The passage
      v1-2. Addressing his disciples (in particular those who, because of their position in the church or their Christian maturity, have some influence over younger believers), Jesus warns them not to cause a believer ("little one") to turn away from him. It's very easy for mature Christians to mimic the Pharisees' belief that a person's standing with God is somehow maintained, even improved, by a rigorous attention to God's law. Let us take care that we never lead a young believer away from God's grace.
      v3-4. God's law can be encapsulated in the command to love ones neighbor, and the most practical expression of mutual love is found in forgiveness. Yet, is there anyone who could claim to have forgiven a brother "countless times"? The disciples certainly recognized the problem. A brother/sister may need rebuking, but above all they will need forgiving, accepting, including, .... and that's the hard call. Jesus' words serve to remind the disciples of their inability to be worthy of God through their own effort, and thus of the stupidity, even danger, of teaching the way of law-righteousness to "little ones."
      v5-6. The truth is that there is but one law and that law, that eternal demand of God, is the exercise of faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. The disciples have asked for a faith to do, but Jesus offers them a faith to receive. Jesus reminds them that even the most hesitant and questioning reliance on him can activate God's eternal acceptance, and this against all odds. Rather than laying on the "little ones" the "yoke" of the law, lay on them the yoke of faith.
      v7-10. Jesus has made the point to his disciples that they must take care that they don't adopt the law-obedience of the Pharisees, given its power to undermine the way of salvation. In the end, our standing before God is a gift of his kindness. We can earn nothing from God, for we always remain "unworthy servants." Jesus now illustrates this truth in a parable. Were we to have completed everything that was commanded of us, we would still have to admit to ourselves that we can claim no extra benefit from God, no increased status or reward, for in the end, complete obedience is but our duty.

The example of forgiveness
      It has long been recognized that a child's perception of God is influenced by their parents. If a child's parents are dictatorial, harsh, judgmental, even violent, then the child often perceives their heavenly Father in similar terms. The Bible's high standards for parenting reflects the important heavenly image provided to children by their parents. Positive parenting reveals the character of God to children.
      In a similar way, the mature members of a Christian fellowship serve as role models for God's character. The new believer will often image God in terms of the behavior of older believers. If the older members are judgmental, demanding, strict, overly pious, legalistic, ..... then the new believer will tend to see God in these terms.
      Jesus therefore makes a point of warning his disciples of the danger of setting before a young believer "things that cause people to sin", "temptations to sin", RSV., or better, "stumbling-blocks" (alternate reading). Although such "temptations" are often seen in terms of say, drinking at a bar and by so doing, leading the less-controlled young believer into a drinking habit, Jesus has in mind a far greater "sin". He is concerned that the "older brother" does not undermine the faith of the "weaker brother, such that they loose touch with Jesus and so undermine their salvation.
      The most dangerous example set by a mature believer is that of nomism, the idea that law-obedience both restrains sin, thus maintaining a person's standing before God, and promotes holiness, thus progressing their standing before God. Not only can we be harsh and demanding of our own "righteousness", we can become expert at "removing the specks from a brothers eye." We all "fall short of the glory of God" and are in need of correction, but above all we need mercy, forgiveness.
      If we're unsure that we "fall short of the glory of God", we only need to look at how unforgiving we are. Oh yes, we pretend that we are all loving - "I'm only saying this to you out of love" - but in our heart of hearts we know we fall short. And even if we didn't fall short, which is impossible, we would still be "unworthy servants" - you don't get brownie points for doing what you're supposed to do. Thankfully, faith in Christ accesses God's total love for us, and so the only load with which we should burden a young believer is the yoke of faith, through which we all access God's grace.

