Hosanna in the highest! (Mark 11:1-11; Matthew 21:1-11; Luke 19:28-40; John 12:12-36)

Jesus' entry into Jerusalem is another account that is covered in all four Gospels.  This event has become the basis of Palm Sunday.

Jesus sends two disciples to go ahead and find a colt that no one has ever ridden.  Perhaps the colt is unusually stubborn and no one has been able to ride it.  The disciples untie it and bring it back to Jesus, but not before getting the owners' permission.

Jesus rides the donkey through the streets while the crowds lay down their cloaks and palm branches.  The Pharisees say tell Jesus to rebuke the crowd, but Jesus says that if he did that, the stones will cry out.

Jesus goes to the temple, but it is late, so he goes back to Bethany.  That sounds a little anticlimactic.

He also weeps fondly over Jerusalem and declares that its oncoming destruction will be because they rejected the Messiah.  Again, this is a prediction of the destruction by the Romans during the Jewish revolt.  

Here is a time to discuss Ezekiel 44:1-3, which discusses the eastern gate being closed and only the Prince of Peace can ride through it.  Many believe that Jesus would have entered the Temple Mount through the eastern gate.  The eastern gate was destroyed by the Romans, rebuilt, and then closed in the 1600s by the Muslims.  One theory is that the Muslims closed the eastern gate specifically to prevent the Jewish Messiah.

Some Christians think that the eastern gate will be reopened when Jesus returns so he can go through it again.

I think the prophecy of Ezekiel 44 has already come and past.  The Messiah did go through the eastern gate.  As for Ezekiel, much of his visions spanned both the literal world and the spiritual world.  I think this eastern gate reference was a blend of both.  Further, Ezekiel 44:1 states the gate was already closed.  Hence, it was to remain closed until the king should come, which happened.  Putting Ezekiel's vision with Christ, it emphasizes the unique nature of Christ as the only king.

I think it is misguided to obsess whether the eastern gate is closed or not because the original gate that stood when Ezekiel spoke and during the time of Christ is long gone.  Therefore, the eastern gate that currently exists in Jerusalem cannot be the gate that Ezekiel would have been referring to.  Finally, it cannot be taken too literally because many people would have passed through the literal gate in between Ezekiel's writing it was closed and before it was physically closed.

Back to the story, some Greeks attending Passover try to meet with Jesus.  They speak with Phillip, who speaks with Andrew, and together they speak with Jesus.  This prompts Jesus to speak about his future death.  A voice from heaven speaks; some of the crowd hear thunder while others hear what they think are angelic voices.  

Despite all this, the crowd questions Jesus because they believed the Messiah was to reign forever.  

At least they are finally figuring out that Jesus will die, and will die soon.  This seems to be the limit of their understanding.  We cannot blame them too much for this as the text states that even the core Twelve did not fully understand everything until afterwards.  In this story, they did not understand that they were acting in fulfillment of Zechariah 9:9 when they brought the colt to Jesus.

A further note on Zechariah 9:9, it refers to salvation, which is what Jesus was brought during Passion week.

Jesus anointed at Bethany (Mark 14:3-9; Matthew 26:6-13; John 12:1-11)

This is another relatively famous anecdote.  It is covered in Mark and Matthew, but John provides a lot of interesting details, particularly with the identity of the people involved.  In contrast, Mark and Matthew provide general summaries.

Jesus is at Bethany six days before Passover.  Lazarus, Martha, and Mary (all siblings) live in Bethany.

Jesus is at a dinner in his honor at the home of Simon the Leper.  Martha served the dinner while Jesus and Lazarus reclined at the table.  

Mary takes an expensive bottle of pure nard perfume and pours it over Jesus' feet.  She wipes the perfume with her own hair.

This is a flashback to prior events with these same characters.  It was Mary who was the woman of ill report who had previously cleaned Jesus' feet with her own tears.  On another occasion, it was Martha who was making hosting preparations while Mary sat and listened to Jesus.

Back to the story, others seeing this are indignant because the perfume could have been sold and given to the poor.  The Gospel of John identifies Judas Iscariot as one of these because he was embezzling money from the group finances.

Jesus stands up for Mary because he is heading to his death and this will be the only anointing is body will receive.  Meanwhile, the poor will always be among you.  Jesus also praises Mary and states that generations will speak of her because of this.

The name "Mary" is still very common today.  I had always assumed it has been historically popular because of Jesus' mother.  Here, Jesus is blessing another "Mary".  At the very least, this Mary seems to have a far more active role in Jesus' adult ministry while the text has been silent as to Mother Mary for much of Jesus' adult ministry.

Meanwhile, the Pharisees want to re-kill Lazarus because his resurrection had caused a lot of people to follow Jesus.

The king's minas coins (Luke 19:11-27)

Right after the discussion about Zacchaeus, the text states that the crowd believes that the Kingdom of God "will appear at once".  Many seem to believe that Jesus is a Messiah, but that the Kingdom of God to be a political upheaval rather than something internal to the hearts of people.  

In actuality, if one considers the growth of Christianity over the centuries, including the conversion of Constantine, then the Kingdom of God has had powerful political ramifications.

Jesus tells them a parable.  In the parable, a man of noble birth goes to a distant land to be made king.  He gives money to servants to manage his affairs while he is gone, specifically ten minas coins each to three different servants with the instruction to put the money to work.

He also has enemies who send a delegation that protests the coronation.

