Virtual Vestry ~ The Story of Jesus, Part #2

Note: wherever you see red text there is a point to ponder.

The Life of Jesus has been an enigma for centuries.

Was he a good philosopher and teacher with lofty principles that inspire the best in humanity? Or was he what he claimed to be: the Son of God, who came to save the world from the power of Sin and Death?

If the first is true, then the highest claim that can be made by Christians is that they have a good morally based religion. What then?

If the second is true, then Christianity is witness to a God who cares, who loves and humbles himself to our human level, to deliver mankind from the current chaos and lead them into a stable tomorrow!

Knowing the evidence is a significant part of any investigation. It would be appropriate for us to look again at the evidence of the NT documents themselves.

HISTORY BEHING THE NEW TESTAMENT

TEXTUAL CRITICISM

This is the point where we must apply our own decision-making processes!

Has our study of the Gospels and Life of Christ clarified YOUR PERSONAL convictions as to who Jesus really was? This takes us back to Part 1 (1 and 2).

If we reduce Christianity to a MORAL GOSPEL... what is the point?

If the bible is the story of GOD working amid humanity, if Jesus is who he claimed to be, then we ourselves are part of the story .

My own personal summary of our study centres around the following words:

1. BELIEF
2. RELATIONSHIP
3. LOVE
4. SERVICE
5. SACRIFICE
6. SALVATION (Crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension...)

Do you have any words to add to the list?

What other teachings from Jesus really gripped you?

What have you discovered about the following:

1. How we ought to relate to others in our own faith community?
2. How we ought to relate to other Christians?
3. How we ought to relate to other Faith Groups?
4. How we ought to relate to people who declare they have no religion?

THE SAFEST METHOD

Human Nature being what it is, we do well to base our thinking on a broad understanding of the Scriptures. Jesus and Paul, both tell us that we need the HOLY SPIRIT to guide us. Dogma can be dangerous in society: Spiritually, Socially and Politically.

If we have learned anything in the last year of studying the Gospels and the life of Christ, surely it must have taught us in all situations to ask a simple but profound question:

What would JESUS DO?

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

We are approaching the end of the story of Jesus' life on earth in human form. He has achieved what he came to accomplish - giving his life to rescue humanity from the power of evil and demonstrate to the universe the power of God's love. One final step remains: he must return to heaven, present himself to his Father and then take his place at the right hand of God in the heavenly sanctuary. We will try to follow his journey upward and onward.

Scripture: Please read the following (as supplied on the associated PDF file)

First, the ascension of Jesus follows logically from the bodily resurrection. If Jesus rose from the dead with a glorified body that superseded the physical properties governing mortal bodies, then it would appear inappropriate for him to retain permanently subject to the physical properties on earth. His translation to his essential celestial state follows both naturally and inevitably. The ascension thus signals the transition from Jesus' earthy embodied existence to his heavenly embodied existence. Second, the crude objectivity of his ascension, offensive though it may be to modern sensitivities, may have been necessary to convey that Jesus would not appear again in the spiritually embodied state in which the disciples had experienced him as resurrected Lord. It is hard to imagine that the disciples would have believed or grasped the finality of his departure, even if he had not performed an empirical object lesson such as the ascension. In respect, the ascension was not necessary for Jesus: he had, after all, entered into human existence without similar drama. It was necessary for the disciples to acknowledge his future spiritual presence rather than bodily presence. Finally, and most important, Jesus did not discard his body and return to the Father, in contrast to the incarnation, in which he had 'departed' from the Father as a purely spiritual being to take on human flesh. His identification and embracing of humanity are so complete that he returns to the Father as the incarnate Son. Jesus is not simply the saviour of humanity, but in his bodily ascension he exalts humanity with himself. Humanity is now present in the Godhead through Jesus the incarnate Son. As Jesus is now, believers will someday be. 'What we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him' (1 John 3:2)"

"The Gospel according to Luke", James R. Edwards, p.741

1. Why do the synoptic gospels contain so little information regarding this event?
2. What is meant by "but some doubted" in Mt 28: 17?
3. What would have been going on in your mind if you had witnessed this event?
4. What do you think was going through the minds of those who witnessed the disappearance of Jesus as they went back to Jerusalem?
5. How much time should we spend doing as the disciples did (Lk 24:53)? (Blessing [Gk eulogew] = "speaking well of, praising; asking for bestowal of special favour - esp. call down God's gracious power) and how much effort should we put into Jesus' command in Mt 28:19-20a?
6. Where would we / Christianity be if there had been no book of Acts?
7. What might Acts 1:9 tell us about a physical/material change in Jesus having taken place? See the quote from Edward's "The gospel according to Luke" as supplied.
8. Compare Exodus 40:34 with Acts 1:9. Was this a meteorological 'cloud'?
9. How does reading Psalm 24 make you feel?
10. On arrival in the heavenly sanctuary is Jesus: (i) fully human (ii) fully divine (iii) fully human and fully divine (iv) something different?
11. Does Daniel's vision refer to the occasion of Jesus' ascension? Why / why not?
12. Taking the references from Hebrews what can we learn about Jesus' status and function in heaven and our relationship with Jesus the Son and God the Father?
13. What do you make of the sentences highlighted in the Edwards' quote?
14. What encouragement can be gained from Mt 28:20b?

There are too many questions here to be discussed at length in just 90 minutes. We will attempt to cover those highlighted in bold. The rest are offered for private pondering and meditation.

• PDF of these notes
• PowerPoint slides referred to in the discussion
• PDF of scripture references
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

This week we have four stories about the disciples and Jesus after the resurrection.

Read all four of these stories and try to discover/summarise the following.

• What can you say about the location?
• Which disciples are present?
• What is Jesus's message to the disciples?
• Which themes do you see in more than one gospel? How are these themes the same and how are they different?
• Do any specific details appear in multiple narratives?
• Do you see anything unique or interesting?

For both Mark and John these passages seem to come as an afterthought. Mark has this section in [[...]] because it is probably not part of the earliest version of Mark. John 20:30-31 looks like the end of the gospel, and John 21 looks to be something like an epilogue or afterword.

• What significance do these sections as 'afterthoughts' have? Are they more important, less important than other sections? Are they more interesting, less interesting, more exciting, less exciting, more ... or less ... ?