v1
      Jesus' first saying concerning stumbling-blocks is usually understood as any sort of temptation that could lead "little ones" astray. Often general causes are identified, all sins, and if the temptation comes from us we are damned. As noted above, given the context, the "offence" is likely to be nomism, that is, the belief that law-obedience both restrains sin, thus maintaining a person's standing / approval before God, and promotes holiness, thus progressing a person's standing / approval before God. The impossibility of such self-righteousness was evident in the Pharisees who, although "righteous", were "lovers of money." It is this "offence", in particular, that will cause a brother "to fall away", for a person is saved by grace through faith and not works of the law.
      proV touV maqhtaV "to his disciples" - Indicating that at this point, Jesus' teaching for a wider audience, which included the Pharisees, now focuses on a specific audience, namely, his disciples (presumably dealing with the same subject matter).
      ta skandala (on) "cause people to sin" - the temptations to sin. The sense is possibly "traps, or snares", Danker, or trip up, "stumbling-block", Marshall, or "cause of offence", Marshall. Probably better paraphrased, "it is inevitable that things should happen to cause men (believers) to fall away", TNT.
      di ou| "through whom". The agent is not identified. It is usually assumed the agent is a disciple, so believers in general, although the reference could primarily be to the Pharisees, whose example we must not follow; "watch yourselves."
      tou .... mh elqein (ercomai) aor. inf. "are bound to come" - [it is impossible] not to come. This construction, of the genitive articular infinitive, usually forms a final, or consecutive clause, but here is "rather awkward", Marshall. See Plummer for other possibilities.

v2
      lusitelei (lusitelew) pres. "it would be better [for him]" - it is profitable. Taken in a comparative sense, "more profitable, better."
      ei + ind. Forming a conditional sentence where, had the condition been realized, namely, the person who had caused the little ones to stumble was drowned, that person would be better off.
      liqoV mulikoV "a millstone" - a stone belonging to a mill. The upper millstone, the stone with a hole in it, obviously suitable to weight down something heavy in water.
      iJna + subj. "than for him [to cause one of these little ones] to sin" - that he might cause to stumble, entrap. Here, the apodosis of the conditional sentence, forming a comparative clause.
      twn mikrwn adj. "little ones" - little. Adjective used as a substantive. Numerous suggestions have been offered for the identity of these "little ones": children, believers, new believers, the poor to whom the gospel is preached, Grundmann. "Disciples" seems likely, so Bock, Stein, Johnson, but possibly new believers; "the weak, the lowly, the vulnerable", Nolland.

v3a
      prosecete (prosecw) pres. imp. "so watch [yourselves]" - pay attention [to yourselves]. Most likely this warning is attached to v1-2, although it may introduce the next saying, v3-4, so Plummer. "So be on your guard", REB.

v3b
      The second saying encourages forgiveness. It is the rather incongruous nature of this saying that has prompted the view that it is simply an unrelated discipleship instruction. None-the-less, it is possible to argue that it serves to support the warning on law-righteousness in v1-3a. Yet, how does this second saying fit with the first? It is possible that the saying is making the point that instead of taking the high moral ground, along with the righteous Pharisee, a disciple is to stand with "the last" and exhibit grace, especially the grace of forgiveness toward a fallen brother. This is certainly a reasonable interpretation, but it is also possible that Jesus (here Luke, by his placement of the saying) is again using the law to expose the human condition of sin and thus the absurdity of a law-righteousness approach to life. For a disciple, Jesus often exegeted the law in the terms of love, and in particular, its practical outworking in forgiveness. So, here Jesus presents the ideal of an "impossible forgiveness", Ellis. Obviously, the disciples recognize the impossibility of the demand and ask for help, v5a. If this interpretation is to be followed then the saying on forgiveness serves to remind us of the absurdity of a law-righteousness approach to the Christian life and of the disastrous consequences that flow, both to the "little ones" and to us, if we were to promote such a "stumbling-block." "If your brother wrongs you and if, upon being rebuked by you, he repents, you shall forgive him", TH.
      ean + subj. "if [... sins]" - Conditional clause, 3rd. class, where the condition is a possibility (a probability when it comes to the human condition!).
      aJmarth/ (aJmartanw) aor. subj. "sins" - Used of offences toward God and other people. Note, in v4 it is "sins against you", so properly "if your brother offends you", Phillips.
      epitimhson (epitimaw) aor. imp. "rebuke" - rebuke, speak seriously toward, warn [to him]. The word can take many shades and given the context, it seems unlikely that Jesus has in mind a censorious rebuke. A quiet chat on the side about the problem that has caused the hurt seems more likely; "loving admonition", Stein.
      metanohsh/ (metanoew) aor. subj. "repents" - A recognition of wrong and an attempted turning around from that wrong. Not a "feeling sorry", which is often the sense of the word today, or worse, just a "saying sorry", usually without any attempt to put things right. We are again reminded that were there is no repentance there is no forgiveness.

