Ephesians chapter 6

vs 13

When is the day of evil? Is it the same as the day of the Lord? Or is it another time? Earlier, Paul said the days themselves were evil, so I am assuming this is an ongoing thing.

The purpose of this armour, overall, is to stand firm in Christ. That's worth remembering.

vs 14-17
There isn't a whole lot I can say about this list. I could do the typical sermon thing and explain why truth holds your pants up and righteousness is armour. I'm not sure how valid this is. Some make more sense than others. What I do know is true is that all of these things are of value to the Christian life, and useful in spiritual warfare. Truth, righteousness, readiness, faith, salvation and the Word of God (which I generally read as the gospel). Not what we would seek to fight a battle with, but I guess spiritual warfare is not what we would expect either.

vs 18

Prayer is another vital part of this mission. Not just prayer for yourself, but prayer for all of God's people. 'Be alert' may as well say 'keep informed about what the rest of the church is doing' so that you can pray for them.

vs 19

Paul in particular wants prayer for words. I think sometimes I just assume the words I am using are right - rather than relying on God to provide them like he provides everything else.

vs 20

Paul does not even think that his fearlessness comes from himself, but indeed he also wants prayer that he can continue in that frame of mind.

vs 21

And what a loss to us not to have his words. But it does show that, though what we have is valuable, the 1st century church did have access to word of mouth information that we don't.

vs 22

I assume he was carrying this letter. Introducing the letter bearer is a not uncommon thing in the ancient world.

vs 23

The TNIV adds sisters. Which makes me realise just how much I value functionally equivalent translations.

vs 24

Let's hope we all do.

Ephesians chapter 6

vs 1

Extending the idea of a family and how to treat each other within that family, we have children obeying their parents. What is interesting is that Paul doesn't go outside a 'nuclear' family.

vs 2-3

Paul now backs it up with some OT quoting. It is an interesting point, about this being a commandment with a promise for a good life. I wonder why God sees the need for that promise to be there.

vs 4

I find this really cutting edge for the time period. I mean, children's rights are right here. That they are even mentioned in such a caring manner is pretty incredible to me.

vs 5

The slave/master relationship is a fairly complex one for us to understand, when we don't have it in our culture. The simple existence of this in the letter shows that slaves made up at least part of the early church in Ephesus.

vs 6

What this, and all the other commands in this section, really emphasise is the need for Christians to model Christ in their relationships, and to have Christ in the centre of your mind when doing everything.

vs 7-8

I just think it's worth noting that Paul extends this principle to all people, not just slaves. So a good work ethic is actually part of everyone's responsibility to Christ, not just workers.

vs 9

We all serve the same master, and as such are all slaves to him. You remember what happened in Jesus' story where one minion fights with another minion over owed money? Not good. Unfortunately, I think the religious right wing of Christianity has been so infected by the need for employer's rights that they have forgotten about the fact that employees are actually not as well off. Of course, in a perfect world, the workers would work hard, and the employers would give them what they deserve and treat them fairly - pretty obvious we don't live there, isn't it?

vs 10

How many different ways can you say strong?

vs 11

It has been a little bit of an undercurrent throughout the book, but Paul makes clear here that the Christian will combat forces of spiritual evil. And for that, you need spiritual defense and offense.

vs 12

The heavenly realms, remember, is not heaven - it is a description of the spiritual plane, where evil also exists. This is the plane on which humans are powerless. I mean, we can't even see it! Which is why we need to rely on God and his power to help us in our battles there. That in itself shows us how important the spiritual realm is - that it forces us into needing God utterly.

Ephesians chapter 5

vs 23

For all I could say about this verse, I would like to point out that Paul doesn't fall back on creation principles here, but on the principle of Christ's headship. It doesn't make the conclusion any different, but it might make other assumptions different.

vs 24

Marriage then becomes less a picture of creation (and more regularly the fall, with one in dominance over the other), and more a picture of Christ's sacrificial love (with one in submission to the other). Again - same result, but different reason.

vs 25

People say that this is the harder command - I say baloney. So much easier to love your wife than to submit to someone else. We husbands are called to submit anyway (don't forget verse 21), but loving your wife as Christ loved the church is still not as big a difficulty I think.

vs 26

This verse does indicate a form of spiritual responsibility for the growth and maturity of your wife.

vs 27

Remember, this is a picture of what Christ did for Christians, and as such husbands aren't going to be able to do it as well as Christ did. But the purpose is still important. It doesn't mean preaching sermons to your wife, at least in my opinion, but it does mean encouraging her to go to BSF or KYB or similar, and looking after children while she does so if necessary.

vs 28-29

Paul here is agreeing with me - how hard is it to look after our own bodies? Well, that's what it should be like looking after a wife.

And Christ sees his own responsibility for the church - to feed it and take care of it.

vs 30

Again, the unity of the church is paramount here. Paul can't escape from its importance even while teaching about marriage.

vs 31

Well known verse from Genesis.

vs 32

This is a profound mystery indeed! Understand what Paul is doing here. He is not saying that the more recent is an allegory of a past truth, but instead is saying that the past state is a reflection of an eternal truth!

Remember that marriage is not an eternal union (according to Jesus), but Christ's unity with the church is eternal. It is the eternal which is the truth, and the temporary which is the picture.

vs 33

But Paul hastens to add that even though marriage is temporary it is still in existence, so make sure you both respect your respective sides of the bargain.

Ephesians chapter 5

vs 12

Are we seriously not meant to discuss the shameful things that are done in secret by the disobedient? I mean, this would be a good enough definition for Paul's earlier command to not discuss obscene things, but it seems untenable, dare I say impossible? The weak response may be to say that Paul's being hyperbolic, but in this sentence, just taken on itself, I would almost lean in that direction.

vs 13

Ok, so now go back and read 11, 12 and 13 together. So rather than making the deeds of the shameful a topic of dinner discussion, go and shine the light of Christ in the darkness, and these deeds will come to light. When Paul says that anything illuminated becomes a light (TNIV), I don't think he's saying that because you go and expose dark deeds, that those doing them will suddenly become Christians and sing for joy. That might happen. I think instead Paul means that anything that light shines on becomes visible (NIV).

Again the biblegateway NIV has an incorrect verse numbering.

vs 14

This must be some sort of Christian song, because it's not from a psalm or anything. It's kinda cool to see into their culture a bit through that. It is talking about Christ's light shining on those that are dead, and the dead coming to life in Christ.

vs 15

Wisdom, knowledge and understanding have formed such a large part of this book.

vs 16

The very time the Ephesians lived in was evil. Is our time any more evil? Or any less evil? Probably about the same. Perhaps a little less, for us anyway, because we won't have people stringing us up for being Christians. But others in our world do suffer that.

Paul's response to these evil days is to see them as an opportunity to do as much of God's work as we can.

vs 17

There's a dichotomy for you. But it's very Proverb-ial - the Proverbs basically define wisdom as knowing God's will, and foolishness as not.

vs 18

I don't know if that had the same play on words that it does now.

vs 19

Instead of singing drunken anthems on the way home from the pub, which I am sure happened back then as much as it does now.

vs 20

Thanksgiving is another large part of this book.

vs 21

Submission therefore goes both ways, and this verse crowns the next section on how Christians deal with one another in specific relationships.

vs 22

I've heard sermons where the preacher has said "Big deal! The men have a much harder job". Let's just perpetuate a maleocentric view, eh? The fact is that the verse just before this one tells everyone to submit to everyone else. So this is just an opening statement to wives. It's not an easy thing. But obviously, at least in Ephesus, there was a problem with this, or else Paul wouldn't need to bring it up. It might have just been a cultural problem where people thought the Christians were weird because their wives had so much freedom. Or it could just be that everyone wasn't living quite the way they should be, and so Paul writes something to each group so as to specifically include everyone.

Ephesians chapter 5

vs 1

Imitating God, or following his example, would be pretty much impossible without his incarnation. How can humans follow the example of a God in heaven?

vs 2

The primary example we should follow is Christ's sacrificial love. However, we're not to give up our lives necessarily, but instead live them out for the same purpose.

vs 3

Not even a hint! Not a whisper. These first three things seem to be focused on activity.

vs 4

These next three seem to be focused on how we speak. The NASB calls it 'silly talk' which just sounds funny.

But what do these things really mean? It's important, because we do a lot of talking. Does obscenity mean you can't talk about gynecology? Does foolish talk mean we're not allowed to go "gibber gabby googoo" at babies? Does coarse joking mean we aren't allowed to use sarcasm?

