  Who reuses a tomb?  (for a clue, go to the Blue Letter Bible, or Google, and look up an "ossuary box")
• There are witnesses (or a witness) to where Jesus is laid.  Consider the detail of Matthew 25:61. This obviously sets up the next chapter in every Gospel.  But what do you think is going through their minds?

This will probably take us several weeks, but at least we'll be ready for Easter!

Passing 'Round The Messiah

This is the Bible study page for the Thursday Night Bible Study Group meeting March 9 to study Luke 23:1-12.  It was going to be longer, but I think there's enough here to take up our time.

Read through the passage and the parallels in Matthew 27:1-14, Mark 15:1-5, and John 18:28-38.  Not all the Gospels share the same set of characters, sequence, or wording.  There's enough detail between them to get some sense of the event, including the chaotic feel of it.  Make notes and jot down questions as you go through.

After you have your notes and questions, go back through with some sort of commentary.  The more detail the commentary has the more they will deal with the discrepancies between the Gospels.  They're not critical to know and address, but can be helpful in getting a sense of what happened.

After you have your notes and questions, revised them with some commentary, go back through with the questions below:

• The Sanhedrin brings Jesus to Pilate.  Later on there is a stoning of Stephen, so they can execute someone in an unofficial sense and get away with it.  Why do you think they want the Romans to execute Jesus officially and publicly?  (for more food for thought here, consider John 18:32)
• In verse 2, the religious leaders accuse Jesus with different accusations than they arrived at in their council chambers.  Why do you think that might be?  Even so, are they "lying" to Pilate?
• Once Pilate says he finds no guilt in Jesus, the religious leaders then widen the accusations.  When Pilate hears Jesus was from Galilee he perceives a way out for himself.  Why do you think Herod happened to be in Jerusalem just then?
• Luke records (actually repeats from earlier in Luke 9) that Herod actually wanted to see Jesus.  But why do you think he was interested in Him?
• Herod gets nothing from Jesus.  At least Jesus spoke with Pilate, but to Herod He says nothing.  Why do you think that would be?
• Herod and his detachment of soldiers mock Jesus but also give Him an expensive robe.  Why do you think Herod would give Jesus such a thing?
• The Jewish leaders are accusing Jesus strongly as Jesus gives no answer to Herod.  What sort of effect do you imagine this is having on Herod?
• Herod sends Jesus back to Pilate.  Luke then makes the odd statement that Herod and Pilate became friends from that day on, and that before they had been enemies.  Why do you think this is in any way important to the account in Luke?  He leaves out so much other stuff, but this he includes.  Why do you think that might be?

 That will probably keep us busy for a few hours.  Remember to think through what all this says about Jesus and your relationship with Him.  What do you learn about that relationship from Jesus' treatment and response?

Denials and Trials

This is the Bible study page for the Thursday Night Bible Study Group meeting March 2 to study Luke 22:54-71.  This is both Peter's denial and Jesus' "trial" such as it is in Luke.  The parallel passages are Matthew 26:57-75, Mark 14:53-72, and John 18:13-27.  It will be helpful to read these others as there are details that are actually difficult to reconcile.

Read through the passage in Luke, and the parallels looking for the scenes in as much detail as you can imagine.  There are two scenes, one in the courtyard, and one in a big room in the house.  Put yourself right in the crowd in the courtyard.  What noises and voices do you hear?  What do you see?  What do you smell?  What are the people talking about?  Once you have the scene set in your mind, now read the text.

Now put yourself in the house with the religious leaders and guards.  What noises and voices do you hear there?  What do you see, what do you smell?  What are the people on the fringes of the crowd discussing?  Once you have the scene set in your mind, now read the text.

Jot down your observations, questions you have about what's in Luke or the parallel passages.  Think through the differences and see if any sort of reconciliation makes sense in your mind.  Re-imagine the scene again with the insight you've gained and see if anything changes.  Remember to ask why who says what.

Armed with those notes and questions, now go to commentaries.  The Matthew Henry Commentary on the Blue Letter Bible will be helpful here because it's so detailed.  Keep in mind that commentators have trouble with synchronizing the various Gospel accounts.  So, different commentators will take different approaches.  Of the variety of views you find, try and pick one, or combination of some, that make the most sense to you.  You won't be in danger of being wrong if you disagree with any of them (or me, or each other).