This is not the only time a gospel writer tells of the superabundant capture of fish. Read Luke 5:4-11, Jesus's first calling of disciples in Luke. There are two options for how this miracle ended up twice in the gospels:

1. It happened twice: Jesus did the miracle to call Simon Peter, and again after the resurrection.
2. John and Luke both knew of the miracle and its significance to Simon Peter. But they 'remembered' the miracle taking place in different moments in Simon Peter's life.

Think about each of these options and the two variations of the same miracle.

• What meaning would each of these have for Simon Peter, the gospel and us?
• Which do you like best, why?
• What differences are there between the two?

Some questions to ponder?

• Why do the disciples return to fishing?
• Why do the disciples listen to a random stranger's fishing advice?
• When was the last time Simon Peter saw a charcoal fire, what do you think is the significance?
• Why does Jesus want them to bring fish if he already has fish?
• What is the significance of there being exactly 153 fish?
• Why does Jesus ask Simon Peter the same(-ish) question three times?
• What on earth do verses 18 and 19 mean?

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

As Christ's dying time was a process, I have come to understand that His resurrection time is also a process. I think these processes were layered (physical and psychological) for Christ and for others.

I think, with the disciples, hope died and was "resurrected". Conversely, I think terror was born before Christ's death and was diminished, gradually, after.

I am seeing the events from the end of the Last Supper to the gathering at the end of John 20 and Luke 24:36 as a chiasm with the crucifixion of Jesus at its core. I also see some of the interactions as lessons for the early church and for us today.

I am unabashedly inviting us to participate in completely unsubstantiated speculation. We Earthlings tend to be focused on ourselves.

1. What do you think it was like for the other two Persons of the Deity in the last hours before the resurrection?
2. How do you think Heaven's angels felt as the angel of the Lord and the two who met disciples at the tomb were getting ready to leave?
3. What do you think it was like for the beings who live on planets not in our solar system?
4. How do you think Enoch, Moses and Elijah felt?

1. The Greek word "raised" (egerthe) is in the divine passive and points to the fact that Jesus was raised by God.
2. It is generally believed that Mark ends his gospel at 16:8. I chatted with Tom about this and he says it's generally believed that the other ending(s) were written 100 years later by people who didn't like ending at vs. 8. The verses of Mark 16: 9-20 are missing from some very old copies of Mark.

************Intermezzo***********

The Earth Shakes

Mathew 28:2-4 is my absolute favorite telling of this event. I am pretty sure it is my 12-year-old self that just loves when the good wins in such spectacular fashion.

1. Why do you think the angel sat on the stone?
2. Why do you think the writers are very careful to say Jesus was raised after the Sabbath was over?
3. Mathew writes 28:5 - He has been raised, just as he said. Why would Matthew make sure to include that phrase?
4. What do you make of the mix (Matthew 28: 8) of fear and great joy?
5. Why do you think three writers made sure to note that women were sent as first ambassadors of the resurrection?
6. And about the skepticism of the men?
7. Why do you think Mary Magdalene gets such special mention in John 20:10-18?
8. Mark 16:7 - Go tell my disciples, even Peter. Why do you think this is important? (John will talk about how Jesus addressed the issue later.)

Proofs

1. Luke 24:11,12 - despite the eye witness statements (of women) Peter "wonders" what is going on???? And the other men think the women's words are "nonsense".
   Any ideas here folks?
2. Mark's account leaves them "in terror and afraid".
   Do you have any sense of why the original text seems to end there?
3. Matthew's account leaves it with Jesus giving the women a mission to convince the men to meet Jesus in Galilee.
   What is your sense of why it may have been easier for the women to believe?
4. Jesus took the time to ground or remind Cleopas (looks like the name means "glory of the father") and his fellow disciple on the prophecies that heralded Jesus as the Messiah. He also reminded them that glory has to do with sacrifice and love.
   What is your sense of the benefit of this tactic?
5. Both Luke and John talk about the gathering where Cleopas and his friend gave witness. Jesus appears and shows his scars. And they still are afraid until Jesus has a bite to eat. I am amazed at the level of proof needed by the closest male followers of Jesus that first day; and of Tomas eight days later. I am very appreciative of the patience and the care Jesus showed to these scared students who had still not learned many of His lessons or His prophesies.
   • What are the gifts for us of Jesus in this resurrection day?
   • What are the lessons?

This week I wish for each of you unexpected blessings.

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

Introduction

We will spend a few moments examining the history of 'crucifixion'.

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written, 'cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree'".
Gal 3:13

Was it necessary for Christ not just to die, but to die on a cross?

Photo by Jim C, taken in Cadiz Cathedral

Now for some issues arising from the texts:

1. Why do you think the people turned against Christ at the crucifixion?
2. Matt 27:45. "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Had God the Father forsaken Christ the Son at this time?
3. The centurion and those guarding Jesus felt the earthquake and all that had happened. The centurion exclaimed, "Surely He was the Son of God!" What prompted him to make this statement? Was it the 'terror'?
4. Matt. 27: 55. Many women were there... They followed Jesus from Galilee to care for His needs. Not one woman has been identified with letting Christ down during this whole process. They were constantly supportive. Do you think women have special emotional gifts, and do you think that churches which relegate women to a secondary role are the poorer for that decision?
5. Who was Joseph of Arimathea? Why should we admire him? What is the significance of Nicodemus being introduced in John's gospel as his companion?
6. Why do you think Pilate submitted to the chief priests' and pharisees' request to secure the tomb?
7. Both Matthew and Mark indicate that those crucified with Christ insulted Him. However, Luke reports that one of the criminals rebuked the other for his remarks. Why the inconsistency?
8. "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise? Is the comma in the wrong place?
9. "Father forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." Jesus requested forgiveness even although they had not repented. Discuss!
10. Back to Matthew 27:52. "And the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had dies were raised to life." What is going on?

In the past we have touched on the question, "Why does God allow suffering?" I think this is a rhetorical question, in that it is unanswerable in any absolute sense.

"Why is there a God of love?" Again, I am unable to answer this, but I know God is a God of love, and it gives a huge amount of direction and meaning to my life.

The suffering of Christ on the cross is the ultimate expression of love. My limited imagination is incapable of creating a scenario that even begins to come close to this. This purpose in Christ's suffering gives me a great deal of comfort in my darker moments.