These terms obviously have meanings, so we can't discount them. But is it possible that they have to be read in a bit of a cultural context? If so, how do we choose how to read these in relation to our context? If we follow the norms of our context, then we won't be any different. If we choose the norms of 30 years ago, then aren't we just championing a different cultural context (a historical one)? Of course, if we judge it personally by what we feel, then we'll get into arguments.

vs 5

We can see the obvious repetition of verse 3 here. Paul also draws a string between greed [or coveting in the NASB] and idolatry. This isn't the only time, either. And that has major implications for a society that has almost championed greed.

vs 6

If we think about the parallel between vs 3&5, there might be a similar one between 4&6. I don't know about that for sure, but it is interesting that this one seems to be talking about empty words. So is it possible that the main problem with the types of speech in vs 4 is that they are 'empty', that is, they deceive people because of their lack of truth? That might help a little, but it still seems to spell the death penalty for jokes and sarcasm.

vs 7

The root word for what is translated as partner here is used in Luke 5:7 to describe their fishing partners. So I guess it means like a business partner, however in Ephesians it also has a preposition thing which denotes union. The word used in Ephesians isn't used anywhere else, by the way.

vs 8

Paul goes one step further than normal here - instead of the Ephesians being "in darkness" or "in light", he just calls them straight out darkness and light. Which makes it sound much more spiritually bound to who they are as people, in my opinion.

vs 9

If you have any queries about what it means to live in the light, Paul gives an excellent summary here.

vs 10

Find out! There is a searching here, a learning, a process. Christians don't just know. We have to work at it, learning what God's will is. It's not that God's will is necessarily progressive or changing, but instead that every generation has to discover it.

vs 11

Wow. Does he really mean that? That makes Christians sound like 1930's pulp detectives. "$20 a week, plus expenses" and we go and expose who the bad guys are. Awesome.

The reality is, of course, that the prophets expected Israel to do this. It means pointing out the iniquity and injustice that people do, and defending the cause of those who are defenceless. Christians should be doing this all the time. But sadly, we are afraid of doing it, because then the rich, powerful unjust people hate us. And they are bad enemies to have. Lucky we've got God on our side, eh? But we don't often think like that.

Ephesians chapter 4

vs 22

Here is what Paul taught the Ephesians about how to live their lives - the first step was to remove the old self, which he saw as corrupted by sinful desires. So sinful desire is the first thing that needs to be dealt with. And to deal with it, you must remove it completely.

Of course, that's now how it happens, but that's what is taught. Thoroughly ideological, but it's good to have something to strive for.

vs 23

I think this, in the context of the last verse, is not a new command, but a reiteration of the previous one. Removing sinful desires is not entirely intellectual or mind-based, but Paul now focuses on the mind as one of the places where this purge must take place. He words it positively, though, to show that this purge is not nihilistic, but it replaces one thing with another. A new mind.

vs 24

Like I said, sinful desires aren't entirely mind-based. They aren't entirely body-based either - I think there are spiritual problems, environmental problems, and perhaps others. Paul doesn't use the turn body, exactly - he uses the term 'self' which is probably far more inclusive. Think of all the things that make up who you are. Environment, history, physical appearance, lots of things make up who you are. Paul is showing, however, that God has control even over our self, and has prepared for us new selfs, which we should accept.

Our self, that which makes us who we are, is quite often one of the things we are least likely to want to give up, because we think it is one of the things we have that is truly ours. The truth, of course, is that it's not really all that much ours, because so many factors outside us make us who we are. We couldn't control our birth parents, social situation, nationality, hair colour, gender, height and lots of things. So in that case, it's comforting to know that God controls it anyway. And that because of him, we can be righteous and holy.

vs 25

You would think that truthful speech in a church would be one of the easier things to deal with - not so! Because truthful speech is not just a lack of 'saying something that isn't true', but it is also 'saying things which are true'. Saying nothing is not speaking truthfully.

vs 26

The verse from the psalms, and Paul's comment, both assume anger, but expect a control of anger. Why are they angry - perhaps because people have started speaking truthfully?

vs 27

Anger can give the devil a foothold, that's for sure. But I think that failing to speak the truth in love does more damage than anger by far. That's my personal opinion. In some cultures, I know that quite often their culture demonises anger so much that it becomes more damaging.

vs 28

Christians... stealing! I think we've got some idea of the rawness of some of the people in the church. But then, I think if we looked into our own lives, or our own churches, we would see a lot of things where we would say "Christians... !". Unfortunately, I think churches have lost the power to say to people "you mustn't do thing X anymore" for so many things. Of course, in a way I think that's good, because in the past thing X has been so subjective that we ended up banning TV, movies, dancing, musical instruments, overhead projectors...

vs 29

So it's not "if you don't have anything nice, don't say anything at all", it's "if you don't have anything helpful for building others up, don't say anything at all". Good luck with this one. I know I speak a whole lot of crap.

vs 30

... How am I meant to know how to not grieve the Holy Spirit without you telling me, Paul! Is this really a sentence on its own? Every translation I read says it is. The NASB makes it pointedly clear by not even including 'and' at the beginning. Sometimes I find verses like this scary, because it is really quite hard to know what it means. Some people will respond by saying that you have to read other parts of the NT to understand this verse - just tell me which parts the Ephesians had, and I'll be happy.

vs 31

Is this how we go about not grieving the Holy Spirit perhaps? It does seem contextual.

vs 32

Our compassion and forgiveness comes not from ourselves, but from Christ. We've always got to remember that.

Ephesians chapter 4

vs 11

Wow, now there's quite a difference between the T and the NIV. The NIV says what we are all used to, that Christ gave some 'to be' these different roles. But the TNIV says that Christ gave these things. Which makes it sound a lot more past tense - as if there are not prophets, pr apostles, or teachers or evangelists, but they were only given at a certain time. Which is obviously not true. And that is not what it is saying, I don't think - it just sounds like that.

vs 12

But what it does do is change the emphasis of 'equip' here from 'the gifts' to 'those gifted'. So instead of Christ preparing people with gifts (NIV), Christ now uses those with gifts to equip the church. Perhaps it's not so big a deal as I'm making out - either Christ gave the gifts or those gifted for the sake of the church and it being built up. I do think, though, that the TNIV translation does lend credence to the idea that some gifts have disappeared, because it is person-centred rather than gift-centred.

vs 13

And again, Paul talks of the aim of unity. This time, I think, he is talking about a future thing, possibly an eschatalogical thing. Because the unity he talks about can't really happen on earth. I don't think the church is going to reach the whole measure of the fullness of Christ while on earth. However, it does show that the church is meant to be building up and getting better over time, not weaker and more fractured.

vs 14

This ocean metaphor shows the opinion of ancient people to the sea - it was a chaotic and nasty place. And here it is used as a metaphor for deceptive and false teaching. If I am right, and Paul's last verse is eschatalogical, then we have to assume that the church is always going to be blown around a bit by false teaching until the end times. That's kind of a shame, but it also should be good for us to remember - that we'll never get it 100% right while we're on earth.

vs 15

Ok, to keep my eschatalogical reading here, we need to read this verse as saying that we must continue to speak the truth in love now, so that we grow up into Christ. I think that's fair - we will all become one in Christ Jesus. And yes, we are already there in a sense, but I don't think we can say that we have reached that final destination. Speaking the truth in love, then is our way of combatting the deception of false teaching.

vs 16

So the church now is joined together, it is meant to work together, and it is meant to grow. And it does all these things in Christ. Eventually, it will grow up into fullness so that it is entirely Christ-like. That's the goal.

vs 17

Wow, that's a bold and challenging statement. What does it mean exactly? I think Paul is going to elucidate, but remember that he has stated this broad claim on the life of the Christian church.

vs 18

Nasty verse. It is interesting that all the things that Paul lists - the darkened understanding (dim might be a better word), separate from life in God, ignorant - all of that stems from a hardness of heart. Remember that. Non-Christians aren't non-Christians because of a lack of knowledge. It's not a matter of 'just teach them the gospel, and they will believe'. Baloney. They are hard of heart. And no amount of gospelising will change that. Hard heart = ignorance, not the other way around.

vs 19

Another interesting verse. It is the lack of spiritual sensitivity (the heart being the organ of the spirit) which leads people to indulge in godless passtimes and activities. So when Christians continue in these actions (remember, that is what Paul is actually writing about here), it shows a hardness of heart towards God. A lack of love for God. Ouch - that hurts for all of us who have been or are involved in activities that we know we shouldn't be.

vs 20

That life, the pagan life, is not reflective of the Christian life, which the Ephesians have learned (we assume from Paul). I just want to interject on this short verse and make the point that Paul was teaching not just theology, but a Christian life. I wonder if we, as a church, should be teaching more 'life'?

vs 21

To Paul, teaching about Christ included teaching about life and how to live it. Now this sort of thing is a bit sketchy - I know that some people might thing you've joined a cult if your church told you how to dress and behave. But I think we should be able to maintain a lifestyle plurality without losing the ability to speak into people's lives and actions.

Regardless of plurality or not, though, speaking into the way people live their lives is painful. Making a statement about some truth is one thing - telling people that they should change the way they do something is different. Perhaps that was the problem my old church had with my 'reading the Bible' sermon - because I was telling people to change how they did something?