After you've done this work, go back through with the questions below:

• Peter follows the soldiers and officials who arrested Jesus at a distance, but then joins them at the courtyard fire.  Why do you think Peter would approach so close?  Why do you think none of the other disciples did?
• The accounts in the various Gospels disagree on almost every point surrounding Peter's denial except that there were three, and in the courtyard of the high priest.  Why do you think there was such variance in the accounts?
• The first accusation always seems to be a servant girl, either the one who let Peter in or one present.  Why do you think that might be an important point?
• The second accusation takes various forms from different people, and Peter's response is also different in each account.  How significant do you think these differences are in light of the point of the overall "denial scene"?
• The third denial in each Gospel seems to stem from Peter being from Galilee (his speech/accent gives him away).  While the exact details vary, the element of his being from the same region as Jesus seems the same.  Why do you think that might be significant, or significant enough to show up in the same order in each Gospel?
• In Luke, as Peter makes his third denial, Jesus looks straight at him.  This detail occurs only in Luke.  It may be hard to imagine how they could see each other, but why do you think this detail is important for Luke to include?
• Peter weeps over his failure in Matthew, Mark, and Luke; but John has nothing.  What do you think is going on in Peter's mind and heart?
• The trial of Jesus in Luke is very short, but when does the event take place in Luke?
• The beating of Jesus by the guards in Luke comes before He stands before the council, in the others, after they accuse Him.  How might this help you reconcile the timing of the three accounts of Matthew and Mark with Luke?
• As the guards blind and then beat Jesus, they ask Him to prophesy who hit Him.  This is supremely ironic for the readers/hearers of the first century because of how Luke arranges his account.  What irony do you see here?
• The council of elders, chief priests and scribes assemble and Jesus is brought to them.  They ask Him if He is the "Messiah".  What do you think they mean by that term?
• Jesus' answer to the council is really weird in Luke.  What do you think Jesus means by "...if I ask you a question you will not answer..."?  Read Luke 20:1-8 and see if that helps any (it may not - honestly nobody really knows)
• Look at how Jesus describes where He will be seated the next time they see Him.  In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus will be "...seated at the right hand of power...".  Luke adds, "of God", which is obvious, but look at the range of options for this word in the Strong's entry on the Blue Letter Bible.  This is supposed to be a quote from Psalm 110:1, but only the reference to "sitting to the right" is from there.  So, why do you think there is this common reference to "power" in each Gospel (except John)?  What do you think is the point of "power" to the early followers of Jesus?
• In Luke, Jesus is asked if He is the "Son of God".  How do you think the religious leaders made the leap from "seated at the right of 'power'" to Jesus being the "Son of God"?  Keep in mind that's not a normal understanding of the "Messiah" in Judaism.
• In each of the responses recorded in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus literally says, "You say that I am."  In a sense Jesus dodges the question, but still affirms the title.  Why do you think this might be important enough for each Gospel writer to record it exactly the same?
• This assertion, or affirmation, is all the religious leaders need to accuse Jesus.  Why do you think it was enough?  What is Jesus being accused of by the religious leaders?

That's plenty to keep us busy.  Remember to look for places where you learn about your relationship with Jesus.  Keep in mind, saying you'd never think or act that way isn't where you'll learn and grow the most.  Stretch yourself, and see where our Master might be trying to deepen your relationship with Him.

Blessings upon you all until we meet again!

Capturing God

This is the Bible study page for the Thursday Night Bible Study Group meeting February 23 to study Luke 22:39 through 53.  This is a smaller chunk, but I wanted to take the trial and denial in one sitting.  The parallels to this are in Matthew 26:36-56 and Mark 14:32-52.  But also read John 18:1-12.

If you have time to read this in various translations, you will some variety in word choice, but the essential meaning remains in each.  The passage breaks nicely into two parts, Jesus' prayer and arrest.  John only has the arrest, unless you count John 17 as the prayer in the Garden.  Most readers don't, because it's simply too different. 

Each Gospel writer emphasizes something different.  Focus on Luke's emphasis, but to do that, you'll need to at least see how he's different from the others.  If you have a "Harmony of the Gospels" you will find this task a lot easier.  The Blue Letter Bible site (not the app) has one if you don't.