v4
      eJptakiV adv. "seven times" - Certainly "a large number", Arndt, but more likely meaning "countless times" TH.
      eiV se "against you" - to you. Personalizing the sins, see v3.
      thV hJmeraV (a) gen. "in a day" - of the day. The genitive of time. "In one day", Moffatt.
      afhseiV (afihmi) fut. "forgive [him]" - An imperatival future tense = a command. "You should still forgive that person", CEV.

v5
      Jesus' third saying concerns the exercise of a genuine faith. Jesus' demand for "countless" forgiveness serves to expose our condition of sin and so force us to rely in faith on God's mercy. Although forgiveness is impossible to do, it is easily received. The disciples call for faith to do, but Jesus offers them a faith to receive. Such a faith can be weak and insignificant, but no matter how small, it has the power to activate God's forgiveness, and in the end, it is the abundance of God's forgiveness that enables the unworthy servant to forgive, albeit imperfectly. So, although it would be reasonable to argue that the business of casting trees is the business of exercising faith in the forgiveness of a repentant brother, it is more likely the business of exercising faith for the reception of divine forgiveness. This is the only "yoke" we should place upon "the little ones", never the yoke of law-righteousness.
      prosqeV (prostiqhmi) aor. imp. "increase [our faith]" - add to. Numerous meanings are possible: "give us faith", BAGD.; "give us also faith", Creed, in the sense of "add faith to our other gifts"; "bestow upon us more faith", Creed, along with most other commentators, "give us a greater faith than we already have", Stein.

v6
      Most commentators argue that the faith Jesus speaks of here is not quantitative, but qualitative; it is a faith "pure and simple", Danker; a faith that need only be exercised, not increased, Nolland; a faith that need only be present, Bock. We should not so quickly dispense with a quantitative sense. Faith is a reliance on Christ and his revealed will. My reliance, my resting on Christ, may be weak and feeble, filled with doubts, but it is enough, for it is not the power of my faith that moves the tree, but rather the power of God. Of course, the moving of the tree would first need to be within the will of God, and as yet, I have been unable to find any example of propositional revelation in scripture indicating that he want's us to be in the tree-moving business.
      ei ind. "if [you have]" - Introducing a conditional sentence, although the form of the apodosis indicates an unreal condition which implies that the disciples do not possess such faith, cf. Johnson, although Nolland disagrees. As a contrary to fact condition "you have", in the protasis, should be imperfect, as with the verb "you would have said" in the apodosis, but it takes a present tense implying that the condition is real. The conditional sentence would then read "if you have faith ...... (and you do), you can ......" See Turner p.51-52. "Since you have some faith, small as it may be, you could say to this sycamine tree, Be plucked up by the root .....", Turner.
      uJphkousen an aor. "it will obey [you]" - it would have obeyed [to you]. The aorist may express time before the command indicating "the certainty of (the command's) fulfilment", Marshall.