Ephesians chapter 4

vs 1



Paul obviously thinks that he, in being incarcerated for Christ, has been living a pretty worthwhile life for Christ. I don't think he's calling for them to all go get imprisoned, but he is calling on them to have the right focus.



vs 2



The challenges for Paul in his ministry are probably not exactly the same as the things he is elucidating for the Ephesians. Already we've had a little bit of hint that what they needed to hear about was unity regarding jew and gentile in Christ. Look at the things that Paul is telling them to do to live that life worthy of Christ. It's basically telling them to get along.

vs 3

I've got to admit that these things can be a challenge, especially when there are real issues of concern that are important. But it's during those times that it's all the more important to be at peace with each other.

vs 4

One body - the body of Christ. One Spirit - the Holy spirit. And one hope - which is hope in Jesus as Lord.

vs 5

Just think about how many times Paul is using the word 'one' here. His message is so obviously about unity, which should tell us that the Ephesians were suffering a bit from lack of it.

vs 6

Although God might be diverse in his triune aspect, he is still united in his monotheistic aspect. God is three in one. Not just three, and not just one. But both.

vs 7

It's funny, because I don't often think about grace as being a commodity. I think of it rather as a conceptual thing that just flows out of God endlessly. And yet Paul uses this language regularly. God's not a spendthrift, per se, but he gives us what we need.

vs 8

Oh, is that why it says that in Psalm 68? Of course! I guess I wouldn't have read it that way without Paul explaining it. And I wouldn't suggest we normally do such weird exegesis, but hey, Paul's allowed. It might be that this is following the lines of some sort of rabbinical rules for exegesis. I don't know.

vs 9

O....k.... My brain wants to read this in a logical way and say that Jesus can only have ascended to heaven if he first descended to earth from heaven. That reading seems to make sense to me. But I think there are some others who would read this as meaning that Jesus descended into hell. Not sure if this is the passage they use. They could well also use the passage in 1 Peter about preaching to the demons. My jury is out on this one.

vs 10

Apart from establishing Christ's supremacy over all creation, this verse again stresses the 'filling' role of God, which is a way of describing God's sufficiency, and possibly also his role in maintaining creation. It's God that makes it all tick, if you like. What that has to do with Christ coming to earth (or going to hell) is beyond me though.

Ephesians chapter 3

vs 12

It's worth noting that the NASB and KVJ divide the sentences differently to the NIV and TNIV, which have vs 11 as the beginning of a new sentence including vs 12. This seems to happen a lot in Ephesians.

I've got to say I think the T/NIV reads a lot more easily. And so we end up with this complete idea contained in vs 12, which states that it is only because of Christ that we can approach God, and that in a free and confident way. It's a little more technical too - we have to be 'in Christ', and have faith in Christ too.

vs 13

This links back to the ideas expressed in vs 7-10ish, indicating that since Paul is a servant of God, and since everything is unfolding as part of God's big plan, that they should not be upset about Paul suffering, but instead realise soberly that without it, the Ephesians would never have had God's glory.

vs 14

Obviously in submission (from the previous verses), but also from later verses this seems to be a prayer position too.

vs 15

I've got to say that the note in the TNIV is hugely useful in pointing out that the word for family has a root in the greek word for Father, so you can see that Paul is making a wordplay here. I'm guessing family in heaven is a reference to the trinity? But it could also relate to ancestral families that have since passed on - I don't know if angels have families.

vs 16

God has so much wealth of different kinds at his disposal, that whenever he does something, he does it out of an incredible surplus. So we can always expect him to be generous. Paul certainly seems to expect that. But of course Paul shows openly that he expecting a richness that blesses the 'inner being', rather than the outer wallet.

vs 17

It is through such blessing, then, that Christ dwells in us. And so in a few short verses Paul has again mentioned Christ living in us, and us living in Christ. This process happens by faith, not by any other way. And now Paul's prayer continues, having established this first step, which will provide a foundation in love...

vs 18

So love comes first, then power. But it is not just power for the sake of power, it is power which enables us to better understand love - the love of Christ!

vs 19

Because knowing this love (not just knowing about it, because it surpasses knowledge) is knowing everything about God. All the fullness of God is there contained.

vs 20

I must say my own prayers rarely contain these cool little benedictions. Or doxologies. I can't remember which is which. Basically this one states that no matter how much Paul asks for, God is able to do immeasurably more. You notice then that this is the second time that Paul has had the expectation that God gives generously and overflowingly.

vs 21

And if God does act in such a way, he certainly does deserve glory - and when it says "in the church and in Christ" I think it means because of the church and because of Christ. I guess it could mean that he should be glorified inside the church and inside Christ. I think that's less likely personally.

Ephesians chapter 3

vs 1

I think the most obvious 'reason' that Paul is hearkening back to is his most immediate point - that of the unity of Jew and gentile in the new humanity of Christ. That's probably the only reason he can explain why a Jew would suffer imprisonment for the sake of gentiles.

This verse really is weird, as if he's almost starting a new letter.

vs 2

So God gave his grace to Paul in such a way that it was for the Ephesians! And apparently, they should know about this.

vs 3

Thankfully for us who don't know about it, Paul goes a little deeper, and explains that it was by revelation. He says he has already written briefly about it - either in another letter (which we either don't have or is one of the other church letters) or it is written about previously in this letter, in which is was rather vague and we've hopefully already soaked in the meaning, because this is really the first time we've read about such a revelation.

vs 4

Again with the mystery. And he refers to reading this, which makes me think that the previous reference to written was earlier in the book. The excitement!

But note also that Paul is seeking not to protect the mystery or to gain some sort of authority by it, in a gnostic way. He is trying to break it open so everyone can understand it, and thereby be encouraged by it.

vs 5

The suspense is killing me. Apparently it has killed generations of God-fearing people before Paul! How much do we really realise what a blessed time we live in - where the Spirit is freely available to God's people, where we have so much more truth so much more freely available and understandable? Thank God for that today.

vs 6

Ok, so what's the big mystery? Oh, it's only that gentiles and jews together are God's people because of Jesus. It doesn't sound like a big deal to us. So what? We're all gentiles anyway. But the fact is that, since almost the beginning of history, God has chosen to form a relationship almost exclusively with one group of people. Yes, they were to be priests and examples to the nations, but it was a second-hand message. As a gentile, you had to go to Israel, and they had to be your priest, your mediator, between you and God. What has been offered now is a direct connection between Gentiles and God. It's groundbreaking!

vs 7

Can you be any more vague? We always want to know how these things worked. Did lightning hit you? Did you say "By the power of greyskull"? We do know, in fact, that Paul saw a vision and was struck blind, but we assume that more happened to him that is not recorded.

All this is beside the point because, for Paul, the important things are that through God's power, he received God's grace.

vs 8

Probably he feels like the least of God's people for that little indescretion earlier in his life, in that he tried to wipe out the Christian church. But that to him just makes it all the more gracious of God to give him such an awesome ministry in bringing those from outside God's covenant into his new and better covenant.

vs 9

He also has been given the ministry of making it clear to everyone that this is indeed the right thing to do. So not only is he a missionary, as it were, but he also has the job of mission mobiliser and missiologist. So he reaches people, he teaches the theology of God's mission, and he encourages others to get out there and do it to because, after all, it is God's will.

vs 10-11

Errrr, what now? Does this mean that God is teaching the angels or something a lesson through the church? I guess it does. Does this mean Satan? It could do. And if you think about it that way, it actually sort of makes sense. Satan, the great accuser, comes to God and complains about how all these people are sinners, and so God can't love them, he's got to punish them. And why did God go and create all these non-jews if he's only going to be in relationship with the jews? But God can point to the church and say "Hey, look, my Son died for all that, this is the fulfilment of my awesome historical plan. See how perfect my plan was?" And so Satan gets schooled by God yet again.

Hey, I said sort of.

Ephesians chapter 2

vs 12

So because we were Gentiles, we were hopeless and godless. Ouch. It could be argued that this had less to do with us being gentiles, and more to do with the fact that the Jews weren't keen on reaching gentiles with God's message. Then again, Paul might say that gentiles were excluded from the promises of God until Jesus came, I don't know.

vs 13

He certainly seems to see Christ as the key here. One thing Paul certainly would say, and seems to be saying, is that you couldn't know God and stay as a gentile before now.

vs 14

I think 'the two' are Jews and gentiles. He sees there being a divide, a war between us before Christ.

vs 15

It's so weird to think that Paul is happy stating that the separating element of humanity was "jew" and "non-jew"! That's so now how we think these days. Well, certainly not how I think. The TNIV uses "humanity" instead of "man", which I think is awesome.

This is an interesting focus, though, isn't it? Gives a little insight into the world of the Ephesian church.

vs 16

Not that the division of humanity was not "close to God" and "far away from God" - both jews and non-jews needed Christ's salvation just as much.

vs 17

Jesus didn't actually preach anything in Ephesus. Too far away I guess. But that's not what Paul is saying - he's saying that he preached peace for the sake of those close (jews) and those far away (everyone else).

And this included even the Ephesians.

vs 18

You can't divide God between jews and gentiles. Are you getting sick of the jew/gentile thing yet? I know it's not mega relevant to our lives in Australia. At least, not directly. But knowing that the one God can't be divided among many peoples or cultures is important.

vs 19

Christ's work created a new people, by taking his existing people (Jews, or "God's people" as Paul puts it here) and adding to them gentiles as well. This talk of citizenship is hugely important. It makes God's Kingdom a nation on its own. It redraws the boundaries of God's kingdom from Israel + proselytes vs Gentiles, to Christians vs non-Christians. Not vs in a warlike sense, merely in a dichotomous sense.

vs 20

Does Paul mean the OT prophets, or prophets of his time? I don't know. I would have read it as OT prophets, which creates an interesting idea - that Paul takes the Prophetic summary of the OT as that which primarily relates to the NT gentile Christians, over and above the Law summary of the OT.

Note the importance that the Apostles are accorded here, then - on line with the Prophets. Between the two of them, they are the foundation of the church.