Make sure to take good notes and questions as you go through the Gospel accounts.  After you have your own notes and questions, refer to commentaries you have available.  Revise your notes and questions as necessary.  After your own work go back through with the questions below:

• Gethsemane is supposed to be on the Mount of Olives.  But Luke isn't that precise.  The others are, so we know Jesus was in the Garden of Gethsemane.  Why do you think Luke would not include such a detail?
• In Luke 21:37, Luke includes the detail that Jesus "camped" out on the Mount of Olives rather than stay in some house in the city.  Since there were so many pilgrims in Jerusalem, this isn't odd.  But what does that also tell you of the "privacy level" of the Mount of Olives at this time?
• In the other Gospels, Peter, James, and John are singled out to follow Jesus deeper into the garden.  Why do you think Luke would leave out such a detail?
• In Luke Jesus instructs all the disciples to pray and in Matthew and Mark only tells the three to "keep watch".  Why do you think Luke is more inclusive and focus' on prayer here?
• In Matthew and Mark both, Jesus prays three times.  Luke has only once, but it's intense.  See if your favorite translation footnotes verse 43 and 44.  If they don't it's not important, but it's possible these verses were added later.  Why do you think that would be unlikely?
• Luke is the only Gospel writer to mention why the disciples were so tired.  What do you think Luke means by "...from sorrow"?  What do you think they are grieving?
• Luke has the crowd show up immediately while Jesus is telling them to pray to avoid temptation (repeating His earlier command).  What is interesting to you about Luke's crowd (v.47) as opposed to the other Gospels (including John)?
• Matthew and Mark explain the kiss of Judas, Luke says he tried to kiss but Jesus didn't let him, and John doesn't even mention any sort of attempt by Judas.  What do you think happened?
• Then there was sword play.  The servant has his ear cut off.  In Matthew and Mark someone does it.  In Luke someone does it but Jesus heals it.  And in John Peter does it to Malchus.  What do you do with the differences?
• In Matthew, Jesus tells them that to live by the sword one dies by the sword, and that He has legions of angels to fight if it were warranted.  In Mark, Jesus just moves on to address the "angry mob".  In Luke, Jesus simply says to stop it (then heals the man).  In John, Jesus addresses Peter telling him not to prevent this from happening (allusion to the Garden prayers in the other Gospels?).  So what do you think happened?
• Now, in verse 52, Luke has the make up of the crowd.  Matthew has a crowd from the chief priest and elders with swords and clubs.  Mark has a crowd with swords and clubs.  Luke finally mentions the make up but the chief priests and and officers of the temple are actually there.  And John continues to refer to the Roman soldiers, a detail missing from all the others.  Why do you think such details might have been difficult to sort out from this event?
• What Jesus says to the crowd is similar in Matthew, Mark, and Luke; but very different in John.  Luke has Jesus referring to "this hour and the power of darkness" which is missing from the others, and John has Jesus going out to them, and them literally falling down at His approach.  Again, why do you think these details might be difficult to sort out?
• Read verse 53 of Luke in a couple of translations.  At least use a King James and an NIV.  It's even better to have a New American Standard or English Standard Version with those.  Literally, the verse reads: "...but this is of you the hour and the power of darkness."  The pronoun "this" matches exactly with the objects "hour" and "power".  What do you think Jesus means by the "power of darkness" being of them?

That should keep us busy for the time we have.  Remember to consider this passage as it applies to you?  For instance, when have you ever tried to solve a problem God doesn't have (with a sword, screw driver, or sack of groceries)?  There are other points of application you can find.  Make sure those make it into your notes.

Of Cups, of Memories, and of Future Glory

This is the Bible study page for the Thursday Night Bible Study Group meeting February 9 to study as far as we get between Luke 22:14 through 38.  Chances are good that we won't get through the bread and cups (yes, cups).

Read this passage through several times.  The parallels in Matthew 26 and Mark 14 are also helpful.  John covers the same time frame in chapters 13 through 16.  It's possible the prayer of John 17 was also said in the upper room.  Reading at least John 13 is probably very helpful as well, since it explains some things missing in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Be sure as you read to make notes, especially questions.  If you have access to a book (large or small) about how the Passover goes, it will be helpful here.  A Bible handbook (big, thorough one) might have a succinct treatment of the Passover as well. Luke's sequence is not quite the same as the others, so pay attention to the differences.