v7

Detached note on the parable of the Master and the Slave
      My wife has often commented on how preachers, handling the same passage, seemed to come up with such diverse interpretations; a rather fearful consequence for the truth of the gospel. My only answer was to point out that the Spirit was well able to override our paltry exegesis and make known the truth to the seeker. It is this fascination with the diverse opportunities that seem to present themselves in scripture that drives me to search out the comments of the commentators and which in turn, drives me to purchase commentaries (my wife often suggests it is too many commentaries) that range from the erudite to the banal.
      This fascination particularly applies to parables; observe the following comments on the parable of the Master and the Slave and note (despite my wife's cynicism!) that there is a general consensus of views. Most commentators treat the parable as a teaching parable, a story/picture serving to illustrate a particular truth (unlike kingdom parables which, in the form of a riddle, proclaim the gospel - the coming of the kingdom of God). When it comes to the intended truth of the parable, most follow good old Mr. Plummer who titles the parable "The Insufficiency of Works" (spot on!) and summarizes its teaching as "a man can make no just claim for having done more than was due." I'm not sure about the "more", and so I wonder if it wouldn't be better to say "a man (and a woman!) can make no just claim for having done what was due." Mind you, there is still a problem, who has ever done what was due? Anyway, "Jesus repudiates the attitude ...... that the performance of good works constituted a claim upon God for due reward", Marshall; "Obedience is not to be accepted as a cause for merit but as a fulfillment of duty", Bock; "To meet God's demands is the duty of our station, not the basis of some special standing in his eyes", Nolland; "The conduct of such a Christian disciple in fulfilling his/her appointed tasks does not necessarily guarantee his/her salvation; having done all that is expected, the disciple still realizes that the destiny that awaits him/her is of grace", Fitzmyer (an early attempt at nonsexist language!); "A person's acceptance by God is not based on one's ability to perform, but is based on that person's faith and God's grace", Black; "When we have fulfilled all our duties we still have no claim on God", Creed; "The parable of the master and the slave is a warning against the book-keeping mentality, which thinks it can run up a credit balance with God", Caird. These comments are on the mark, although note how some commentators see the issue as legalism (earning salvation by good works) and others as nomism (the adoption of law-obedience, to restrain sin, thus maintaining a person's standing before God, and/or to promote holiness, thus progressing a person's standing before God).
      Some commentators see the parable as a lesson on discipleship in general, so: "The disciples should not expect thanks for doing simply what they have been commanded", Johnson; "Discipleship is an entire, not a partial commitment", Tinsley; Luke "reminds his readers that there is no place for boasting and that disciples must remember who is to serve whom", Stein.
      Other commentators think the parable serves to illustrate Jesus' teaching on faith. Danker takes this line, although he ends up joining the mob with, "the disciple is not to expect a pat on the back for doing his assigned task." Ellis (as usual) makes a better fist of it with "to be given faith is to be given responsibility, and the manifestation of faith in life is a 'duty' that is owed, not a personal achievement for which thanks are due", or even more to the point, "faith such as Jesus asks of the disciples is a duty which they owe simpliciter to God", Manson.
      Sadly, only Johnson, and Leaney in passing, notes the wider context of Jesus' confrontation with the Pharisees and their belief that wealth was a just reward for righteousness. Jesus' message is that his disciples must take care that they don't adopt the law-obedience of the Pharisees, their pharisaic nomism, given its power to undermine the way of salvation. In the end, true wealth is eternal, a gift of God's unlimited grace, appropriated through the instrument of faith. We can earn nothing from God, for we always remain "unworthy servants." The only "work" demanded of a disciple is "the obedience of faith", an easy "yoke" indeed. So, we do well to remember that having "fulfilled all our duties we still have no claim on God", Creed

tiV de ..... o}V ... epei (eipon) fut. "suppose .... Would he say ..?" - who [among you having a slave ...] who [coming in from the field] will say? The construction is emphatic and expects the answer, "no one would ever say this to a slave." Taken as setting up a rhetorical question, which feature is lost in the complexity of the sentence, the verb to-be must be supplied; "is there anyone among you, having a slave ....... who, when he comes in from the field, will say to him ....?" Verses 8 and 9 are also best translated as rhetorical questions, TNT.
      doulon (oV) "servant" - Not really a servant, but rather "a slave", TNT.
      eiselqonti (eisercomai) aor. part. "when he comes in" - having come in. The participle is temporal, as NIV, TNT.
      parelqwn (parercomai) aor. part. "come along [now]" - having come beside [immediately, at one]. The participle is probably imperatival, expressing a command, as NIV, TNT.
      anapese (anapiptw) aor. part. "sit down to eat" - lie down. The participle is again imperatival. As in sitting down for a meal, although in their case, they did lie down to eat.

v8
      ouci erei (eipon) fut. "would he not [rather] say" - [but] will he not say [to him]. Obviously a deliberative future setting up the second rhetorical question. The negation expects a positive answer.
      deipnhsw (deipnew) aor. subj. "[prepare] my supper" - [prepare something] I may eat. The subjunctive obviously forms a purpose clause, "in order that I may eat", but best translated simply as "get my dinner ready", TNT.
      perizwsamenoV (perizwnnimi) aor. part. "get yourself ready" - having wrapped about yourself [serve me]. In the sense of putting on a serving apron. The participle is imperatival, serving as a finite verb in the imperative mood; "prepare to serve me while I eat and drink", TNT.
      diakonei (diakonew) pres. imp. "wait on [me]" - serve [me]. The present tense expresses duration, "continue to serve me", "go on serving me until I have finished", Moule.
      eJwV + subj. "after that" - until. Forming a temporal clause, the aorist underlining the "until I have finished eating." "You can eat and drink when I have finished", Barclay.

v9
      mh "-" The negation used in a question expecting a negative answer.
      carin (iV ewV) "thank" - [does he have] gratitude [to the slave] ...? Grace in the sense of "gratitude due the slave", Nolland. "Slaves have to carry out their duties without expecting that they thereby place their masters under obligation", Marshall.