And then, of course, Christ is the head. Or corner.

vs 21

This is the Church, remember, not individual Christians. And not just the Ephesian church, but the Christian Church in its entirety.

vs 22

Still the church, although this time I think Paul is talking specifically to the Ephesians. What a great verse for emphasising the importance of the Church global, but also that the church local has in itself a sort of unshakeable unity. That's one of those Christian mysteries that gets left behind after the trinity and predestination.

Ephesians chapter 2

vs 1

I'm not quite sure where the KJV gets 'quickened' from, or even what it means! Anyway, the rest of the verse is simple enough - although the Ephesians weren't all physically dead, they were spiritually dead, and were headed for both a physical death and a more serious permenant existential death. And that because of sin and transgression. Note the difference - transgression is like crossing a line, so doing something you shouldn't do. Breaking laws and such. Sin is not that. Both are involved in Ephesus.

vs 2

Ok, Paul is setting up not only the ways of the world as part of the problem, but also another ruler, a siritual ruler, who is working in those who are disobedient. Two enemies, the world and the evil spiritual ruler. Both used to be at work in the Ephesians lives.

vs 3

Paul now expands the idea to everyone, at all times. Including himself. Two things mainly - one that we allow the cravings of the sinful nature to be what guides us, and two that we are therefore objects of God's wrath.

vs 4

God loves us, and is great in mercy. This verse is only the opening of a sentence, but already tells us so much.

vs 5

Our life in Christ comes even while still dead in transgressions. Paul adds to this, for emphasis that this is grace - God giving us this favour for nothing we have done.

vs 6

We were dead, but we have been raised? Or is it that Christ ascended up, and we have been raised up with him, seated in the heavenly realms? The second one seems more in context. It's also a contrast between the evil ruler of the air, and Christ, enthroned over all the heavenly realms.

vs 7

God has raised us up so that his grace might be fully expressed in all its value. It's not just the lack of punishment for sins, but also the calling upward to heaven, that makes God's grace so complete.

vs 8

Even our faith is a gift! Salvation by grace and grace alone is what Paul teaches. Although we have value in God's sight and he loves us, we don't do or accomplish anything that causes our salvation. It's all God.

vs 9

As if the previous verse wasn't enough, this is just added on, so that in the negative you can see not only that it's not by work, but also the reason - to prevent boasting.

vs 10

He follows straight up, though, to point out where good works fit into the Christian life. They are a response to God's grace, they are an elected position through God's grace.

vs 11

Paul is starting on a new idea. He wants these Ephesians to remember something. First, though, he wants to clarify that this is in the context of them currently being called "uncircumcised" by people who call themselves "circumcision" - that is, by people who are into cutting off bits of penis.

Ephesians chapter 1

vs 12

So it is that we have been chosen to put our hope in Christ so that God might be glorified.

vs 13

Now here's some weirdness. Paul has been using the term 'we' up until this point, and you think he's being inclusive - him and the Ephesians. But now he says "you also"! I didn't see that coming.

So who was the we? The Apostles? Paul and Barnabas? Or Paul and Silas? He doesn't really make it clear. Regardless, it does include the Ephesians now. And now he focuses on them more, putting stuff in their name, including the Holy Spirit, which he describes as a seal.

vs 14

This featured large in my sermon on adoption - the Holy Spirit is referred to lots as the guarantee which marks us as heirs of God. It's also a down-payment on our redemption. So we are owned by God, but are also his heirs. It's important to note that Paul wants the Ephesians to be aware that there is a time coming when the possession will be redeemed in a final sort of way, and that is all part of God's glory.

vs 15

Ephesus's church obviously had a fairly good rap.

vs 16

Paul's a pray-er. This is meant to be an encouraging thought for them.

vs 17

His thanksgiving prayers don't just end at thanksgiving, though. They then go on to ask for things on behalf of the Ephesians too. Now look here - if I told you that I was praying God would give you a spirit of wisdom and revelation so that you could know him better, would you be offended? If I phrased it the way Paul does, probably not, but my point is that Paul is telling them that they're being prayed for, and what he's praying for them.

vs 18

This one might sound a little more insulting - I'm praying you might know what it is you believe (don't I already?) - but in the context of knowing the treasures of the inheritance, it's probably not so bad. I guess you could interpret 'knowing the riches' as having them.

vs 19

Ok, verse guy, you screwed up in Ephesians. Every single verse is smack bang half way between two sentences, and it's driving me nuts.

Knowing God's power I guess is like knowing his riches - that you get the benefit of it too. The TNIV does well in retranslating 'like' to 'is the same as', so we know that God's 'power' and 'strength' are in fact the same thing.

vs 20

The idea being, then, that Paul wants the Ephesians to know God's power, that is, the same power God used to raise Christ. Which is awesome power.

vs 21

But God didn't stop at resurrecting Jesus - he placed him at the top, above all other powers, particularly spiritual ones in this case. I say that because of the 'heavenly realms' reference in the previous verse, and because it just seems to be what he's talking about. It's the vibe.

vs 22

Why did God do this? Not just for Christ, but for the church! Incredible thought.

vs 23

The reason he did it for the church, though, is that the church is Christ's body, so he did it for the church in that the church is essentially Christ.

What does this thing about fullness filling everything in every way mean? I don't know. I'm open to suggestion here.

Ephesians chapter 1

Luke
Philippians
2 Corinthians
John
1 Corinthians
Galatians
James
2 Timothy
1 Timothy
Philemon
Titus
3John
2John
1John
Jude
2 Thessalonians
1 Thessalonians
2 Peter
1 Peter

And so on to Ephesians...

vs 1

Ahhh, that old familiar intro that we know means we're listening to Paul.

vs 2

Once you've read all of Paul's letters a few times, you understand why old Christian's letters start the same way. It's a simple formula.

vs 3

This seems like such an odd start to the book. Perhaps moreso for those of us who are modern people, and spiritual stuff is a little beyond us. What are these spiritual blessings that we have in the heavenly realms? Perhaps if we read on, we'll be able to unlock this a little better.

vs 4

So our election, or predestination, seems tobe a spiritual blessing. Ok, we're drawing the bow pretty wide. I mean in that way, we're using spiritual to mean theological. Or is Paul saying that we have been chosen, and so will receive spiritual blessings?

vs 5

This sentence either starts "In love" (NIV, TNIV, possibly the NASB although it's missing a full stop and it's so difficult to tell because of all the capital letters) or there is meant to be colon after 'in love' (KJV) and so it becomes a cap to the previous idea. You choose.

Again he talks about our election, but this time it is as sons adopted through Christ. So is that the spiritual blessing he talks about? Our status as adopted children of God? Possibly. Note that this didn't happen by accident - it is part of God's will. And also his pleasure, although I have a feeling that is an old use of the word pleasure, meaning more intention and less enjoyment.

vs 6

Not just grace, but glorious grace! Paul's pretty happy about that grace. And this grace is also freely given to us, again through Christ. Perhaps grace is another spiritual blessing?

vs 7

And that grace leads to redemption, to forgiveness of sins. Now we might think that is certainly a spiritual thing, but whyso? After all, sin is so meaty and fleshy and earthy. And yet it does have an important spiritual component, involving our relationship with God.

vs 8

It's not a mindless lavishing, which is probably more akin to how we lavish things. Instead, it pleases God's full wisdom and understanding of everything that we be lavished with this grace. Giving us grace is a really smart thing for God to do, apparently.

vs 9

Now here's an interesting difference between the TNIV and the NIV - the T wants to put the wisdom and understanding as the first clause of this new idea - so it becomes God's wise and understanding way to reveal to us his will. That is also how the NASB reads it. God's will in this case is purposed in Christ, so it's a specific (albeit fairly huge) part of God's will - the salvation of all people who believe.

vs 10

This is also part of God's will - to bring into unity all things in heaven and on earth. This is a really interesting way of wording this idea - which we can assume is an end-times statement about everything bowing the knee to God, even if unwillingly. Paul saw it as a unity - we tend to see it as a dividing, sheep and goats style.

vs 11

I almost left this verse till tomorrow, because the also is confusing - it sounds like it refers to the choosing, as if we are chosen as well as predestined (as well as elected too earlier on!), where I think those are really all the same thing, and and the also actually refers to the reasoning behind our election, which begins in the next clause in vs 12. So the intervening clause, about us being predestined according to the plans of God in conformity to his will, is really just stuck in between, in a very interrupting sort of way. It's also kinda repetitive. Do you get that feeling from these first few verses? Remember, repetition is the key to remembering, especially in this culture.

Luke chapter 24

vs 44

Jesus didn't just see himself as a saviour dying on the cross to fulfil some philosophical obligation brought about through a logical process. We have to remember that. If we read the NT without its background in the OT, we will never really understand Jesus or our salvation.

vs 45

He did it with a hammer, I expect. Considering how difficult it had been to open their minds before he died.

vs 46

Now, obviously that's not just a verse in the OT - those concepts (the Messiah, his suffering, his death and his resurrection) are spread over the OT in little verses we would not otherwise catch, especially in a simple reading of the OT.

vs 47

Again, these concepts of sin, and repentance and forgiveness of it, only have any meaning to us because of the OT. And again, these are not simple ideas, they are built up over time.

vs 48

And if you look at it, everything he's said (bar the preaching to the nations) has been done. So they are witnesses of it.

vs 49

What did the Father promise? The Holy Spirit of course. When did he promise it? In the Old Testament, along with all these other things! And if God has been faithful all the way, then they should sit tight in Jerusalem and wait for it.

vs 50

I don't know if Bethany as a place has any specific specialness for this event. I know it's where Jesus was anointed and where he entered Jerusalem. Perhaps that's it - he's leaving from the same place he entered?

vs 51

Which must have been totally trippy. We don't really know how or why or what. But you certainly get the idea that he is being taken back to heaven.

vs 52

Whereas the death of Jesus was a sad moment, and the resurrection of Jesus was a confusing moment, the ascension of Jesus is a joyous and praiseworthy moment! I don't think we remember this enough. We talk about Jesus death a lot, about his resurrection a little bit (even this I think we should talk about more) and his ascension not really. We might say something like "and now he's in heaven at the right hand of God, speaking on our behalf" or something, but we don't explain that, unlike most people, he didn't die again to get there.

vs 53

The temple was the place to be as the earliest group of Christians. What else do you do? It's the same God you're worshipping, and Jesus spoke at the temple all the time.