The man is made king and returns.  One servant invested the ten coins and made ten more coins.  Another servant's investment produced five coins.  The last servant hid the coins and it did not produce any return on investment.  

The king gave ten and five cities to the first two servants, respectively.  But he chastised the last servant for disobeying him and not even putting it in a bank to earn interest.

Finally, the enemies who protested the coronation are ordered to be killed.

The traditional interpretation is that God has given us all talents and resources.  God wants us to put them all to use.  Some investments we choose will produce different amounts of return.  But the thing that made the king angry is hiding our talents and doing nothing at all.

Likewise, in no example is a servant who lost the investment.  Rather, each had a return on investment and it was only the one who did nothing that made God angry.

Finally, the mentioning of the enemies that protest the coronation is interesting.  Putting it all together, Jesus seems to be saying:  I have a kingdom.  Those servants who make investments for it will be rewarded regardless of how big or small the pay out is.  Those who oppose me will be punished.

Jesus in Jericho (Luke 19:1-10)

Jesus arrives in Jericho.

A tax collector named Zacchaeus climbs in a tree to get a glimpse of Jesus.  Jesus approaches him, calls Zacchaeus by name, tells him to get down, and that Jesus needs to spend the night at his home.

He climbs down and welcomes Jesus.

The people snicker because Jesus is going to stay with a tax collector.  Zacchaeus then states that he gives half his possessions to the poor and will pay back anyone he cheated four times.  

Jesus approves and talks about how he came to save the lost.

Here, Zacchaeus gives half his possessions away to the poor.  Jesus had instructed the "rich man" to give all his possessions away to the poor.  This shows that with each person, there is a different level of hold of material wealth.  Jesus does not want everyone to give all their possessions away to the poor, otherwise, Jesus would have told Zacchaeus to give the other half of his possessions away.  

Also, repayment of "four times" is alignment with the remedy and punishment for theft under Mosaic law.

Here, a rich man has entered the Kingdom of God.  With God, all things are possible and Jesus praises this man.

On the road to Jerusalem (Mark 10:32-52; Matthew 20:17-34; Luke 19:31-43)

Jesus again informs the Twelve they are going to Jerusalem where he will be flogged, beaten and killed, but on the third day, he will rise.

Luke 19 informs us that the disciples did not understand this.  This might give some clarity as to what happens next in Matthew 20 and Mark 10.

John and James, the sons of Zebedee, approach Jesus with their mother.  They request that when Jesus is in his glory, that James and John be seated at the left and right of Jesus.

Jesus explains that they do not know what they ask for and ask if they could drink from the cup that Jesus drinks and be baptized from the same water that Jesus was baptized in.  They probably do not understand this question either because they say yes.  Considering that Jesus had just spoken about being killed, this could imply martyrdom.  

Jesus responds that they will drink from the same cup as Jesus, but Jesus cannot allocate who will be seated at the left and right of Jesus.  The places belong to people to whom they have been prepared.  Jesus does not state to whom these seats are prepared.

The other ten disciples get mad James and John for requesting this honor.  This prompts Jesus to tell them that greatness in heaven depends on one's level of being a servant.  

Jesus' procession goes through Jericho.  In Jericho, a blind man sits by the road (in Matthew 20, this account involves two blind men).

The blind man hears Jesus coming and starts shouting to get Jesus' attention.  The people in front try to silence him but he continues shouting.  Eventually, Jesus stops the procession and instructs the man to come to Jesus.  Jesus then heals the man and he starts following Jesus.

This story comes right after Jesus instructing his disciples (again) that to be great, they must be a servant.  We do not know who else is in this procession other than possibly the mother of James and John.  Regardless, it is quite possible that the Twelve were some of the people who told the man to be silent as the text says "many rebuked him".  Regardless, it seems the disciples are not going out and trying to find people with physical ailments to bring them to Jesus.  

I don't want to read too much into this story when the details are scant, but at the very least, it seems that they are not practicing what is required to be great, I.e., being a servant to this blind man.  Rather, Jesus has to instruct the man to come to him.

The workers in the vineyard (Matthew 19:27-20:16)

After the rich man and the eye of the needle, Peter states that they have left everything to follow Jesus.  They did what the rich man could not do, although they were not hindered by the wealth and possessions that the rich man was.

Jesus explains that they will be rewarded for their efforts, including inheriting eternal life.

Jesus then discusses a parable in which a vineyard owner pays workers the same amount of money regardless of how long they worked in the field.  At the end of the parable, Jesus states that it was the vineyard's prerogative of what to allocate to each.  After the parable, Jesus states that many who are first will be last and the last will be first.

I think the parable means that there a different things that everyone gives up as they become part of Christ.  This may be differing amounts of money or various relationships (family conflict).  The cost is different for each person, but the reward is the same, grace and fellowship with God.

The rich man (Mark 10:17-31; Matthew 19:16-30; Luke 18:18-30)

A man runs up to Jesus and falls at his knees.  He asks Jesus, "what must I do to inherit  eternal life?". Jesus says that the man knows the commandments - do not lie, steal, murder and honor hour parents.  The man responds that he has done all these.  Jesus then explains that he lacks one thing - he should give everything he has to the door.

The man went away sad because he had great wealth.

Jesus then explains that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.

At this, the disciples ask who can be saved?  To which Jesus responds that with God, all things are possible.