The remainder through verse 38 of Luke are made up of small discourses.  The questions below will take them individually.  You may find it useful to consider them that way, but commentaries will differ in how they do that, if they even do.

After gaining your own notes and commentary examination, then go back through with the questions below:

• Luke uses the term "apostles" here instead of disciples.  Prior to this he uses "the Twelve" or disciples.  It's possible that he has a technical reason for this or is making some other point.  What reason do you think Luke has for referring to the twelve disciples of Jesus as "apostles" here?
• Luke begins Jesus' discourse with His looking forward to when they celebrate it again in the "final kingdom" of God.  Matthew and Mark both have it at the end.  Why do you think Luke would put that at the beginning?
• Luke has Jesus passing around a cup, having given thanks, before the bread.  There's some question about when, during a traditional Passover meal, this might happen, and exactly which of 4 cups of wine Jesus shares first (thanksgiving).  In any case, there are two cups before the "bread" and two after.  So why do you think Luke makes a point of including this first cup?
• There is some debate about whether the practice of the Passover in the first century used a 3-pocket bag for the unleavened bread.  But regardless, bread was broken in the course of the meal.  Jesus' use of this to refer to His physical suffering changes the meaning from what it was in the meal.  To what do you think Jesus refers with the bread, and why do you think it is so important for us to remember?
• Jesus then shares a cup, again of memorial.  This though, signifies something completely different.  The final two cups of wine in a more modern tradition are the cup of Elijah and the final cup.  Again debate exists as to which cup Jesus uses to signify His blood.  The practice in the first century could have been very different from what we have today.  But which one makes more sense to you, the cup of Elijah or the final cup? (you're going to need to do some research to get at the difference on this one)
• Jesus then reveals He is going to be betrayed.  What do you think it means when Jesus He is going where it has been determined but still "woe" on His betrayer?  Why, if it's determined (think, "necessary") is the one betraying Him in such trouble?  (this was brought up last week)
• Only Matthew has Judas asking Jesus if it's him (like everyone else asks, but this time to see whether Jesus really knew or not).  Jesus responds there with an enigmatic statement.  Considering that Jesus washes Judas' feet and Judas is part of the meal, what do you think Jesus is doing for Judas by including him in all of that?  
• As they were looking back, what do you think Jesus' treatment of Judas meant to the Twelve, you know, "upon reflection"? What can you tell from what they remember and relate about Jesus' treatment of Judas in the Gospels?
• The disciples begin to discuss among themselves who might be the one betraying Jesus, which makes sense.  But then their questioning breaks out into an argument about which one is the "greatest".  Imagine you're in the room with them.  What do you hear?  What are they saying, and how do they get from asking about the betrayer to asserting their own greatness?  What do you learn about yourself and human beings from this exercise?
• Only Luke has Jesus comments about greatness right here in the upper room discourse.  Although John 13 has something very similar here related to Jesus' washing of the disciple's feet.  How does John 13 help you with Jesus' statements recorded here in Luke?  
• Only Luke has Jesus next comment about the apostles sitting on thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.  But read verses 28 through 30 in several translations (Blue Letter Bible may help here).  Look particularly at how 29 is connected to 30.  So, what do you think?  Is Jesus promising the twelve a kingdom, just as He Himself has been appointed one by the Father?
• In verses 31, Jesus begins speaking to Peter about his denial.  Only Mark do we have this statement about satan requesting to "sift" him.  The way it's worded (and the context supports this), the implication is that God granted satan's request.  Why do you think God would do that?
• Jesus prays for Peter that his faith may not fail.  Considering Jesus' next comment about Peter's "return" what do you think Jesus means by praying for Peter's faith not to fail?
• Jesus seems to know what Peter will face, and yet still gives him a job to do afterwards.  He knows how it will go, but that does not disqualify Peter for service (at least not after he returns).  What does that tell you about Jesus' thoughts on qualifications for ministering?
• In the other Gospels, Peter claims his faithfulness in the Garden (Mount of Olives).  In Luke and John, they haven't left just yet.  How important is this detail to you?
• In Matthew and Mark, the other disciples claim faithfulness as well along with Peter.  This detail is missing from Luke and John.  Is it sort of assumed in the other two, or do you think there's some reason it didn't make it in?
• Read Matthew 26:34, Mark 14:30, Luke 22:34, and John 13:38.  How many times does the rooster crow before Peter denies Jesus?  Write that down.  Now read Mark 14:66 - 72.  Why do you think Mark would have such a precisely numbered detail?  (who was Mark's source again?)
• Only Luke has the detail about the twelve disciples/apostles now being "equipped" and Jesus contrasts that with when they were sent out as 12 and 72 taking no provisions.  Why do you think things are different now?
• Jesus tells them to sell a coat and buy a sword.  What do you think that is about?
• Jesus' explanation about the sword is because it has been foretold that He will be numbered (accounted) among "lawless" ones (outlaw?).  Why do you think that makes a sword necessary?
• The disciples already have two swords (for 12 men?), and Jesus says that's sufficient.  Why, if they are supposed to sell their coat and buy a sword, are 2 swords sufficient for 12 men?