I might just point out that this is where Luke ends, but it is by no means the end of the story. Luke, in that way, is really the most complete of the gospels, because it goes on to Acts, which then tells us all about the early church. It's often called (and treated) as Luke-Acts. Will I go on to Acts next? Hmmm...

Luke chapter 24

vs 33

So, by at once, does that mean they left and walked through the night to get back to Jerusalem? Or that they left first thing in the morning? Night-time travel was excessively dangerous in the old world. Light sources were lanterns at best, and they made you stand out a mile away in the darkness - fodder for bandits. So if they'd done that, they took quite a risk to get the message back to the 11.

They found them too, still met together. So, does that mean the 11 were living in some sort of commune in Jerusalem, and these guys walked in in the middle of the night? Or does it mean they walked all night and found them meeting together the next day? Or Did they leave the next morning and get there the next day?

Depending on which map you look at in the New Bible Atlas, it could be anywhere from 7kms (a couple hours' walk, less at a brisk pace) to 50kms away (an all day trek). I'm thinking it was about 7-10kms away, because I trust a particular map. So after a meal time, they could have easily legged it back to Jerusalem and found the 11 still staying up late talking.

vs 34

Awww, they ran all that way in the dark, and they get there only to find that Jesus had appeared to Simon too.

vs 35

But they still told their story, which is a pretty amazing story. And it's a narrative culture, so they're allowed to swap stories without it being boring after the facts have been dealt with.

vs 36

Not to be outdone, though, Jesus makes the party really swing by appearing again! This time to all of them! Now none of them can boast, really.

vs 37

No time for boasting when you're scared, I guess. But why are they scared? Didn't they just say that Simon had seen Jesus risen from the dead? Their actions say to me that they were not 100% believing what was happening.

vs 38

Jesus always asks such good questions.

vs 39

Ok, here's a curly one - I've got to say that the translation of the TNIV (NIV not working for some reason) saying 'ghost' is a little inadequate here. Ghost means something pretty specific in our culture - the floating spirit of the dearly departed back from the grave. KJV and NASB both use 'spirit', which is much more nebulous. It's a small thing, really - the word, pneuma, means so many different things, including "a human soul that has left the body". I'm not sure what Judea's belief in ghosts was, or even ancient Israel's (but remember Samuel's return via the witch of Endor). Sufficed to say that I am hoping it was somewhat different from our modern superstitious view.

Unfortunately, though, with the disciples' reaction (first thing that pops into their mind upon seeing Jesus and having heard that he's raised from the dead is "it's a ghost") I think they might have had a very similar superstitious culture about disembodied spirits being something other than just spiritual foul play. It might not sound like a big deal, but there are people out there who say "So, do Christians believe in ghosts?" and it's nice to have answers about that sort of thing.

vs 40

And, again, they have to see it to believe it. Not very different from our culture at all. Which leads to another, more common, curly question. "If God really loves me and would do anything for me, why won't he appear to me so that I can believe and be saved?" Do you answer "Well, God's not a cosmic candy machine, he doesn't just do whatever anyone wants", or "God does love you and wants you to be saved. And he does appear to you. So if he hasn't appeared to you, then perhaps you have to ask the question, 'do I really need to see Jesus to believe in him, or is something else holding me back?'"

vs 41

This verse makes the "I don't believe it" sound a lot more idiomatic. Less scepticism and doubt, more amazement and joy. Meanwhile, Jesus is hungry.

vs 42

Wow, that deserved a verse on its own.

vs 43

This is important, because it's one more proof that he was physically there.

Luke chapter 24

vs 22

Wow, amazing! Oh, wait, there's more. I wonder if these two guys realised how convoluted this story sounds when they tell it all out.

vs 23

..."and yet we didn't put the whole story together, instead we just stood perplexed and wondered what was going on."

vs 24

So when they sent some trustworthy men to go and check the womens' story, they saw the same thing, although it seems sans angels.

vs 25

Yeah, go Jesus! What a great thing to say! It's either said in shock, mock, or jest. Any of those is fine with me. Although it must have been strange for a stranger to be saying these things to the disciples. How would you feel, being a disciple of Jesus for years, and then having a stranger tell you what you should already know?

vs 26

Sounds like something Jesus would say. In fact, I bet Jesus did say it. But it's easy to forget something you don't understand, or don't really want to hear.

vs 27

Best. Walk. Ever. I don't think there's ever been a Christian who wishes they weren't on the Emmaus road that day. And yet we get all of one verse concerning it.

vs 28

I don't know if we should be surprised at this sort of deception. It happens all too frequently in the OT, and yet is never really spoken against. But like I always say about fate - you might know something is meant to happen, but it won't happen till it gets done.

vs 29

So the disciples could not invite this stranger to stay with them without actually doing it, is my point. And of course they do want him to stay, because he's opened their eyes so much.

vs 30

A picture we have seen many times before of Jesus.

vs 31

So why did it happen this way? I can't say. But it is this idea of familiarity that leads some people to think that they didn't recognise Jesus because of their grief. It's possible, I guess.

vs 32

This is perhaps one of the most interesting verses of the passage. This guy, walking along the road with them, seemed to know so much about the scriptures, about the messiah. But for that, they did not recognise Jesus. This verse also makes it sound like they were listening to him, but they only really take in his words and believe them because of it being Jesus. So the person who says the words is important too. If God had just sent a stranger to say this stuff along the road, it would have been a different story.

Luke chapter 24

vs 11

And because, well, you know... they were women!

vs 12

Peter thinks that even if there's a chance that the women can be trusted, it's worth checking out. It's interesting how different this report is from John's report. Just little differences, but still interesting. At the end of this verse, Peter is still wondering what has happened.

vs 13

Why were they doing that? I guess because they have lives outside of being disciples, visiting family or something. Either that or they thought it wasn't safe in Jerusalem.

vs 14

Which would seem a reasonable topic of conversation for such a trip. Just imagine, for a moment, how long it takes to walk 7 miles, and the conversation you could have over that distance. I like taking little trips down "this-is-how-the-culture-was-different" lane.

vs 15

What an interesting place for Jesus to turn up - on the road from Jerusalem to Emmaus, approaching two of the disciples who aren't with the rest.

vs 16

This is such a mystery, but for the moment we can just assume it's God powers doing the preventing. It doesn't really matter how it works. It's what happened.

vs 17

This is such a God question - I mean, there's never really a point to God asking a question, because he knows all the answers. I'm pretty certain post-resurrection Jesus knew what they were talking about. Especially because they looked sad.

vs 18

Who is Cleopas? Some well known disciple we assume, who can't believe that anyone in Jerusalem wouldn't have heard about the whole Jesus ordeal.

vs 19

Jesus keeps playing along, and Cleopas talks about Jesus in pretty glowing terms. But I don't think Jesus is asking the questions for the sake of flattery.

vs 20

Which is of course why they are so bummed.

vs 21

Actually, the whole redemption of Israel not happening is probably a bummer too. This comment just goes to show how they have not even remotely tied it all in together.

And it's the third day since this happened (enough time for visitors to not know what's going on in Jerusalem I guess), which has significance for the next thing that has happened!

Luke chapter 24

vs 1

Not prepared on the Sabbath, of course. previously to that.

vs 2

This is the first mention we have of a stone. Which says to me that the rolling of a stone in front of a tomb was an expected thing. The unexpected thing is to find it rolled away.

The problem is, then, why did the women go to the tomb? Did they think they would be able to roll it away somehow?

vs 3

Not finding the body would obviously be another shock. By now they might be thinking they came to the wrong tomb.

vs 4

Eep! Men! Bright shiny men!

vs 5

Angels are scary. Very rarely does an angel appear and people aren't afraid. But these ones get straight into business. They talk about the living, which is of course not who you expect to find in a tomb.

vs 6

The person they seek, Jesus, is not in a tomb. He has risen from the dead! And apparently, if they'd listened, he said as much.

vs 7

It seems so plain when you read it on this side of the resurrection! But when he said it in Galilee, who was really thinking it was going to happen like this?

vs 8

So now they remember his words. And it starts to click.

vs 9

As if you wouldn't want to go and tell the disciples what had just happened! It was really early in the morning, so these girls were easily the first people there.

Eleven now, of course. Judas wasn't invited.

vs 10

So we get the names of three reliable eye witnesses who are obviously well known to the church. And the others don't get names, but there were more.