I do think that think that this story stands that Jesus hates wealth.  As we know, on other occasions God blesses people with wealth.  Rather, this story highlights the need for God to help us unravel get rid of the things that prevent us from seeing his glory in our lives.

The man had great wealth, which he could not part with.  In fact, we see that the wealth was a deal-breaker from following Jesus.  Between Jesus and his wealth, he choose his wealth.  This envious heart is probably why Jesus' prescription for this man to inherit eternal life was to get rid of his wealth.  

After the eye of the needle phrase, Jesus says that with God, all things are possible.  This includes putting a camel through the eye of a needle or getting a rich man into the Kingdom of Heaven.  This is an invitation for us to ask God to help us do what it takes.

Little children (Mark 10:13-16; Matthew 19:13-15; Luke 18:15-17)

People brought little children ("babies", Luke 18) to Jesus to have him touch the children.  The disciples tried to intercept the children and prevent them from going to Jesus.

Jesus got mad and wanted the children to come to him, saying that the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to them and that people must enter the Kingdom of God like children.  Jesus then blessed the children.

The text is silent as to why the disciples tried to prevent children from coming to Jesus.  Perhaps there was nothing noticeably wrong with them that required healing.  This idea is further supported by what Jesus gives them.  He does not heal the children of physical ailments, but rather blesses them.

Jesus makes another point about entering the Kingdom of God.   One must enter it like little.  Jesus does not clarify what exactly this means, but possibilities include with joy, passion, wide-eyed wonder, and humility.

Divorce (Mark 10:1-12; Matthew 19:1-12)

Jesus has left Galilee and goes to Judea across the Jordan river.  This may be the last time leaving Galilee before Passover.  

Pharisees come to test him.  They ask is if it is legal for man to divorce his wife for any and every reason.  The answer under Mosaic law is actually yes.

Jesus does not challenge it all, but rather discusses that it was God's plan all along that people should be united as one flesh in marriage.  

The Pharisees then specifically ask about the no-fault divorce certificates allowed under the Mosaic law.

Jesus then responds that it was because of the hardness of their hearts that God allowed this, but this was not the way from the beginning.  Jesus later tells the disciples that divorce and remarriage is adultery unless the divorce was for marital unfaithfulness.

The disciples have an interesting response - it is better not to marry.  This last statement is in the account in Matthew, but not Mark.

Let's unpack this:

Jesus makes a very interesting point - the Mosaic law about divorce was a concession from God.  In other words, it would have been worse for those under the law to have gotten a law that more reflected God's standard.  God essentially lowered the standard because of the hardness of their hearts.  

This raises all kinds of questions and issues:

1.  What else in the Mosaic law was a concession from God?  Was it limited to divorce?  A reasonable possibility is slavery.  But this a pandora's box that is opening.

2.  What was so hard about their hearts to begin?  Well, polygamy was rampant among the ancient Israelites.  This might be one possibility.

3.  God lowered the standard for a certain people at a certain time to reflect the real condition.  This reflects amazing grace and patience.  

4.  How would we apply marital "unfaithfulness" today, especially in light of the fact Jesus said that the standards of divorce have social context.  Is it limited to adultery?  What about addiction to porn, drugs, gambling, or something else that could destroy the home?  

At the very least, I think our society accepts spousal physical abuse on par with the destructive and terrible effect of adultery, if not more so.

5.  Here is my controversial soapbox - and I will keep this short and limited...

I think this idea that the law is flexible due to hardness of the heart has a lot of import to modern society.  At some level, the Christian viewpoint must intersect and interact with other traditions, secular, legal, or other religions.  

America, like many Western countries, has a legal system that guarantees freedom of conscience - people have the right to have as much hardness in their heart to Christ as they want.

I personally know some gay Atheists and they have a lot of hardness in their hearts to Christ.  They can be just as annoying and argumentative as the Christians who the Atheists claim annoy them.  If they have all this hardness, I must ask whether it makes any sense to oppose gay marriage in greater society when the only real purpose of Christian opposition is because it aligns with the moral code of the Bible.  

It seems to me that if God allowed the Mosaic code to have no-fault divorce because of the hardness of their hearts, and the hearts of gay Atheists are extremely hard, I see no reason to forbid the same allowance for them in the modern setting.  

Now, I must clarify that I am only referring to civil ceremonies within the secular legal community.  For instance, I see no point in an amendment to the US Constitution about this.  

I am not referring to religious marriages within churches.  If a Christian church does not want to conduct a religious ceremony involving gay marriage within its own doors, that is a very different issue.

The Pharisee and the tax collector (Luke 18:9-14)

Jesus tells another parable about a Pharisee and a tax collector.  The Pharisee thanked God for letting him not be like even worse sinners.  In contrast, the tax collector asked for forgiveness.  Jesus stated that those who humble themselves before God will stand righteous.

This is a good follow-on parable to the one about the people who choose their own seats at the banquet.  I think it goes to the similar point, in that God glorifies those who are humble.

The persistent widow (Luke 18:1-8)

Jesus tells a parable about how an unrighteous will eventually help out a persistent widow if she persists enough.  His motive is to prevent her from annoying him further.

God is like that in the sense he will help those who ask, but without the delay.

The Kingdom of God (Luke 17:20-37)

Jesus is asked by the Pharisees when he Kingdom of God will come. 