 That's going to take us a while to get through, so get comfy!

Don't forget to look at what these things mean for your own walk with Jesus.  How does the Passover celebration and Jesus' changes reveal something of your relationship with Him, and His love for you?

And Jesus' dealing with Peter and the other disciples, how does that help you better understand your relationship with Jesus? 

Setting Up

This is the Bible study page for the Thursday Night Bible Study Group meeting February 2 to study Luke 22:1-13.  This passage sets up the betrayal of Jesus and the place where He will celebrate His "Last Supper".

This may be a familiar passage to you, so you will need to either read it in an unfamiliar translation or force yourself to read it slow.  Using a few translation will also help shake up your familiarity and provide insight into ranges of translation options.  Be sure to jot down your questions and insights.  Below is a question or problem I want you to work through before you use any commentaries:

For some insight on the timing of the Passover and Unleavened Bread, look up Deuteronomy 16:1-8.  That will explain somewhat about the timing.  Compare  Matthew 26 and Mark 14 with this passage, and see that the timing is pretty consistent.  Now look at John 13, there the timing is before the feast.  Consider again Deuteronomy 16.  If all the able Jews from all over the known world came to Jerusalem for a sacrifice, how could they all have their lambs sacrificed in a single evening?  How would you solve this dilemma?

Once you have some questions and observations of your own, go back through the passage with any commentaries you can find.  They will be somewhat helpful (although not all agree) on some of these details.  Once you've revised your questions and observations from commentary reading, go back through with the questions below:

• Even John (John 11:45-53) agrees that the religious leaders plotted to kill Jesus, but were afraid of a riot during the Passover/Unleavened Bread festival.  But John is clearer about why they wanted to avoid a riot.  Why do you think it was so important to the religious leaders not to upset the Romans?  Why do you think the "people" would be less concerned?
• That Satan enters Judas is supported by John as well (John 13:27), but the timing is different.  Yet in another place Jesus says about Judas (on the side) that he is a devil (John 6:70).  When do you think Satan was working in Judas, and what does the point about Satan entering him really mean for the writers?
• Matthew says the religious leaders gave Judas 30 pieces of silver, Mark and Luke don't mention a specific amount, and John has nothing about it at all.  What do you think is the point about the silver?
• Notice that the actions of Judas enable the religious leaders to consider getting rid of Jesus during the festival instead of waiting.  Why do you think this is important to the plan of God?
• The instructions for finding the room for the Passover preparations should sound a little familiar (Luke 19:29-35).  Mark has similar details (Mark 14:12-17), and Matthew has far fewer (Matt. 26:17-20).  So what do you think is the point of the Gospel writers in providing this detail about Jesus, that He has these arrangements somehow already made?

That should keep us busy for a while.  Be sure to bring your notes with you.  Also consider the character of Judas, and how he may give you insight into our own relationship with Jesus.  What strikes you as odd and what do you learn about yourself?

A Confusing Ending

This is the Bible study page for the Thursday Night Bible Study Group meeting (hopefully) January 26 to study Luke 21:5-38 (the end of the chapter).  This passage mostly parallels Matthew 24 and Mark 13, but the elements are similar not exactly alike.  It would be good to read those other two chapters along with Luke.

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?

That should more than consume our time together.  You can see we have plenty of stuff to discuss.  Be sure to use more detailed commentaries this time as study Bible notes simply won't be detailed enough but more general.

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?