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

1. The Kidron Valley
   1. The water from its Pool of Gihon was brought by aqueduct inside the walls of Jerusalem to feed the pools of Siloam.
   2. BCE history
      1. 2 Samuel 15:23 - David escapes across the Kidron from Absalom.
      2. 1 Kings 2:37 - Solomon warns Shimei not to cross the Kidron
      3. 1 Kings 15:13, 2 Kings 23:4, 2 Chronicles 29:16 - Asa, Josiah and Hezekiah burn idols at its brook.
      4. 2 Chronicles 32:4 - Hezekiah stops it to deny the attacking Syrians a water source.
      5. Nehemiah 2:15 - Went up it to survey the walls and their need for repair.
      6. Jeremiah 31:38-40 mentions it in prophesy describing the permanent rebuilding of Jerusalem.
2. Nazarene/Nazareth
   1. The word is considered to be derived from Hebrew netser (root) used in Isaiah 11:1 where the Messiah is described being a shoot out of the roots of Jesse.
   2. In my study of the times the term could be used in a friendly way or as a term of scorn.
   3. Jesus applied it to Himself - it would make sense to me that when Jesus used the term it had multiple meanings.
3. Squad or Cohort: The word speiran usually refers to a Roman force of 600 men (one tenth of a legion). Translators generally believe it was a smaller group of the larger body. For instance if a group came from Legio XIV Gemina they would be called by that name.
4. Sleeping when stressed. People who become immensely fatigued in response to stress are using up all the glucose in their brain that they otherwise need to maintain energy. You can also want to read the Mayo Clinic article on Emotional Exhaustion during Stress.
5. The name Judas means the praised one. There are two men named Judas in this story. I think the uses of irony and hope were in John 14:22 and John 18:5
6. Annas was appointed High Priest by Quirinius governor of Syria. He was deposed CE 15 by Valerius Gratus governor of Judea. He was the father-in-law of Caiaphas. He seems to have had higher status; perhaps as family head.

1. Gethsemane - probably from the Aramaic for oil-press.
2. Distressed - (ekthambeo): to be overwhelmed, alarmed.
3. Hematohhidrosis - Blood sweating that can occur in individuals suffering from extreme levels of stress. Around the sweat glands there are multiple blood vessels in a net-like form which constrict under the pressure of great emotional stress.
4. Annas: The name means merciful and gracious... oy!

1. What are the ways Jesus' prayer in John 17:20 was meant to prepare the disciples for the next 24 hours?
2. Are there ways remembering the histories of the Kidron Valley might have prepared the disciples for their immediate future?
3. Why do you think Jesus took only James, Peter and John with him to the inner garden?
4. Why do you think John left out the Gethsemane experience in his gospel?
5. Matthew 26:41 and Luke 22:40 - From what temptation do you think Jesus was asking them to address here? What would have been the miracle and the benefit of those three staying awake?
6. Luke 22:43,44 For what do you think the angel strengthened Jesus? Are there lessons for us here?
7. John (in 18:24) wrote Jesus "knew everything that was going to happened to Him". No other gospel authors mentioned this. Why do you think John wrote this?
8. Why do you think John wrote about Simon Peter and the ear lopping? Why do you think Peter attacked the slave?
9. What lessons did Jesus give to Peter with the ear healing?
10. What's your sense of how Peter ended up with those three denials?
11. Do you think there is a larger lesson in both the Romans and the Jews participating in the journey to the cross?
12. Do you have a sense of Pilate's motives as he interacted with Jesus?
13. What is your take-a-way with these texts of the journey to the cross? Are there ways they give you resolve - or fear?
14. What did you see more deeply about Jesus?
15. What did you learn about disciples who are portrayed in these texts?
16. Which disciple do you think you would have been?
17. How would Jesus have responded to you?

I have no idea where you will be or when you will be when this lesson arrives. Wherever you are and whatever you are doing, I wish for you unexpected blessings. Remember you are valuable and valued.

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

This is the last section, starting in John 14. It focuses on a series of revelations about himself and information and encouragement that will prepare them for what lies ahead. This is totally unique to the gospel of John.

The lines of emphasis are as follows:

• If you trust in me, you can have peace in your hearts for the future.
• I am leaving you to prepare that future and will return to bring everything to completion.
• I will give you as special outpouring of the Holy Spirit as a source of encouragement, empowerment, guidance, and truth. The Spirit will support them even in the face of persecution.
• Jesus is the Vine, and we are the Branches. The fruit is primarily the ability to love each other as Jesus had loved them . This same command is repeated in multiple formats throughout the NT.
• The world will hate the disciple as it also hated Jesus.
• Reference to the Holy Spirit and the multiple dimensions of the ministry of the Spirit is revisited again and again throughout the passage: John 14:26; 15:26-27; 16: 7-15.

The prayer of JOHN 17 is primarily focused exclusively on the disciples and all believers.

• PDF of these notes
• The Hanukkah Speech and The Prayer to the Father
  (from Richard Bauckham, The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple)
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

Please read the gospel of John chapter 16 to prepare to answer the following questions.

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

This chapter is often seen as the heart of Jesus's farewell in John. This section contains one of the last of the key 'I am' sayings that John has in his gospel: I am the true vine.

The vine is a key metaphor in the Old and New Testament. Look up some of these passages and compare and contrast how Jesus uses vine here, with other biblical authors:

• Psalm 80
• Ezekiel 15
• Hosea 10

Jesus uses an extended metaphor here. Jesus is a vine, God is a gardener, the disciples (and presumably us) are the branches. But, what do the terms 'remove' and 'prune' entail? (See 15:2) When a branch is removed, what does that mean? When a branch is pruned, what does that mean?

What do you think are the fruit that Jesus talks of?

Jesus speaks of love and commandments. How do you think these two relate?

Personally, I find John 15:16 the hardest to interpret of this chapter. Two questions:

1. What do you think Jesus means with 'You did not choose me but I chose you'? Does that also apply to us, or just to the disciples?
2. The second half of this verse is often found on bathroom tiles and posters. How do you interpret 'the Father will give you whatever you ask him in my name'?

There is a strong difference in tone between 15:1-17 and 15:18-27. Jesus swaps from talking about 'love' to talking about 'hate'. What do you think is the point of this change of language?

The second part of this chapter reminds me a lot of the very traditional Adventist context that I grew up in: constantly worried about persecution and contamination by 'the world'. How do you interpret these verses in response to that background?

Jesus quotes the Psalms (calling it 'their law'), either Psalm 35 or - more likely - Psalm 69. Read these Psalms and reflect on how these apply to Jesus and this passage.

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

Preamble... no, addendum... um, maybe just a thought that affects my perceptions.

Luke 24:45 - He opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.