This is a very important question for the Pharisees to ask.  Remember, the Pharisees want a political Messiah and will testify to the Roman authorities that Jesus claims to be a political Messiah.  So, implicit in this question is a political one.  Essentially, when is the Kingdom of God coming to displace the Roman empire?  When, if ever, Jesus will you displace the Roman overlords?  It is a very simple question, but there is a lot in it.

Jesus responds by saying that the Kingdom of God is within you.  The marginalia of the NIV states that "within" could be translated "among".  On one level, Jesus is saying that the Kingdom of God is "within" one's heart.  Jesus later says that his presence is whether two or three gather in his name, which goes to the "among" aspect.  Either way, the Kingdom of God is here.

However, Jesus is not exactly denying the political implications of the question.  The Pharisees could take the statement to mean that Jesus has followers, whether soldiers or spies, among the Jewish people.

Jesus then discusses his second coming.  It will be after he suffers and is rejected by "this" generation, meaning his trial and execution at the hands of the Jews.  Then, there will be a time when people long to see Jesus.  This seems to refer to every generation of Christians that has lived since Jesus was taken up to heaven that spans nearly the last 2,000 years.

Jesus states that he returns, people will be taken off guard, just like in the days of Noah and Lot.  Likewise, some will be taken up.  These statements seem to refer to a rapture event.  

The passage ends with the disciples asking "where?".  Jesus then talks about vultures going to dead bodies.  

I think it is commonly conceptualized that a rapture event will involve people's bodies disappearing out their clothes, but Jesus' statement that vultures will be by dead bodies indicates that dead bodies will not disappear.  Rather, they will be food for vultures.  Whether this refers to people taken up in a rapture or the general state of woes of humanity at the time remains unclear.

Ten lepers healed (Luke 19:11-19)

Jesus is heading to Jerusalem.  This appears to be at the twilight of his ministry as Passover nears.

He is traveling along the border of Galilee and Samaria when 10 lepers call him and request healing.  He tells them to go present themselves before the priests.  They do so and are made clean.  

Only one of them, a Samaritan, returns to Jesus and gives thanks and praise.  Jesus asks where are the others and notes that a foreigner returned to thank Jesus, but no one from Israel.

The text does not explicitly state that other nine lepers were Jewish or Samaritan.  However, the context suggests that at least some of them were Jewish.  Jesus comment also seems to be apply to the Jewish people and the Gentiles overall.  Just like the nine lepers that were healed took their healing for granted, the Jews take the Jesus for granted.  In contrast, this Samaritan does not take the healing for granted just like how the Gospel will go to the Gentiles.

Faith to move mountains (Luke 17:1-10)

Jesus repeats the teaching on millstones and forgiving your brother many times.  To this, the core disciples (NIV, apostles) said "increase our faith!"

Jesus' response is about a mustard seed.  If they had faith as small as a mustard seed, they could tell a mountain to move.  Jesus then discusses an analogy about the duties of household servant and that his followers have duties.

This mustard seed story is frequently cited about faith to move mountains.  However, it should be remembered that this was a response to the disciples discussing how hard it is to forgive a person multiple times.  Likewise, it is followed by a discussion of duties.  

Putting it together, I think the mustard seed is primarily about a duty to forgive.  Jesus emphasizes the importance of forgiveness - we have a duty to do it.  If we cannot do it, we have a duty to ask God to help.  There might feel like there is a mountain blocking our heart from forgiving.  But faith as small as a mustard seed is enough to move the mountain - that blocks our heart from forgiving.

Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16:19-31)

Jesus seems to be within earshot of the Pharisees when he describes another parable.

A man rich had a gate where a beggar lay.  The beggar was named Lazarus and was very sickly with sores.  He longed to eat scraps of food from the rich man's tables.  Rather, dogs came and licked Lazarus' wounds.

The reference to dogs and table scraps reminds us of the woman in Tyre who begged Jesus to heal her daughter.  She said that even dogs get the scraps of food.  This was enough faith for Jesus to heal her daughter.

Eventually, Lazarus and the rich man die.  Lazarus goes to heaven with Abraham and the rich man goes to hell.  In hell, the rich man asks Abraham to send Lazarus to hell and give some water to him.  The rich man refers to hell as fire.  Abraham says this is impossible due to a great chasm between those in heave and those in hell.

Lazarus then asks Abraham to send Lazarus to the rich man's brothers to warn them about hell.  Abraham responds that they had Moses and the Prophets and if that it is not enough, they would not be convinced if someone rises from the dead.

There is a lot here.  

I think this parable has given a lot of wood to the proverbial (and literal) fire the popular conceptions of hell.  I would be cautious about interpreting too much about the details of heaven/hell based on the parable beyond that hell sucks.  There is at least one detail that hard to apply literally, which I discuss below.

A few conclusions I would be cautious against but are part of the parable:

1.  those in hell can talk to those in heaven
2.  Abraham had the ability to send people in heaven to earth (it is implied, but not demonstrated)

Rather, the conclusion of the parable emphasizes to the role that Moses and the prophets played with regard to the Jewish people.  They were not convinced that the essence of both was that God wanted people to treat each other better than to allow beggars at the gate of his home with dogs licking the man's sores.  This man is in need, but the rich man is on record of doing nothing.  

Further, the reference to the death of Lazarus obviously brings to mind the death and literal resurrection of Lazarus.  It is so strongly highlighted that one wonders which came first - this parable or the rising of Lazarus.  