Luke chapter 23

vs 45

Two important things in the one verse! Do you get the idea that Luke is trying to fit as many things that he found out happened that day into the story, and he just piles them up on top of each other?

The sky was darkened, and because someone translated the times in the TNIV, you can tell that it's unnatural! Also, the curtain in the temple tore from top to bottom. Now, if you're a gentile, this is going to confuse you somewhat when you're reading Luke's book, so he obviously assumes some knowledge. Unless pagan temples had some similar design.

vs 46

The last words of Jesus, according to Luke. Jesus had a lot of last words. I think these are the least interesting. Which may well make them his actual last last words. I don't really think the order in which he said his last sentences is important. It's less important when you die on a cross I think. He's been up there for hours.

vs 47

I'm guessing "seeing what had happened" is the whole story of the day, not just the death. The death in itself wasn't all that righteous. The darkness and everything will have helped.

vs 48

Cultural thing I'm guessing. And I'm not actually sure what it means. I think it's a mourning thing.

vs 49

So those that knew him stayed around, watching everything. Especially the women. That gives us a good idea about where the witness accounts came from for this part of Luke's writing.

vs 50

A new character emerges on the scene.

vs 51

Luke certainly makes him sound righteous. I wonder if the suggestion "waiting for the Kingdom of God" means that the other members of the council weren't necessarily?

vs 52

I don't know what happened to bodies that weren't claimed. Knowing the time, though, they were thrown in the nearest ditch.

vs 53

Was it his? Well, after reading about how righteous he was, I am assuming it was either his family tomb, or he bought it off someone. You wouldn't steal someone else's tomb if you were a righteous man.

vs 54

I think this verse exists to remind us what day it was, but also why more extensive body preparations weren't taken.

vs 55

The NASB says "low his body was laid", which makes me think they saw it was laid without lots of preparation, rather than just seeing where it was laid.

vs 56

Because they are holy women! Pardon me for thinking it, but I imagine Luke sitting there, listening to a gaggle of old Jewish women tell the story in pepperpot voices. "Ooh! You must put in a verse about us being obedient to the sabbath, dearie! We don't want people to think we was mixin' spices on the Sabbath!"

Luke chapter 23

vs 34

Apparently early manuscripts don't have the words of Jesus, but they are repeated elsewhere, so I don't think we have to worry about that. The second part is also contained elsewhere, but is expressed as a fulfilment of scripture, instead of just being a cold fact.

vs 35

Most of the people just watched - probably expecting a miracle. It was the religious leaders who sneered. They had won, or so they thought. Must have never read Isaiah and Zechariah about the suffering servant.

They are trawling for insults here. Or perhaps Luke just didn't want to publish the rude ones.

vs 36

At least the soldiers were being paid to mock him. Again - if Pilate didn't want him mocked, he would have put out an edict not to mock him. Luke doesn't describe whether Jesus took the wine vinegar or not. He just states that they offered it to him.

vs 37

Either the roman soldiers knew a fair bit about jewish religion (which is possible I guess), or they were just taking their queues from the jewish leaders' insults. Otherwise, why would a king be able to save himself from crucifixion any more than any other person?

vs 38

Interestingly, in the KJV it says "in Greek, Latin and Hebrew" but doesn't make any mention of that in the NIV or the NASB.

vs 39

You know you're pretty low when you're being mocked by other people who are being crucified.

vs 40-41

Apparently, this second criminal doesn't have any problem with being crucified - he thinks it's a fair cop for him and the other criminal. I've never noticed that before.

I think the comment he makes about fearing God and being under the same sentence is basically pointing out to the guy that he is also being crucified, and he's obviously going to have his own stuff to answer for, because he's some sort of criminal. Is he really wanting to combat that by swearing at Jesus in his last breaths?

vs 42

The second guy wants to try a different tac completely. He believes that this can't be the end for the messiah, and so instead requests that Jesus remember him when everything is fulfilled. What had he done to deserve being remembered? He had stood up for Jesus in the face of accusation from a crucified man. But really, that's enough. And he had hope. Even if he thought that Jesus being the messiah was a last ditch attempt, well, he was pretty much at the last ditch.

vs 43

Jesus gives him some extra hope, too, with this promise. Now, the guy has to show some real faith, and believe Jesus' words.

vs 44

All I can say about this verse is woo to the TNIV! Someone finally translated this into normal times. Good stuff! I know there are problems about whether it's Jewish timing or Roman timing or something, but how is your average pew sitter meant to make that decision? I'd rather a group of highly qualified translators and scholars made it for me.

What it does show is that Jesus has been tried, sent around Jerusalem to Herod, back to Pilate, tried some more, Pilate has summonsed the people, has talked to them, and Jesus has finally been led up to the Skull place, and it's only midday. What a day!

Luke chapter 23

vs 23

Their shouts prevailed. This is probably one of the worst moments in Israel's history. The only person defending Jesus was a gentile governor.

vs 24

Not a great time for the justice of the roman empire, either.

vs 25

This verse just brings startling clarity to the last two verses. And that's what this section of the gospel (and all the gospels) is about - clarity about this final portion of Jesus' life. So we will get a lot more information about it than about most things that happened which are recorded in the gospel.

vs 26

Now why would they do that, if Jesus had only been mocked and beaten a little with open hands? How interesting to be known for the rest of the history of the world as "the guy who was walking past when Jesus was being crucified.

vs 27

Just because the crowd was calling for his crucifixion, doesn't mean the disciples of Jesus weren't still around. However, it is the women mainly who get mentioned during the passion narrative. Perhaps it was harder to persecute them? Or perhaps they were just bolder than the men, who had all scarpered.

vs 28

Oh dear. That can't be good.

vs 29-30

That sounds prophetically bad. And it is, it's from Hosea. But what does Jesus mean by it exactly? Obviously, he means something bad is coming, but what is it that's coming?

vs 31

I think this verse explains he means - that if such an evil thing can happen while the Christ is in Jerusalem, and directly to him, then what sort of evil is going to happen once the Christ has been killed, and is no longer around?

And that's fair enough, too. I mean, I know that God doesn't simply punish people for a single sin in some sort of instant-reciprocal way, but I think he does punish Israel for large feats of rebellion. Killing the messiah fits in there I think.

vs 32

Just the three of them. Slow day. Actually, I honestly don't know how many people were crucified on a weekly basis in Israel during Roman occupation. But by modern standards, the state doesn't usually have multiple death sentences cumulating on a single day.

vs 33

This would be Golgotha. Luke doesn't feel the need to explain every blow of the nail, or every cry of pain. His readers know what crucifixion is like. I'm thankful that I don't.

Luke chapter 23

vs 12

It's nice that there's a happy ending for these two. They become friends through mocking the son of God. Well done to them. I'm sure the rest of their lives will go past without anything bad happening.

vs 13

Ok, that's a pretty big gathering.

vs 14

And he announces that Jesus is not guilty. Again. And this time, he does it publicly. That's shrewd politics. The jewish leaders brought Jesus to Pilate early in the morning, obviously before too many people were around. Pilate now wants to see if they'll stick to their guns in front of all the people.

vs 15

Pilate also states an independent source - that Herod has found nothing against this man either.

vs 16

Like I said, Pilate doesn't want to get used by the jewish leaders, but he also wants to keep them stable and non-rebellious. He's not trying to protect Jesus - he's trying to protect himself. So he offers to flog Jesus a bit, rough him up. Surely that will make them happy.

(vs 17 apparently doesn't exist in the most trustworthy manuscripts)

vs 18

It would seem that the jewish leaders had been at work. Remember, they wanted to arrest Jesus by night, so that the people wouldn't see. In the space of one day, they have turned the people against him. Who knows how - Lies? I can tell you stories about how in Pakistan, one person tells a lie about another person regarding blasphemy, and that person gets beaten and sometimes even killed. People get really passionate about this sort of thing.

vs 19

How they convinced them to want Barabbas, I can't say. Unless of course, by murder, they mean he murdered a roman soldier or something. That kind of person would be a bit of a hero to some.

vs 20

Pilate is a little worried now. Having everyone shouting against his will is a bad thing. Luke says he wants to release Jesus. But that doesn't mean that he wants to for the sake of justice, or for the sake of Jesus. More likely, as I say, for the sake of being the one in power.

vs 21

Nasty. This sort of thing just doesn't happen anymore. We don't have protests where the entire population comes out, and they didn't have crowd control that didn't involve swords and spears. No one wants to order a massacre. It's not that Pilate would never do it (there are at least two recorded in Josephus, and even Jesus talks about one). But you don't want to if you don't have to.

vs 22

Pilate seeks to put his foot down here. He states bluntly that Jesus is not guilty of anything, and he does not suggest, he commands that he will have him punished and then released. But by now, I think even he knows that he's losing this battle.