I think John, the older person of the teenager who met, followed and had an adolescent's loyalty to his hero, wrote the gospel that bears his name. I haven't seen any evidence that proved to me it wasn't. I see in his writing someone who was not positing a theological treatise but a delineation of a powerful truth that had motivated his entire life. In John's writing I see someone who doesn't view Jesus only as a Divine Ruler but as Someone who loved him dearly and personally and Who he loves with a powerful and softened heart.

As close as I can come to an example of this is a family I know about whose wife and mother died of a disease she understood, for several years, would kill her. Over the years she clearly told her tween and teen children what the next stage of her disease would look like, how it would affect her and how it might change the day to day interactions with her children. She told them quite clearly what her dying and death would be like for her and for them to care for her in the process. Without euphemisms she educated them for their part of the journey with no-nonsense thoughtfulness. Along with that education came her regular reminder that her love for them would never, ever go away. One of her daughters is at university in Amsterdam now. She says that, as much as she misses and will always miss her mother, one of the greatest gifts is her mom's preparation of the family for a shared journey that would have been confusing and terrifying as well as painful. Her mother could not stop the pain but she made sure they knew of the love.

As John 14 begins, the metaphor I have in mind of Jesus, is a hen, trying to gather her chicks under her wings to protect them, as much as she can, for the storm that is coming.

Do not let your hearts be distressed. The Greek word used here is tarasso. It can mean terrified, thrown into confusion or thrown into turmoil. It is at the very far end of the worry continuum in terms of what it creates in our psyche. It is used to describe Jesus own state in John 11:33, 12.27, and 12:21.

Knowing what His believers will be heading into over the next 72 hours, Jesus opens the door to the long game: beyond the cross: beyond the resurrection; beyond the complicated years ahead when these men would share their stories. Before any of this has happened he shows them a vision of the journey's end. The safest of places is being planned for them....and by Someone they already knew to be a skilled carpenter.

I am pretty certain it's not in any respected commentary but I think Jesus was also talking to the angels who had loved Him for millennia and who were about to be horrified beyond anything they had ever seen...and to the beings living on planets scattered throughout galaxies who had chosen not to believe the lies of the adversary but in the love of their Creator. We human beings can be self-absorbed and think this story affects only us.

So, if there is a place where the word worry fits in my vision of this narrative it could be said that Jesus said, in my vernacular Don't worry, I've got this. I will come back and take you there to be with Me . In a terrifying time that will not end in their lifetime, Jesus lets these fragile human beings know that He himself, will be the guide home. Jesus is already seeing beyond the cross and he wants them to share His sense of perspective.

Along with a master class in patience, it seems to me that John 14: 5-11 is a lesson in the nature of the Trinity... that I am sure I don't understand yet. If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father... the Father residing in me performs (or does) His miraculous deeds. And then teaches how this affects them, and us. I tell you the solemn truth, the person who believes in me will perform the miraculous things that I am doing and will perform greater things than these because I am going to the Father. If you ask anything in my name, I will do it. (I remember here that name in Hebraic culture often meant character. So I think about this as if I ask anything with Jesus self-sacrificing love and living following the leadership of the Holy Spirit, it will be granted.

More teaching on the work of the Holy Spirit: I will give you another Advocate to be with your forever - the Spirit of truth whom the world cannot accept. (The complete opposite of the father of lies) In this section, I see lots of repetition and am reminded that repetition indicates importance (and maybe an understanding that we don't get important concepts the first time around)

More Comfort - vs 27 begins the final section of this part of the Messiah's teaching. I am leaving you with peace....I am giving you peace. Again Jesus commands that the disciples not be distressed, fearful or cowardly. When I was younger somewhere I heard that statement "God's commandments are also enablement". In many circumstances I, for sure, could not be courageous without some sort of Divine intervention.

I have told you now before it happens so that when it happens you may believe.

1. What do you make of the sentence if you ask anything in my name, I will do it?
2. What do you think if you love me you will obey my commandments?
3. Why is that a criteria for the gift of the Advocate?
4. What do you think of the statement the person who keeps my commandments and obeys them is the one who loves me ?
5. Why do you think Jesus reiterated that He was leaving and giving peace to the disciples at this time?
6. What would that mean to us in our time?
7. Hebrew concepts (such as love) generally come with concrete actions. How would they have acted out belief? How can we act out belief?

• PDF of these notes
• John 14: 7 Instructions and 12 Promises
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

Jesus has made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, taught in the Temple, greatly antagonised the Pharisees, Scribes etc. and is now about to eat the Passover meal as part of the Jewish Festival of Unleavened Bread with his disciples (and maybe others).

Read Exodus 12:1-32; 13:3-10.
Matthew 26:1-5; 14-35; Luke 22:1-34 and John 13:1-35 (No need to read Mark as it is very similar to Matthew)

Note that the events surrounding Jesus' last earthly Passover vary from Gospel to Gospel. Matthew and Mark are very similar. Luke shows some differences, some of which may be highly significant, but John's gospel is very different, and we will examine this more closely (note that we will be studying John 14-17 in the coming weeks).

1. Was the Festival of Unleavened Bread at that time a Celebration, a Commemoration or what? With what expectations do you think the disciples were approaching it?
2. Table 1 is an outline 'Timeline' of the events around the time of the Passover based on a comparison of the four Gospels.
   1. What can we learn from Matthew/Mark that we cannot learn from Luke or John?
   2. What can we learn from Luke that we cannot learn from Matthew/Mark and John?
   3. What can we learn from John that we cannot learn from the synoptics?
   4. What reason(s) can you think of to explain why John includes the foot-washing event but leaves out the bread and wine event?
3. Table 2 compares what Protestant Christians today call the Last Supper, the Communion, the Eucharist (= "expression of gratitude, rendering thankfulness" and Anglo-Catholics, Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians call the Mass. Note carefully what each of the gospel writers have written.
   1. From a spiritual point of view, what can we glean from what each writer has included (or missed out)?
   2. What is contained in the 'new covenant'?
   3. How should we relate what is recorded in Scripture to what we, as (SDA) Christians, believe about the Communion Service and how we "do it".
   4. Some consider the foot-washing ceremony as currently practised to be outdated. What, if anything, should take its place to demonstrate humility?
4. What parallels, if any, do you see between the Exodus account of the first Passover and its immediate aftermath (the selection and killing of the lamb, the lamb's blood being put on the doorway to protect the house from the Destroying Angel, the first Passover meal and Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt to worship the Lord) and the Passover recorded in the Gospels and its immediate aftermath (the Last Supper through to the Ascension)?
5. What does all this mean to you personally?

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

John 20 is a busy chapter. It begins with the famous story of Mary pouring the expensive perfume on Jesus' feet. Then the next day Jesus rides into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey and the crowd shouts "Hail to the King of Israel!". The onlooking Pharisees mutter "There's nothing we can do. Look, everyone has gone after him".

Which brings us to today's texts...

Questions:

• v20 begins "some Greeks who had come to Jerusalem... They said 'Sir, we want to meet Jesus''." What do you think they knew of Jesus? Try and forget what you know (difficult!) and think of what it might be like to be a foreigner who had heard something and wanted to check it out...
• v23-27 and later in this section (eg v33-34). Is this the clearest statement yet from Jesus about his soon death?
• v28-29. What is happening here? A voice speaks from heaven. Some in the crowd hear the voice, others think it's thunder. Others an angel. Why the confusion?
• v32. Is this a prophecy? "Lifted up from the earth" = crucifixion?
• v34. A very good question! "Just who is this Son of Man, anyway?"
• What happens at the end of v35?

The next section (v37-50) is entitled "The Unbelief of the People" in the New Living Translation. Let's have a good think about that word 'belief'.

I suspect that scientists may have a different spin on 'belief' from most others. I count myself as a member of the Clan of Scientists and we tend to not like 'belief'. We are much keener on provable facts (or as provable as our current technology and frames of reference will allow - I am very aware of the ironic fact that scientific 'facts' are malleable...).

What does it mean to believe in Jesus?

What does it feel like? Is it like believing that the grass is green? Or that Liverpool will win the Champions League? The former is a 'fact', the latter is a 'hope' (unless you aren't a Liverpool fan!).

Consider this question: is your belief in Jesus a 'fact'? A 'hope'? Something else? Explain your thinking...

On (bad) 'belief'...

Sometimes, when thinking about difficult topics like the nature of 'belief' it helps to take what might be called a counterexample.

Recently, I've been following the Alex Jones trial in the US. He is the 'shock jock' who denied the Sandy Hook massacre and made life hell for the parents affected by that tragedy. As I write this he has just lost his latest court case and been told to pay the astonishing sum of $965m in damages.

As a left-leaning Brit I view the bonfire that is current US culture and politics and wonder what is going on in the heads of the Alex Jones supporter. Do they actually believe this stuff?

Take, for example, Donald Trump. I've always viewed him as being a self-serving narcissist who doesn't really have 'beliefs' as such. Rather, he does what will benefit his ego and his bank balance.

But what about Alex Jones? And his fellow gutter-dweller Mike Lindell. Do you think they believe the words that come out of their mouths? I suspect that they do. In both cases their businesses have been ruined by their apparent beliefs. If they were cynical, as per Trump, they would recant, re-assess, and spin their way out of the mess they are in and get back to the real game of fattening their bank accounts. But they don't seem to want to do that. Are they true believers?

If you were a fan of Jones or Lindell (or, indeed, Trump) how would you move on from your belief? How would you decide that 'No, I was wrong. I now believe something else to be true'? What are the steps in such a process?

On (good) belief...

Let's be a little more positive!

All of us who frequent the Virtual Vestry 'believe' in Jesus. I think I can state that as a fact! But I would think we'd differ as to what we 'believed' about Jesus and about the nature of our 'belief'.

For some it is very important to believe in, say, the miracles, exactly as they are portrayed in the gospels. For others, this is not so important.

For some it is very important to believe in the resurrection of Jesus. For others, this is less important (though I struggle to see how a non-believer in the resurrection would want to classify themselves as a 'Christian' in the first place... Discuss!)

Our very own Llew Edwards, in a series of talks given at Crieff Church, talked about the 'Hills to Die On' - those things, those beliefs, that are essential and without which we would not be a follower of Jesus.

• What are your 'Hills to Die On'? What beliefs are non-negotiable?
• Do you consider those beliefs to also be facts? Does it matter?

What do YOU believe in?
Explain your thinking and show your working!

My take on religious belief is this: I don't know much about what happened in Palestine in 30-ish AD. I wasn't there. I hear there was a man called Jesus who did some interesting things and taught some interesting ideas. I can read about him, but there's not a lot to go on. Surprisingly little, in fact. The book in which I can read about Jesus also has some other sections that disturb me. Sections that I don't like and can't understand. So, I gloss over them and rationalize them away.

But what I do know is that there have been events in my life where I have caught a glimpse of something out there that says to me that this universe in which I find myself is more than a meaningless collection of atoms and chemistry. It seems to have purpose. I BELIEVE in that. And I suspect that the best representation of the purpose can be found in those few stories that we have of the Jew called Jesus.

Pretty much everything else is up for grabs!

Makes life interesting...

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

Goal: The goal of this study is to build a framework for studying the content of what John is writing, as opposed to an actual interpretation thereof. Hopefully it will provide a better understanding of the development of the church in those early years of the church's history. All scripture opens multiple perspectives from which they may be viewed.

I make no apologies for presenting you with this personal perspective, but it by no means plumbs the depths of possibilities.

The first task then is to clearly identify the key differences between the Synoptics and John's Gospel, and then to ponder the question of authorship.

This is a BIRD'S EYE VIEW of the Gospel. I hope it will strengthen our ability to understand the details of the book in a way that helps us grasp the magnitude of the message.

1. An incredible level of intensity in John's Gospel.

• IN THE BEGINNING... (John 1:1)
  There could be no better way of grabbing attention than the use of this statement in relationship to Christ. It takes us back to the very foundation of the world.
• BELIEVE
  Llew started off our series on the study of the Gospels, and immediately drew our attention to this significant feature. Over 80 times John summons his readers to believe in JESUS.
  John 3:16 is the best known of these. This emphasis far outweighs the summons anywhere else in the NT.
• Verily, verily (Amen, Amen: Verily, Truly)
  John 1:47; 1:51; 3:3; 3:5, 3:11, 5:19; 5:24; 5:25; 6;26; 6:47; 6:53; 8:34; 8:51; 8:58; 10:1; 10:7; 12:24; 13:16; 13:38; 14:12; 16:7; 16:20; 16:23; 17:19; 21:18
  This double exclamation used 25 times is his way of continually telling us the immense importance of the message he is sharing. This occurs occasionally elsewhere, but this level is totally unique to John's Gospel.

2. There are no parables.

• The OT and NT are packed with metaphorical language, but the type of parables used by Jesus are almost non-existent. Why then did Jesus employ that method of communicating truths about the kingdom, judgement, and deep spiritual truths such as those in the Good Samaritan or the Prodigal Son.
• Can you think of any reasons why Jesus used them?

3. Most of John's Gospel is noticeably absent in the Synoptic Gospels.

• The Analysis Chart provided is a rough assessment of the volume of John's Gospel that does not appear in Matt, Mark and Luke. It is at least 75%.
• John anchors his presentation within a framework of events that the Synoptics provide. The YELLOW highlight picks these out.
• The goal of the Gospel is to present Jesus in a way that the developing church desperately needed.
• I have tried to analyse the overall content to discover the real purpose of the Gospel.

4. The unique content of the Gospel of John.

The Gospel of John displays Jesus as being totally committed Service to: GOD THE FATHER, and the SALVATION OF MANKIND, and CREATION.

The message of the Gospel is that Jesus (the Christ) is the CREATOR, SAVIOUR, and ULTIMATE PASTOR. Jesus reveals GOD THE FATHER, and the HOLY SPIRIT as his personal gift to keep us in the arms of his love and empower us to reflect that love to the world.

One of the most persistent attacks on the JUSTICE OF GOD, is that a loving God could not standby and allow all the suffering that exists in the world. Most of that suffering is caused by mankind themselves. For God to stop it all he would have to commit himself to a process of premature judgement.

How many of us would rejoice at being prematurely judged for the hurt we inflict?

THE LORD'S PRAYER (not in the Gospel of John) points us instead to Self-Examination as a healthier alternative to judging others. It points us to Loving others as an alternative to anger against others, including the forgiveness of our Enemies.

I believe that any discussion of authorship is secondary to the actual teaching of the Gospel. There is insufficient evidence for anyone to be dogmatic as to authorship. Having said that, the enormous difference might be better explained if we look at an alternative to JOHN (Son of Zebedee) as the author.

During the enlightenment era there was a concerted effort to rewrite the background history of the Bible. Jesus as a prophet and social revolutionary was in vogue, but the idea that he was the divine Son of God and that the Crucifixion and Resurrection were part of his Jesus' own beliefs were strenuously resisted. Every conceivable method was used to accomplish that task.

Changing the authorship was linked to moving the dates of writing into the late 1st century or early 2nd century. This was usually accompanied by challenges to the historicity of the books themselves. This was primarily focussed on Luke and John. Luke was considered to be a sloppy historian and totally unreliable, inventing facts to embellish a false narrative of the development of the Christian Church. .

In the early 20th century Sir William Ramsay, a renowned archaeologist set out to prove the above point. His actual research led him to the opposite conclusion, and he commented that Luke "should be placed among the greatest of historians". He later became a Christian.

Altogether 84 important facts recorded by Luke in the last 16 chapters of ACTS (the section dealing with the Roman world) and have been documented from historical and archaeological records as 100% accurate. Instead of believing that Luke was inventing facts to enhance a manipulated account of the history of the church, it became obvious that the only way Luke could have known what he reported was what he seen with his own eyes or had clearly validated information provided by others.

Mike Lewis kindly referred me to "The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple" by Richard Bauckham, who documents how the attempts to undermine John's Gospel have essentially come to naught among credible biblical scholars. There are multiple other sources that affirm the above realities. Plenty of scope for further research .

The question of the relationship between REVELATION and JOHN'S Gospel and when they were written is a minefield of alternative views.

• Was Revelation written before or after the Fall of Jerusalem?
• Were they both by the same author?
• Was the author John, son of Zebedee, one of the original Apostles, or was John the Beloved another John who was also a disciple?
• Was Revelation written before the Gospel of John?
  Last week Steve P took us through Jesus' predictions of the End Times in response to questions from the Disciples after his comments on the destruction of the Temple. It's not even discussed in the Gospel of John. Any suggestions as to why?

BAUCKHAM gives a persuasive argument in favour of the Ephesus Asiatic tradition that the author of Revelation and John was not John, Son of Zebedee, but another John who had been a disciple of Jesus and resident of Jerusalem and a priest in the temple.

The following are special characteristics of the book that must be accounted for:

• Ephesus is the only church known have asserted that the gospel was written there.
• The letter has distinct evidence of being written by a well-educated individual.
• The 12 who travelled with him were largely uneducated Galileans. They were always visitors to Jerusalem and the temple.
• The letter displays a profound knowledge of the bible, the temple, and Jerusalem. A level of accuracy not reflected in the synoptics.
• If John, son of Zebedee, had written it, it would most likely be more like the Synoptics.
• If the book was written by a disciple who lived in Jerusalem, it would explain why he was familiar with the local followers like Nicodemus and has such an intimate knowledge of the events around the raising of Lazarus. There is no reference to Jesus' normal disciple being with him when it happened. They reluctantly crossed back with him from over the Jordan but were very afraid and may well have let him go to Lazarus alone.

ONE DAY, we may all know the answers to all the questions.

One thing is for sure:

WHAT WE KNOW WILL NOT SAVE US! WHO WE KNOW WILL!

That's the message of the Gospel!

• PDF of these notes
• Analysis of John vs Synoptics, referred to in the notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

Read Matthew chapter 24 and 25.

I think chapter 25 tells us parables about God's people towards the end of time and how they acted just prior to his coming. Question: what do you make of it all?

I hope all these questions make sense and will provoke a good discussion.

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

For many Christians and non-Christians, the term Pharisee is shorthand for hypocrite, and they are characterised by a slavish adherence to legalism. There are of course many New Testament texts that do say negative things about Pharisees, and when we interpret them, we need to realise two important issues: the difference between intra- and inter-group debates, and how generalised language stigmatises. The first we can illustrate with nationality, imagine a foreigner saying something offensive about your country. Now imagine someone from your country saying the same thing. The words of the foreigner can be seen as discrimination, whereas those of your countryperson are much more likely to be seen as political criticism. Your countryperson is allowed to say things about their own country that a foreigner is not. When Jesus or Paul criticise aspects of Judaism or some Jewish people, they are doing it as part of the group, but when Christians repeat those words, they are doing it from the outside. This helps understand why Jewish people like Jesus and Paul can say things, but when Christians repeat them they can be considered Judeophobic (this is term we use to refer to language, thought and actions that stigmatise or discriminate against Jewish people). But, from a more general point of view, there is an even bigger issue at play here: generalised language stigmatises. It's good practice to avoid generalising language whenever possible.

A really good way to make generalised language personal is Google autocomplete. Go to google.com, start typing a few words, and Google will give you common suggestions. Try it out with your own faith tradition. Type in things like:

• 'Why don't Adventists',
• 'Why are Adventists',
• 'Why Adventists'

Do you see where they are coming from?

Do they reflect your faith identity and practice?

Pick one or two that are especially negative, and consider how these statements make you feel.

Now, read these New Testament texts and reflect how repeating them stigmatises (aspects of) Judaism and reinforces Judeophobic readings of the New Testament:

1. Matthew 23:1-39
2. John 8:31-47

Some more food for thought

Does Adventism have any doctrines or statements that refer to Judaism or Israel?

How do they resonate with concerns raised here?

Some additional reading:

• "Stereotyping Pharisees, A Christian Instinct in Need of Lament" by Scot McKnight

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

Dementia has not yet set in, yet; I remember what the title for this lesson was. That said, I want to look at this lesson through a few different lenses. For me, this is about the character of God.

1. Jesus was following a style of progression He used for millennia to draw/then warn people to safety.
2. The leaders were willing to use a divisiveness that could cause them harm or loss of allies, in order to trap Someone they perceived as taking their power. What do you think led them to their tactics?
3. What do you think are the varying perspectives on power here?
4. A lesson on intimacy.
5. We have three different writers for these stories: a tax collector, a mixed race/culture evangelist; an itinerant physician. How do you think who they are affects their perspective of these narratives?

Paying the Imperial Tax

1. Why were the Pharisees and the Herodians here? Why not the Sadducees?
2. What do you think was the lesson for the questioners?
3. What do you think was the lesson for the people listening in?
4. What is the lesson for us in this century?
5. How would Matthew have felt about this event? Do you think he was there? How would this story have affected Luke the healer? How would Mark, raised in a bicultural family and a multicultural context, have seen this story?
6. What are the ways Jesus may have been trying to use this trap to help the questioners find His truth?

Levitical Marriage: Resurrection: An Unasked-for Lesson in intimacy.

1. What does it say to you that Sadducees brought up this conundrum?
2. What was the primary purpose of Levitical marriage practiced in Israel?
3. What did it have to do with relational intimacy?
4. Why was seven the number used in the tale?
5. Why will there not be Levitical marriage in Heaven?
6. What do you think are the components of intimacy?
7. What do you think intimacy between the angels is like?
8. Something about this story leaves me thinking of David and Jonathan.
9. What are the ways Jesus is reaching out to the Sadducees here?

The Greatest Commandment:

We could probably spend the whole lesson is this statement but again... what would be a saving benefit to the Pharisees if they could see this truth?

David, Jesus, and Heredity.

1. Jesus opened up this conversation. Why?
2. In Jesus' lineage, David and Bathsheba are mentioned in Matthew. How would seeing David as the progenitor of Jesus affect they way they might see Jesus
3. Why was it important for Jesus to make His complicated mix of lineage clear?
4. What are the ways He may have been wooing the Pharisees in this exchange?

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

The story is moving along at a pace. Jesus has arrived in Jerusalem and it is becoming increasingly apparent who he actually is. And, at the same time, he is refusing to be drawn into verbally stating anything.

One day as Jesus was teaching the people and preaching the Good News in the Temple, the leading priests, the teachers of religious law, and the elders came up to him. They demanded, "By what authority are you doing all these things? Who gave you the right?"

And Jesus responded, "Then I won't tell you by what authority I do these things."

Luke 20:1-8, NLT

This week we will be discussing some of Jesus' parables:

• The Parable of the Two Sons
• The Parable of the Evil Farmers
• The Parable of the Great Feast

Read the texts! What is Jesus saying to the listeners? What is he saying to us (if anything?)?

Bring your thoughts to the discussion...

Compare Christ's method of 'teaching' with, say, sections of Moses' writing. Jesus would tell a story about a man preparing a feast for folks who don't seem to want to come (Luke 14:15-24). Whereas the author of Deuteronomy 23 talks about all sorts of random things...

If you enter your neighbor's vineyard, you may eat all the grapes you want, but do not put any in your basket. If you enter your neighbor's grainfield, you may pick kernels with your hands, but you must not put a sickle to their standing grain.

This week (I write in early September 2022) saw the death of Queen Elizabeth II. Britain has gone into mourning. I drove into Edinburgh today and noticed that all the huge electronic billboards that line the main thoroughfares have ceased their relentless promotion of cars and soap powder. Rather they all display a simple picture of the Queen. It was affecting and disconcerting at the same time.

You can sense the uncertainty of the great British public as to how to process the death of their Queen. The BBC has gone into mourning. As I understand things the Premier League will not play this weekend. And I see from the Adventist church Friday newsletters circulating today that the passing of the Queen will be formally marked as part of the church services tomorrow.

But you can sense that these institutions are unsure of what they should be doing. We're no North Korea, we don't do fanatical fawning over another human. And yet, we seem to need to do something... How do we do enough but not too much?

But, I hear you ask, what has this to do with Jesus and parables?

Allow me another diversion - I read an interview in this week's New York Times with Karen Armstrong, the academic, ex-nun and author of such books as 'The Case For God'. I've not read any of her work but others in the Virtual Vestry have and recommend them.

In my reading around on Armstrong, a reviewer commented on her divide of 'knowledge' into two categories. 'Logos' - that which can be derived by, say, science, and 'mythos' - that which comes from somewhere else entirely. I've been thinking about those categories. I am a working scientist who works firmly in the logos camp. But, I am increasingly drawn to the mythos.

Armstrong writes

We tend to assume that the people of the past were (more or less) like us, but in fact their spiritual lives were rather different. In particular, they evolved two ways of thinking, speaking, and acquiring knowledge, which scholars have called mythos and logos. Both were essential; they were regarded as complementary ways of arriving at truth, and each had its special area of competence.

Myth was regarded as primary; it was concerned with what was thought to be timeless and constant in our existence. Myth looked back to the origins of life, to the foundations of culture, and to the deepest levels of the human mind. Myth was not concerned with practical matters, but with meaning...

"The Battle For God"

Let me try and rein in my ramblings...

I have heard it said that if the British monarchy didn't exist then it would need to be invented. We need something worthy of our mythos. We Brits have the monarchy; the Americans have a strange obsession with a flag and a difficult-to-sing national anthem during which you are required to stand. None of this makes much sense to outsiders.

I consider myself a 'soft republican'. All things considered I don't think we should have a monarchy but I'm not that concerned one way or the other. I find my mythos elsewhere. But I completely understand why the death of the Queen has so affected so many people. It's not about the person of the Queen, it's about what that person represents. It's the mythos.

To the point...

I think that the parables of Jesus are all mythos. We can read a parable and, providing we understand the culture and the context, we all - somehow - deeply know what the parable is saying. There are no long lists of instructions in a parable. It's not a legal treatise. It's not Deuteronomy.

And because the parable is mythos what I take from it may well differ from what you take from it. We read into the parable that which we need to hear. That most famous parable, 'The Prodigal Son', will say very different things to an abusive father, to a spoiled child.

And that is as it should be.

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

No notes this week as Steve has been on holiday - try the discussion recording instead...

• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

Read John 10:24, 30, 38-42; 11:1 - 12:11; 20:31. Our discussion will be based on the NRSVA.

Having discussed the various stories regarding the anointing of Jesus' feet previously we will not take time to go over this again today.

Lazarus: derivation of Eleazer meaning "he whom God helps"

• v26: emphatic "no" - will never, never die
• v31 weep: mourn for the dead, weep bitterly
• v35 weep: general term for crying, shedding tears
• v35 deeply moved: snort like a horse (lit), sternness, indignation, emotionally moved

While at the Feast of the Dedication Jesus is confronted by "the Jews". Having not yet stated publicly that he is the Messiah, he now claims that he and the Father are one. This causes the Jews try to arrest him but he escapes to Trans-Jordan. While he is there he hears about Lazarus's illness...

1. Why was Jesus "greatly disturbed in Spirit and deeply moved"? What does this show?
2. What do you make of Jesus' prayer (11:41b-42)?
3. Many of us will have been familiar with the story of Lazarus from childhood. Is it now too familiar to have an impact? How can we turn the clock back so that the story does have an impact?
4. What do make of the meeting of "the Jews" with Caiaphas and its outcome?
5. Jesus had previously raised many people from the dead (Lk 7: 11-16; 22). Why does the raising of Lazarus provoke such hostility?
6. John makes no mention of the effect on the crowd at the time (but see 12:9; 10-11). Why not?
7. John fills 4½ % of his gospel recording the first 6 signs, but a huge chunk (7½ %) - almost twice as much space (11:1 - 12:11), to describe just this one event and its aftermath. Why so much? What was John aiming to achieve? Did he succeed?

• PDF of these notes
• PowerPoint referred to in the discussion
• Excerpt from "The Greatest Story Ever Told", featured in our discussion
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

Sometimes Mike challenges me by giving assignments that are difficult.

Anyone with experience of shepherding in the Virtual Vestry?

The audience to whom Jesus spoke obviously understood the imagery in this passage, and as a result, the spiritual message was more accessible. We need to investigate shepherding in Palestine 2000 years ago. We'll do that initially then attempt to tease out the meaning of some of these difficult verses.

These are just some of the areas I want to explore with you. There may be others...

It is the duty of a good shepherd to shear his sheep, not to skin them.

Tiberius.

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

Zacchaeus: Luke 19:1-10

• Why did Tax Collectors get such a bad reputation?
• Why did they get a reputation that was even worse than normal sinners?
• What was the role of a chief tax collector?
• Why does the evidence here, suggest that Zacchaeus was an honest person?
• What spiritual gems are contained in this account?

Blind Men Receive Sight: (Matt 20:29-34; Mark 10:46-52; Luke 18:35-43)

• What stands out to you about this story?
• Do the varying accounts give us any interesting insights?

Jesus Predicts his death for 3rd Time: (Matt 20:17-19; Mark 10:32-34)

• Why did Jesus repeatedly tell the disciples he was going to be put to death?
• "Three days later he will rise!" How would the disciples fit this statement into their existing views of the coming kingdom?

A Mother's Request: (Matt 20:20-28; Mark 10:35-45)

• Did the uncertainty that existed with the impending death of Christ play a part in this event?
• What does this peek into family dynamics, human desire for recognition, and the thirst for influence tell us about human nature?
• What standards does Jesus teach about the responsibility of leadership?
• What have been the outcomes of failure to take seriously what Jesus taught?
• Does the Jewish Leadership of the 1st Century look better or worse, in the light of history?

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

There are several stores in today's texts, but I want to concentrate on just one, the "Parable of the Vineyard Workers".

Let's talk about justice...

Here's the entire story from Matthew 20, in the New Living Translation:

For the Kingdom of Heaven is like the landowner who went out early one morning to hire workers for his vineyard. He agreed to pay the normal daily wage and sent them out to work.

At nine o'clock in the morning he was passing through the marketplace and saw some people standing around doing nothing. So he hired them, telling them he would pay them whatever was right at the end of the day. So they went to work in the vineyard. At noon and again at three o'clock he did the same thing.

At five o'clock that afternoon he was in town again and saw some more people standing around. He asked them, 'Why haven't you been working today?'

They replied, 'Because no one hired us.'

The landowner told them, 'Then go out and join the others in my vineyard.'

That evening he told the foreman to call the workers in and pay them, beginning with the last workers first. When those hired at five o'clock were paid, each received a full day's wage. When those hired first came to get their pay, they assumed they would receive more. But they, too, were paid a day's wage. When they received their pay, they protested to the owner, 'Those people worked only one hour, and yet you've paid them just as much as you paid us who worked all day in the scorching heat.'

He answered one of them, 'Friend, I haven't been unfair! Didn't you agree to work all day for the usual wage? Take your money and go. I wanted to pay this last worker the same as you. Is it against the law for me to do what I want with my money? Should you be jealous because I am kind to others?'

So those who are last now will be first then, and those who are first will be last.

After a quick read of the above, what would you say is the message of the text? What was Jesus trying to say? Listen to your first 'gut' reaction...

Now try this:

• Define the word Justice for yourself.
• Re-read the story with "justice coloured spectacles" - with justice as the filter through which you look at each person and each action.
• The story has actors who perform actions. Within the narrow context of the story think about the justice of the actions of the landowner, the early workers, the late workers, the foreman...
• Are there other contexts to this story? For instance: why were the workers there, on the street corner offering themselves for hire, in the first place? Why did the landowner own the land? Is the distribution of wealth in the story something we should think about? