Luke 22:3-4, Difficult Verse of the Day

"Then Satan entered Judas, the one called Iscariot, who was one of the twelve [disciples]. And he went away and discussed with the chief priests and officers how he might betray Him and hand Him over to them." Luke 22:3-4

Even though I am reading short chunks of Luke each day, not even full chapters, I feel like each day brings a new "difficult" verse.  Today's is above.

I feel as if I could gain more understanding of it if it came from Mark--it has that abrupt Mark quality---boom, four words and we are in a different spot.  But it's Luke.  Luke, who takes time to linger, who gives us the fullest account of Christ's birth, who sets forth to create an orderly account, who is a physician by trade.

And Luke, all these things, sets forth this idea that Satan entered Judas.  John mentions this truth too (John 13:2 and 13:27) in the context of the Last Supper:

"It was during supper, when the devil had already put [the thought of] betraying Jesus into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son...." Joh 13:2

So, what to make of a matter of fact statement that Satan can place thoughts in a person's head. What to make of an evil spirit that enters a person? 

I can't blow past such statements with wrestling

A few things occur to me immediately.  One is that Jesus places a high emphasis on thoughts and our thought life. He places thought right up there with action: Matthew 5:28 "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

I think of the man of Gadarenes tormented by evil spirits that Christ sent into the herd of pigs. In the Old Testament, I think of King Saul, also tormented by an evil spirit. Searching further through cross references, Ananias

Luk 13:11  And there was a woman who for eighteen years had had an illness caused by a spirit (demon). She was bent double, and could not straighten up at all. 

What to make of this? How to differentiate between a distorted psychological perception and a spirit that is separate, distinct, that enters a person. It's surely confusing and riddled with potential for over simplification, under simplification, and general abuse.

Seeking greater understanding and perspective, I came across this comment:

“True to its principle of contrast, this book gives Satan a prominent position” (Abbot). See Luk_4:13; Luk_10:18; Luk_22:3, Luk_22:31. See Introduction.  -Vincent's Word Studies

VWS's further commentary on contrasts in Luke was worth digging for:

"Luke's Gospel is the gospel of contrasts. Thus Satan is constantly emphasized over against Jesus, as binding a daughter of Abraham; as cast down from heaven in Jesus' vision; as entering into Judas; as sifting Peter. The evangelist portrays the doubting Zacharias and the trusting Mary; the churlish Simon and the loving sinner; the bustling Martha and the quiet, adoring Mary; the thankful and the thankless lepers; the woes added to the blessings in the Sermon on the Mount; the rich man and Lazarus; the Pharisee and the Publican; the good Samaritan and the priest and Levite; the prodigal and his elder brother; the penitent and impenitent thieves."

This is an interesting angle to think through--I don't believe I've considered contrasts in Luke as a major aspect of his style.  And thinking further--how to interpret "style," how the individual composer expresses his identity, perspective, and uses literary constructs to express inerrant truth?  This is way too much to push up against on a cold and dreary Monday morning.

Even searching for this reference has prompted me to circle back around and try to understand Luke better as an author, a disciple, a doctor, a person.  22 chapters in, and I am just realizing this need? It makes me further question my mind's ability to grasp the forest and the trees together, always losing one for the other.

Key insights from the VWS introduction to Luke also include thoughts that he was Greek, maybe from Antioch, the most skillful of the gospel writers in terms of his precision for language and skills of observation.  He utilized over 700 words not in the other gospels. He saw the world through the lens of a physician, but also had a precision about terminology related to the sea and politics.  We are not certain of when he enters Paul's life, but there is also a strong correlation between Paul's language/thoughts and Luke's--almost like a married couple.  It illustrates the closeness of their walk. 

Not done thinking by any means, but this is where I need to leave the questions and verses for today.