Luke chapter 23

How bummed am I that I get up too early on Thursdays to reliably be able to do this :(

vs 1

Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor. Luke, do you really expect us to know who that is without explaining it? Pilate has been mentioned twice before this. So Luke actually expects you to remember him from chapter 3, where he explains more fully who this is. Remember that, when reading scripture - the writers are happy to refer glibly and briefly to things that have happened many pages ago.

vs 2

These guys are so low. Jesus never denied paying taxes. So that's just a blatant lie. And while he may have claimed (or at least accepted other people's claims) that he is the messiah, he certainly never sought to be crowned as an earthly king, even dodging it a few times!

vs 3

What else is he meant to do? Pilate asks Jesus, to see what happens. Jesus replies in the affirmative. But claiming to be king, without any army or call for the dispossession of the governor or Caesar, is hardly a crime. It could make you somewhat loony, but being a loony isn't against the law either.

vs 4

It's hard for Pilate. You have to assume that he realises the Jews are trying to use him for their own petty squabbles, and he doesn't want to be used. But, he also knows he governs a very hot-spot type of people, who will rebel over any silly thing, and he doesn't want rebellion.

vs 5

Pilate gave the answer they don't want to hear, so they try again, talking about his teaching ministry. Now, it is true that he has travelled around a bit. But travelling doesn't make you a rebel.

vs 6-7

Pilate's ears prick up, because Jesus being a Galilean spells this being "not my problem", because Herod is in town. So Pilate shoos him away, hoping that this will be the end of it.

vs 8

Herod is not as apathetic as Pilate - he is actually keen to meet this Jesus bloke who he's heard of as a miracle maker. It might seem a little odd at first to have a prophet brought before you in chains, but surely he'll just work a miracle, and then you can let him go, right? I mean, no man of God wants to be imprisoned!

vs 9

Jesus, however, is not playing games. He doesn't answer useless questions. Herod isn't interested in justice - he wants a show. Jesus told the Pharisees when they asked for a show that they would only get the sign of Jonah.

vs 10

Those that would talk, though, are the Pharisees. They wouldn't shut up. Now, when one person is silent, and another is talking non-stop, it's hard to listen to the silent person. But silence doesn't mean guilt, and it was Herod's job to work out who was guilty here.

vs 11

So Herod grows bored, and decides to make his own fun. He turns Jesus into a laughing-stock, mocks him by dressing him in regal finery, and sends him back to Pilate.

Luke chapter 22

vs 61

Ouch. We sort of forget that Jesus was there the whole time. But once that cock crowed, Peter was made incredibly aware of his rejection of Jesus.

vs 62

That's not necessarily repentant. It's just sad. It could be repentant. But it is sad.

vs 63

And Peter, of course, now rushed to his Lord's aid, or at least said "Don't to that!"... oh, wait, no, he's outside crying. We might well say that's harsh, and that we would do the same as Peter if we were there. I don't know. John was also there, and it's not recorded what he did.

vs 64

I've always thought that is is odd to mock someone for being special or extra good at something. That's what this is like. The fact is that Jesus has already prophesied many things. I'm sure he could have told the guards not only who hit him, but all sorts of things about them.

Anyway, although such tall-poppy syndrome is a part of Aussie culture, I wonder how much it was part of jewish culture back then. I don't know - whenever I've read this stuff about them beating Jesus, it's always had an air of fakeness to it - not that they weren't beating him, but that they weren't altogether spiteful. After all, guards don't beat prisoners without the implicit sanction of their masters. The teachers of the law had a real beef with Jesus - the temple guards are just big guys with swords.

vs 65

Which don't need to be recorded.

vs 66

So after being caught that night, and beaten and tortured, Jesus is now led before his enemies, who are the 'impartial judges' before which he will be tried for his lack of crimes.

vs 67

The way it's written, on its own, it might sound almost reasonable. As if they are pleading with him to tell them the truth. But it's all too easy to forget the kidnapping, the accosting, the night-long beating, and the led-before-them-bound-like-a-criminal... ing. So it's fair to imagine just a little bit of venom in their questions.

Jesus' answer, part 1: He points out that he's already been considered guilty before he's been tried - hence the beating and the being tied up. This is the classic problem with lynch-mobs.

vs 68

Jesus' answer, part 2: He mocks them a little himself, with their inability to answer the question about whether John the Baptist was from heaven or not. Basically, he is saying "If I asked you if I were the Christ, you wouldn't be able to answer. Not that you'd just say "no". You guys really don't have an answer. You're the elder priests and teachers of the law, and you couldn't even tell me if John the Baptist's message was from God or not! And now you expect me to tell you if I'm the Messiah?"

vs 69

But it doesn't matter what the chief priests do, because God is going to do the right thing, and glorify his Son. So regardless of the actions you take from this point on, I win.

vs 70

Jesus doesn't just say that he's the Son of God. He is more saying "Yes, your accusation is true. You are accusing me of being the Son of God, as if it were a criminal charge. Why don't you think about that for a second?"

vs 71

Actually, they heard it from their own lips. But you can't really expect some sort of fair judgement from this court.

Luke Chapter 22

vs 51

Jesus pre-empts the oncoming rumble by taking charge and healing the hurts. Like some sort of ministry of reconciliation.

vs 52

So this verse gives us a fair idea of who the crowd is made up of. As you can see, it's not a friendly crowd. But Jesus questions their small army as to its effectiveness. Why bring such a force to arrest a blasphemer?

vs 53

He points out his availability every day in front of the crowds, but what is done in secret is usually done against God (I guess praying and giving are exceptions).

Of course, it's probably literally dark, but it's also symbolically dark - the light of the world (not that Luke uses that term) is being caught by the forces of darkness.

vs 54

John followed too, but that doesn't get recorded, because Peter is the man of the hour here. They didn't take him to court, because I guess it starts off as a religious matter. Also, it's the middle of the night.

vs 55

Weird to think of Peter sitting in the courtyard of his Lord's captors, around a fire with them. You'd sort of expect him to stand outside the door or something.

vs 56

Well, it was dark, so I guess it's possible that she wouldn't recognise him immediately. Of course, we assume a servant girl wasn't with the crowd of clubs and pitchforks, so she probably saw him with Jesus in the temple.

vs 57

If you don't know him, then why are you here and not at home in a comfy bed?

vs 58

Again someone recognises him. You can get away with contradicting a servant girl, but another male is something differrent. Yet Peter defends his ground, and even manages to sound a little tetchy.

vs 59

I'm not sure what tells a Galilean apart from a Jerusalemite, but I would assume that it would be voice or dialect, rather than looks or fashion. And this means that Peter was sitting there talking with them, sitting conversing with his teacher's captors. While there's nothing wrong with that per se, I'm assuming he wasn't defending Jesus' cause or trying to build relationships with them.

vs 60

Uh-oh. And I bet Peter didn't even think he'd get the chance to do much of anything before the rooster crowed, especially after boozing it up at the last supper. So this would have been a major shock to him.

Luke chapter 22

vs 41

I'm guessing a stone's throw is a unit of measurement and not an idiom back then.

Jesus too is praying, which we can assume he did regularly on the Mount of Olives I think.

vs 42

Who recorded the words of Jesus' prayer, if everyone was a stone's throw away? I guess Jesus could have told them what he said afterward, or perhaps his prayer was so loud they could hear him. Prayer has been different through the ages - it is possible that he was praying loudly.

This whole prayer is drafted in words that speak expressly to God's will first. Jesus wants only to do God's will. But this prayer also raises some interesting questions - if Jesus is God, then how can his will be different from God's will? "Not my will" indicates that Jesus has a will, and "but yours" indicates that it's different from God's will. I've heard some explainations. I don't think it matters - I don't think Luke is trying to raise a trinitarian conundrum, but instead to show that Jesus was freaking out, but that he still wanted to do God's will.

vs 43

God helps out. He certainly doesn't do that for everyone, sending an angel I mean.

vs 44

How much did the angel actually achieve, if this is still happening? Was it really blood? Sure, why not. There have been many other documented times when someone faced with death has sweat blood. But I don't think it's got some secret hidden meaning. He was just really anguished. Anxious. You know what I mean. Just imagine what he'd have been like without the angel strenghening him.

vs 45

Not that it's not just that they're tired and lazy. They are sorrowful. Especially if they had heard the words of Jesus, his pleading, his crying out to God, his desire not to die. It's been a sombre, morose evening for them, and now Jesus is crying and weeping and calling to God in anguish. These guys are wracked with sorrow for their teacher. So much so that they basically pass out from exhaustion.

vs 46

I think we can assume Jesus knows why they are sleeping, but perhaps figures that if they pray, they can get strength from God to stay awake. Again he talks about temptation. Is it the temptation to sleep? To flee when the time comes? Just temptation generally? I assume it was clearer to them at the time, but Luke's obviously put this here for a reason.

vs 47

No one had noticed that Judas was gone, or else it was normal for one or more of the twelve to disappear for some reason or another. Perhaps he'd said he had gone to the bathroom.

This is not some sort of homo-erotic porno kiss, as revisionist historians seem to want to make out. It's just a middle eastern kiss, and if you go there you'll get plenty of them still today.

vs 48

Jesus knows what's happening though. Those words must have stung Judas pretty bad.

vs 49

Remember, it's not just a few people with Judas - it's a crowd. Not a crowd of normal city-dwellers either, because they liked Jesus, and the whole point of Judas' betrayal was so they could find him at a time where he wouldn't be surrounded by the populace.

So obviously a couple of the disciples (most people guess Peter and John) are militating for a melee, and keen to whip out their swords and cause some carnage.

vs 50

One of them doesn't wait for Jesus' reply, and launches in! Someone's ear comes off in the fray. And surprisingly, whoever let the blow fly doesn't get mobbed and killed by the crowd, so we can assume I think that they weren't expecting a fight.

Luke chapter 22

vs 31

The TNIV includes the word 'all' here to show that the you is plural. That's nice. Which means apparently that Satan has all of the twelve targetted. Why then does Jesus point his comments directly at Simon Peter?

vs 32

Because Jesus is going to use Simon's three-times denial as an example. Poor Peter, remembered forever as the disciple who denied Christ three times. The fact that the rest more or less scattered is not nearly so well remembered.

Anyway, Jesus also sees Peter as a bit of a leader. Even though he is going to fail by denying Christ, Jesus already is talking about his redemption, and once it comes, it will be Simon Peter, the one who denied Christ, who will be looked to by his brothers for strength. Because adversity and struggles with faith make us closer to God. People who just coast through their Christian life and never go through any crises of faith are just that, really - coasters.

vs 33

Oh, how untrue that was.

vs 34

Ever since Jesus set foot in Jerusalem (or Bethany, to be more precise?) he has been going overtime with the prophetic knowledge. I wonder if all prophets were like this - I mean, most of the writing prophets we only have their written sermons, not transcripts of their everyday lives. And I hate to admit that I'm not familiar enough with those that do have such narrative to know whether they are like this all the time. Woe is me.

vs 35

We now see the value of the little short-term mission trip that Jesus sent them on. I might point out that it wasn't really cross-cultural (one kinda was, to Samaria), but that it instead was to people whose language they already spoke and culture they already understood (and I might add, to a people who were expecting a Messiah - we seem to forget that a lot).

Anyway, Jesus sent them on without extra stuff, and yet they never wanted for anything.

vs 36

Different message now, isn't it? Now Jesus wants them to be prepared. He wants them to be ready, to think ahead, to expect the unexpected. They still don't expect it, though.

vs 37

I don't think they need swords so that they are the transgressors he is numbered with. He'll be numbered with transgressors the moment he gets arrested. Of course, that's not the only bit of Scripture that is going to be fulfilled. Jesus knows that he's going to suffer, and die, but also come back, and restore mankind to himself. And it's rushing towards him.

vs 38

So what are the swords for? Sure, one guy gets an ear cut off, and Jesus can then say "No, it's not going to happen that way". But did Jesus want them to have swords just for that to happen? I don't think so. I think he was using swords as an illustration of readiness. If he really wanted them to have swords, why are 2 enough? Jesus I think just isn't going to bother explaining what he meant just now - there are more important things to happen.

vs 39

This was his regular routine, and that is how he gets caught. Judas sells him out on his nightly walk.

vs 40

It's a strange request. What exactly are they to pray for? What temptation will there be?

Luke chapter 22

vs 21

How could Jesus know this? Because he's super awesome, that's why. It would suck to be the person trying to betray someone who has such wide knowledge.

vs 22

Oooh, and that doesn't sound very nice either, does it. And yet, this verse exemplifies the whole attitude of God and Jesus towards the sinful nature of humanity. They know it's going to happen, and so they go along with it, their plans are in fact set around it. That doesn't make human sinfulness any less tragic or wrong or in need of punishment though.

vs 23

So the disciples all start having a conversation about who is the best candidate for "Most Likely to Betray the Messiah AD 33". Perhaps they did it in secret, or in whispers, or perhaps they did it out loud in front of Jesus and it's just a different culture. Because to me it sounds rude to do that.

vs 24

So while they're doing "Most Likely to Betray the Messiah AD 33", they also decide to take votes on "Most Likely to be Spiritually Successful AD 33". Which isn't much better of a conversation topic, really. The answer is simple - Jesus is the greatest.But then we always want to know where we are ranked so we say, "Yeah yeah, I know that, but who's the next greatest?"

vs 25

The idea being that even the kings themselves know that they benefit from their lordship, from their great position. At least, that's what I think he's saying. Lots of impersonal pronouns in this verse.

vs 26

Can I point out the age-critical culture here? What this verse really means is "the greatest should be like the least worthy", and the idiomatic way of saying that in the ancient culture was youngest. Now tell me what faith like a child means.

vs 27

Jesus points out both the normal position of the greatest person (as one who is served by many) but then shows that he is great, and yet is not in that position, but is instead in a position of service. So he is the ultimate example of greatness here.

vs 28

They ain't seen nothing yet.

vs 29-30

Woah! How often do we talk about this? I know we protestants don't like having saints and all that, fair enough. But the apostles were special. They had a kingdom conferred to them, they have twelve thrones conferred to them. They are not normal 21st century Christians. These guys were special.

I'm not saying we worship them or venerate them or anything. What I am saying is that we need to acknowlege that they lived at a special time, and had some unique experiences, and were treated uniquely too. So we need to think about then uniquely.

Luke chapter 22

(today's study is done with the TNIV, the NASB, and the KJV - the NIV doesn't want to work this morning)

vs 11

The idea of these guys going up to a stranger out of the blue and asking this is kinda weird. But it wasn't the first time they'd had to do it. It was the second.

vs 12

How nice of him. And where better to celebrate the passover. Except perhaps with your family or something. I don't know. I don't really know the best way to celebrate passover, to be honest.

vs 13

"Preparing the passover" I assume means getting enough wine and a lamb and unleavened bread, and cleaning everything ceremonially and all that stuff.

vs 14

Well, that was a little zoomy bit - we go straight from preparations to Jesus and his buddies reclining at what we assume would be the standard triclinium table.

vs 15

I'm sure that brought a bit of a downer to the whole party. I'm not sure what the typical jewish tradition was to doing the passover - how much partying vs how much cultus, but there's a difference between solemn and sombre. And Jesus is heading for latter.

But I should give him some slack, he is about to die.

vs 16

Does this mean we'll eat the passover in Heaven? I mean, Jesus didn't hang around for a year, so he didn't eat another passover on earth. Or is he just being symbolic, and saying he will "eat it" in heaven, meaning it will be fulfilled.

vs 17

It's a little harder to divide wine than it is bread, so he had to stipulate what was going on here. Otherwise the first one might have drank it all!

vs 18

Now it is interesting here, that Luke does not record Jesus as giving this wine some sort of symbolic significance (certainly not the one we're used to). Instead, he wants them to see this wine as a final drink, never more to be enjoyed until the final coming of the kingdom. He does do it later, don't get me wrong, but this is an extra drink of wine divided amongst everyone that we seem to forget. It is so played down against the other two parts of this passover meal, that we don't even remember it.


vs 19

Now we're in familiar territory. It would have been a pretty solemn occasion - I mean, you don't interrupt a party to do this sort of thing. Does that mean we have to be solemn when we do it? I guess it doesn't hurt to remember the feelings that were floating around at the time, but I think our feelings are allowed to be different. We can be joyful too.

vs 20

Just notice those two small words, 'after supper' (the NASB says "after they had eaten", which makes it ambiguous about whether it was after they had eaten the bread or the whole meal - the greek word here is deipneo - which is a verb meaning 'to sup' which is good enough for me to think they did more than eat a little square of bread). There's a whole meal in between the bread and the wine. That's how you do it in church, right?

Luke Chapter 22

(today's exposition is being done with a reading across the usual [NIV, NASB, KJV] but with a new addition, the TNIV - many thanks to biblegateway.com)

vs 1

Just a little snippet into Luke's background here, that he gives us two names for the passover, and says it is 'called' the passover. Gives us a bit of an idea as to who he thought would be reading his gospel too.

vs 2

So Luke is making a couple of points here - that the chief priests and law teachers want Jesus dead, that they were afraid of the people (because they liked Jesus) so they're obviously looking for a clandestine way they can get him, and also that all this is happening as the passover approaches.

vs 3

Here comes the bad guy. All those people who say that Judas was just following a cultural norm of accepting money for passing on a message, read Luke's editorial - Satan entered him. Satan doesn't enter people just so they take part in some otherwise harmless mercantile activity. Luke also introduces him as one of the Twelve, so he's a real traitor.

vs 4

It is a story of betrayal. He goes to them, he approaches them, and gets involved in the conversation. We aren't really given a motive for him, apart from Satan's involvement.

vs 5

Greed could have been part of it. That certainly is one element which has been picked up over history.

vs 6

So no we see Judas' role in the plot - he was to look out for a time when no crowd was present, and the chief priests could apprehend Jesus without the prying eyes of the crowd making judgement.

vs 7

Luke reminds us gentiles about what actually happens on the passover. He doesn't go too deep into details though - perhaps it was for gentiles that new their OT that Luke wrote his gospel.

vs 8

Jesus had every intention of celebrating the passover as normal. Well, more or less normal. At the moment, it seems normal enough.

vs 9

This means, I assume, that none of them owned property in Jerusalem, otherwise you'd assume they would just have it at their house.

vs 10

Once again, Jesus is pulling a rabbit out of a hat. Or, well, a donkey out of a town. Well, this time, it's a guest room out of a stranger. What does this prove? That Jesus is Messiah? Possibly. I mean, predicting that the person will be "the one carrying water" is pretty neat. But I think it also shows that Jesus has supporters beyond his Twelve, and his disciples. Jesus was popular enough, and there were people who might not have followed him around full time, but who supported him enough to give their house to him on passover - I mean, that's the most important festival of the season, and Jesus is asking quite a bit to use the guest room during that time. And if you really believe that these people were just press-ganged into giving up donkeys and guest rooms, well, that might be so. But I think it more likely that they gave it willingly, knowing exactly who was asking and for what purpose. (Well, the donkey thing might have been a bit out of left field.)