This brings to mind a crucial detail in the parable that we know is false if applied literally.  In the parable, Abraham is reluctant to send Lazarus back from the dead.  The parable concludes before the decision was made.  In real life, Lazarus did return from the dead.  However, the parable's point was that the people would not be convinced because Lazarus returned from the dead.  This describes the situation surrounding the rising of Lazarus because it was then that Jewish authorities in Jerusalem started plotting to kill Jesus in the next Passover.

The shrewd manager (Luke 16:1-14)

Jesus tells a parable about a man who manages the finances of a rich man.  The manager is about to lose his job, so he decides to cut deals with the people who owe the master.  The manager changes the debts and "cooks the books" and reducing the debt of those who the master.  In essence, he is giving the master's property away to his friends.

Again,  this is a parable and should not be interpreted literally.  Jesus is not endorsing embezzlement.

Rather, the explanation that Jesus provides is that people should use worldly wealthy to win friends.  Jesus then explains that no one can serve two masters, either God or money.

Putting it all together, Jesus is saying that worldly wealth should be given away.  Further, giving away money shows service to God.  All the worldly wealth we will ever have is actually on loan to us from God.  What does God want us to do?  Give it away to win friends.

The Pharisees hate this teaching because they loved money.

Lost and found parables - sheep, coins, and Prodigal Son (Luke 15)

Jesus is hanging out with tax collectors and sinners again when the Pharisees and legal experts complain that Jesus welcomes sinners.

Jesus then provides three parables.  Each of which outline God's perspective of losing a loved one and then finding him or her again.

First, the parable of a shepherd with 100 sheep.  He leaves the 99 behind to find the lost one and rejoices when it is found.  Jesus states that there is more rejoicing in heaven for the one sinner who repents than the 99 who do not need to repent.

Second, the parable of a woman with 10 silver coins.  The marginalia of the NIV states that each coin was worth a day's wage She loses one and searches for it.  She finds it and calls her friends over to share in her excitement.  In the same way, the angels rejoice when a sinner repents.  

This actually is interesting.  The value of the coins was not all that much.  I doubt many people find enough value in a day's wage to call over friends should be they lose and then recover a day's wage.  Rather, a day's wage is quite ordinary and mundane to us.  We might not consider it all that valuable.  

But the contrast is that in heaven, the angels think view the soul of the sinner as valuable.  We might consider the winner to not be that high of value, but to the angels and ultimately to God, they are quite valuable.

Finally, the probable of the Prodigal Son.  A rich man has two sons.  One of whom asks for his inheritance early (which is very rude, even by today's standards) and then completely squanders it.  He is eating broken down and hungry and decides to return to the father.  The father sees him far off, runs to embrace him, and has a big party.

Meanwhile, the other son is resentful.  He has worked and served the father all his life never had any party.

This last parable parallels the exact situation in which Jesus was in while describing the same parable.  The was surrounded by sinners and in his heart was rejoicing that they were turning to him.  Meanwhile, the Pharisees and legal experts who looked down at the sinners were the resentful son in the parable. 

The parable also stands for the contrast of free will and grace versus being a slave to the law.  The Pharisee/ resentful son was a slave to expectations and duty.  He followed accordingly, but the fruit was resentment.  Meanwhile, the returning son had made a number of choices, both good and bad.  He lived under choice, but the freedom to choose the father or not to be with the father.  He choose to not be with the father and the father willingly accepted this, even enabling it with the early inheritance.  

But the fruit of that decision was terrible.  When he eventually realized it, he choose to go back to the father.  The father met him with love, grace, rejoicing, and a big party.

Jesus the dinner guest (Luke 14:1-23)

Jesus eats at the home of a prominent Pharisee.  Jesus actually might seem to be a little rude as a guest, but Jesus is being carefully watched by the Pharisees.  Things might already be a bit tense.

First, the heals someone at the banquet and it just so happens to be a Sabbath day.  He asks the other dinner guests if they would help their ox in trouble on the Sabbath, then he heals the man.

He also sees the dinner guests selecting their own seats.  He gives them a parable about letting others selecting their own seats at a banquet and the importance of humility.  On one hand, it is wise advice.  It is best to wait a bit at a big banquet to see where it might be appropriate to sit.  But it is a parable, so Jesus is probably speaking about something on a spiritual level.  This seems to be a general concern about exalting oneself before others and the importance of humility.  

Jesus further states that at banquets, one should not invite their friends, but rather the crippled, lame, and poor.  This is because the friends can pay the person back by having a banquet, whereas the poor cannot.  Again, this is another parable, so Jesus is talking about things on a spiritual level.  It totally is fine to invite one's friends to banquets, for after all, Jesus attended banquets and ate with this friends.  But it means more to God that we do things for other people who cannot repay us by inviting us to a party or at least without the expectation of repayment.  This is the true heart of the servant.

In some ways, it also parallels the banquet of the Kingdom of God that Jesus is hosting.  Jesus extends an invitation to us - the spiritual crippled, lame, and poor - who cannot repay Jesus.

Jesus tells a final parable in which a man has a banquet, but all the invited dinner guests decline.  So, the man invites the poor, crippled, and lame to fill up the banquet and seems to revoke the invitation of the original invitees.  

There probably are a number of applications of this, but for me, it reminds of me trying to throw a party for friends and they blow you off.  I have done the same, whether because it was inconvenient to go there, had prior commitments, or may have felt socially inappropriate to go.  There are legitimate reasons.  

But in the parable, it does not seem like there are appropriate reasons to decline the invitation to dine with God.  What also comes across is God's disappointment and hurt feelings that people declined the invitation.

Going back to the setting of the parable, this is also a very literal application to the banquet that Jesus was eating.  Granted, he did not arrange the banquet, but a Pharisee did take the effort to invite Jesus to dine with him among his friends.  How many other Pharisees liked Jesus enough to invite him to dine with him?  The record is silent and this comes across as an isolated occasion.

Lazarus - come out! (John 11)

Martha and Mary live in Bethany about two miles from Jerusalem.  They have a brother named Lazarus.  Jesus loves Lazarus, a detail repeated throughout throughout John 11.  As it turns out, Mary is the one who washed Jesus' feet with her own tears and hair.  So, she may have been a former prostitute.

Lazarus dies.  He is wrapped in cloth and is buried in a tomb.

Martha and Mary send word to Jesus about this.  Jesus waits two days before telling his disciples that they are heading back to Judea.  This shocks the disciples who remind Jesus that when they were last there, the Jews were going to stone Jesus.  Jesus reminds them in a parable about daylight that it is not quite time for him to die yet as there still is daylight, presumably daylight on his ministry.

Thomas (doubting Thomas) mentions that they probably will all die.  Perhaps this is sarcasm, perhaps not.  Regardless, he is not the man of faith that Simon Peter is.

Jesus goes to Bethany and Mary falls at his feet.  Jesus is moved by the circumstance and asks to go to the tomb of Lazarus.  Mary takes him there.  

Jesus asks for them to move the large stone covering the tomb.  Mary initially objects because Lazarus has now been dead for four days and his decomposing body will stink.  However, the stone is removed anyway.

Jesus prays and thanks God.  Then in a loud voice says:  "Lazarus, come out!"

The figure of Lazarus emerges and walks out of the tomb.  Lazarus is still wrapped in the burial cloths and Jesus orders that the cloths be removed.

Word of this event spreads.  Many people come to believe in Jesus.  However, this also strengthens the resolve of the Pharisees to kill Jesus.  The Pharisees are afraid that Jesus will have political consequences and that the Romans will destroy them, their nation, and their temple.  The start planning to kill him at Passover, when they assume he will return to Jerusalem.

There is an irony in their logic.  They were looking for political Messiah to rescue them from the Romans.  Here, they cannot deny that Jesus actually has political power associated with him.  Large groups of people follow him and he can miraculously feed large groups of people.  So, Jesus is actually fulfilling some of what they are looking for in a Messiah.

They also do not seem to doubt Jesus' supernatural abilities.  They do frequently question the source of the power, but they do not deny that these miracles follow Jesus.

However, they do not want this political Messiah.  They believe that this one will cause a problem with Rome and bring on another Roman invasion.  Never mind that Jesus already has converts among the Roman military or that Jesus can heal people of wounds and raise the dead.  A political Messiah with those abilities sound like a great leader to me.

Last, but not least, this seems to be the first time that Jesus raises someone from the dead in Judea.  The others were by Galilee.  I wonder if this contributed to the Pharisees' freak out.

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem (Luke 13:31-35)

Jesus encounters Pharisees outside Jerusalem.  They say that Jesus should Jesus because Herod wants to kill him.

This may or not be a lie.  At the very least, the Pharisees are essentially stating that the Roman authorities will do something about Jesus, even if they cannot get Jesus to leave.  

It might be a lie because Herod did want to see Jesus because he thought that Jesus was the resurrected John the Baptist.  It seemed that Herod was happy about this possibility since he grown to like John the Baptist.  However, we know that the Pharisees are actively plotting against Jesus and could very well have told Herod a half truth that Jesus claims to be king and is inciting a revolt against Herod.  We do not know what is going on behind the scenes, but this is a very real possibility and well within the motivation and power of the Pharisees to do.  Jumping ahead, this issue was a central element to the trial and execution of Jesus and this may the beginning of the idea.

Further, Jesus does not dispute that Herod wants to kill him.  Rather, he states that the Pharisees should go tell "that fox Herod" that he will continue healing for another two days and on the third day he will reach his goal.  Jesus explains this on a literal level in that he cannot die in the next days because prophets do not die outside Jerusalem.

Figuratively, it also refers to the resurrection.   Healing and his own resurrection are very common things Jesus talks about with the Pharisees whereas with his followers, Jesus mentors and nurtures discipleship.

Jesus then laments on Jerusalem.  He knows he will not see Jerusalem again until the week of his death.

The Narrow Door (Luke 13:22-38)

Jesus is going through the villages and is asked by someone, "Lord, will only a few people be saved?"

The use of the word "Lord" suggests the questioner is a disciple of Christ.  

Jesus responds to "them", meaning a crowd in the villages that they should make every effort to through the narrow door.  Further, many will try to enter, but would be unable to.  Eventually, the door will close and owner of the house will say "away with you, you evildoers" and there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.  The people outside will then see other people from the north, south, east, and west eat with the patriarchs and the prophets in the Kingdom of God.

Let's unpack this.  Here is what I see.

1.  This supports the idea that not entering in faith will result in banishment from God.  

2.  Banishment from God will result in weeping and gnashing of teeth.

3.  The question seems to imply salvation in the afterlife, but the answer given does not necessarily mean this refers to the afterlife.  The scope of the answer includes the afterlife (seeing the patriarchs and prophets), but is not necessarily limited to it.

4.  Jesus never actually directly answers the question.  The question was about numbers - how many will be saved?  Jesus' answer is basically - "it is up to you".  Jesus implies that the numbers saved will be large by referring to people coming from the "north, south, east, and west".

5.  The response also functions to predict the Gospel going to the Gentiles.  People will come from the north, south, east, and west to eat with the patriarchs and the prophets.  That means that other, non-Jewish people, will be given a chance to enter the kingdom of God.

6.  Likewise, the answer somewhat predicts the rejection of the Gospel by the Jews and in turn, God's rejection of them.  Jesus is speaking to Jews and tells them to enter the narrow door.  However, many [of these Jews] will not be able to.  Then, these Jews will be outside while non-Jews get to go in.  If we take this literal level, then the "weeping and gnashing of teeth" could also refer to the upcoming destruction of Jerusalem and near annihilation of the Jews by the Romans during the Jewish revolt (67-73 AD).

The Last Hanukkah (John 10:22-42)

It is the Feast of the Dedication (Hanukkah).   We do not know how many times Jesus observed it, but it is the last one before he will die at the next Passover.  We actually do not know if Jesus observed it, but he is in Jerusalem during it.

The Jews encounter Jesus in Jerusalem.  They ask him if he is the Christ.  Jesus says that he said so before and has done many miracles to support this claim.  He then explains that he is the Son of God and the Jews pick up stones to kill him.  They want to kill him because he claims to be God.

In response, Jesus cites Psalm 82:6.  Psalm 82 is a strange psalm which discusses God's judgment over a a great assembly.  In verse 6, God seems to call anyone is a son of God to be "god".  However, in verse 7, these "gods" will die like men.  

Why does Jesus mention it here?  The implicit statement is that Jesus means that even within the psalms, there is an extra spiritual to anyone who is a "son of God".  This could be a reflection of the image of God imparted on all humanity in lineage with Adam.  However, we "humans" know that we are not "gods" in the sense that we are aware of our own mortality.  Jesus was aware of this himself.  

That said, it is a strange statement and a little hard to parse.

Regardless, the crowd still wanted to kill Jesus.  He somehow - perhaps miraculously - escapes and goes ack to the Jordan where he was baptized.  There, other people come to believe in Jesus.

I am the Shepherd (John 10:1-21)

After healing the blind man, Jesus gives the Jews a parable.  A shepherd's flock knows the shepherd, does not know the robbers and thieves that came to rob.  The shepherd enters peacefully through the gate while the robbers do not.  The sheep respond to the shepherd, but not the robbers and thieves.

On a literal level, this is another straightforward and obvious story in similar fashion to the one about the farmer.  Here though, Jesus explains the parable to the crowd because they did not understand what he was talking about.  He explained he, Jesus, was the shepherd and that his flock knows his voice.  He also explains about how wolves try to scatter the flock and there are other sheep, but there is only one flock.

At this, the Jews are divided.  Some think Jesus is demon-possessed while others find credibility in that he healed the blind.

A blind man is healed (John 9)

Jesus and his disciples encounter a blind man.

The disciples ask Jesus - who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?

Implicit in the question is the belief that blindness is the result of a person sinning.  In other words, physical ailments are a spiritual punishment for something the person did.

Jesus says no one sinned.  Rather, he was born blind that the work of God might be displayed in his life.   At this point, it is hard to fathom what Jesus is talking about, but at the very least, the explanation means that some physical ailments are not the fault of our or our parents sins.

Jesus spits in dirt and puts the mud on the man's eyes.  Jesus instructs the man to wash himself in the pool of Siloam.  The man does and after washing the mud, he can see.

The Pharisees see this and question him what happened.  He testifies about Jesus and the Pharisees are shocked because Jesus "does not keep the Sabbath". 

Note, there is no indication that this healing happened on the Sabbath.  Jesus had done a few healings on the Sabbath and had encountered resistance from the Pharisees.  Here, the issue the Pharisees focus on is not "can anyone heal on the Sabbath?", but rather, "can a sinner who does not keep the Sabbath heal?".  Both questions point to the same ultimate issue, which is whether Jesus was from God or not.

The Pharisees are divided.  Some take Jesus' side and others do not.  Like Jesus said, he came to bring division.  Jesus mentioned the family dynamic, but here is a political-social division based on loyalty to Christ.  Later, we find the anti-Jesus Pharisee group is stronger than the pro-Jesus Pharisee group because they threw people out of the synagogue.  This probably means that the anti-Jesus group substantially outnumbered the pro-Jesus group.

Meanwhile, the healed man believes that Jesus is a prophet.

The Pharisees investigate the healing and ask the man's parents if he actually was born blind.  The parents are afraid the Pharisees will kick them out of the synagogue if they say the wrong thing, so the parents say for them to ask their son. 

They repeat the question of the blind man and this time, they put words in his mouth:  "we know this man [Jesus] is a sinner".

 The man responds that he does not know if the man is a sinner or not, but all he knows is that he was once blind, but now he sees.  The then repeats his testimony at how he was healed.  He ends up having a dispute with the Pharisees, and the Pharisees get mad and throw him out.

The healed blind man later encounters Jesus and professes faith.

Interpreting the times - be reconciled (Luke 12:54-13:8)

Jesus preaches to the crowd about how they should read the times.  They know what a rainstorm cloud on the horizon looks like and implicitly, they should see the storm clouds here.  They can see the miracles of Jesus and repeatedly are amazed, so what does this mean for them?  Do they understand the significance?

Jesus further explains that they should be reconciled with the magistrate.  On one hand, this could easily refer to the end of any natural life.  But in the context coming after the reference to storm clouds and how Jesus brings division, it could refer to Jesus' teachings.  Here he is warning them to be reconciled, but does not explicitly state that he is the magistrate.  

The crowd seems to interpret this to refer to the proper blood sacrifices at the temple.  This is a good connection to make, but Jesus was probably also talking about himself.

Some people in the crowd mention something, if taken literally, would be a terrible atrocity.  Pilate had mixed human blood from Galileans in with the animal sacrifices at the temple.  If this went on, it sounds like human sacrifice was happening at the temple of God.  All this was at the direction of Pilate.  However, we do not know the scale it happened or how often.

This is one of the things that God hated in the Old Testament that lead to the destruction of the northern kingdom and exile of the south.  So, the people are right to be concerned.

Jesus responds that the people who suffered were not any more guilty than other people.  He then states that the people in crowd must repent or perish themselves.

Jesus ends on an interesting parable.  He describes a fig tree that has not produced fruit for three years.  The owner decides to keep it for one more year, afterwards it will be destroyed.

On one hand, this actually sort of predicts the somewhat famous account in which Jesus curses a fig tree that has no fruit.  On the other, it could be a reference to the ministry of Jesus himself.  Jesus is winding down his ministry and will die the following year at Passover.  We could take the fig tree to parallel the ministry.  That means the Jews will have a major choice the next year.  Are they bearing fruit or not?  Will they reject or accept Jesus?  Will they stand up for Jesus at his trial?  Will they weep when he dies?  This is all coming to a head.  

The fig tree has one more year to bear fruit.

Not peace but division (Luke 12:49-53)

Jesus predicts that his words will cause divisions among social groups, particularly families.  This is not meant to be an instruction or endorsement of familial conflict, but rather is the natural result of the words of Jesus.  For the Kingdom of God to move, the Kingdom (of this world) must lose.  This plays out in the hearts of people and even on the family level.

Watch out and patiently wait (Luke 12:35-48)

Jesus explains a parable about servants waiting for the master to come, but they have no idea when.  They should do as the master instructed as if the master would appear at any moment.

I know this is frequently interpreted to refer to Jesus' second coming, but it also refers to the inverse - us going to Jesus.  We do not know when we will die.  Jesus has not returned yet so many generations died in faith not knowing if Jesus would return in their lifetimes.  But Jesus did not and instead, they lived their lives and died, and returned to Jesus (in whatever form of afterlife there is).  

This same teaching applies to us, not because Jesus may or may not return in our lives, but simply because we do not know when our lives will end.  

This also ties back to the parable of the rich man who suddenly died. 

The Holy Spirit and money (Luke 12:1-34)

A large crowd gathers around Jesus.  The people are clamoring over each other to get to Jesus.

Jesus first talks to the disciples.  He warns them about the yeast of the Pharisees, but also to not worry about those who can kill the body, but do no more harm.  Rather, acknowledge Jesus before men and Jesus will acknowledge you before the angels of God.  From another parable, we learned that the angels of God will sift the good harvest from the bad.  So, this is important.

Holy Spirit

Jesus also mentions that people who insult Jesus will be forgiven but those that insult the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.  This is a strange statement to make.  My general understanding is that the Holy Spirit is a a necessary component of grace and forgiveness.  This reason is not because it is more important than Christ, but that one's attitude about it one's heart in view of Christ.  

For instance, lots of people think that Jesus is a "great" man.  Even Muslims acknowledge that Jesus was at the very least a prophet of God.  Many contemporary people in the Western world, including atheists, view Jesus as a great moral leader.  However, they deny of divinity of Christ and in short, cannot accept Christ.  In other words, they deny that the Holy Spirit was with Christ or that it can come to them.  It is this "blaspheming" the Holy Spirit that these verses refer to.  We can talk about Christ all we want.  Atheists and Muslims like non-Holy Spirit Christ and that is the difference.

Money
A man in the crowd says and possibly interrupts Jesus.  "Jesus, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me."

Jesus responds with a warning about greed and discusses a parable.

A rich who is already rich gets a great crop production.  He decides to build extra storehouses and barns to store this wealth in.  He then decides to take life easy and "eat, drink, and be merry".  God is angry with him and tells him that he will die that night and asks who will receive wealth.

The parable directly ties back to the question about inheritance.  One possibly wonders that maybe Jesus is describing the very situation that the man who asked the question had.  Perhaps his father was very wealthy, was self-centered, and store his wealth.  When he died, his children squabbled over it.  However, this is ll supposition as the text is silent about this.  At the very least, the parable would have reminded the questioner that the wealth he squabbles over came from a dead loved one.  

Note, this parable does not stand for that it is immoral to store up grain, have wealth, or be rich.  No, it does not.  Jesus explains the parable's meaning in verses 22-34, although only the disciples get the interpretation.  Jesus explains to his disciples that they should not worry about material possessions.  Do not even worry about what one will eat or drink.  God knows we need all these things, but if we seek the kingdom, they will all be added to us.  In this passage, Jesus refers to Solomon, who we all remember was a very rich man.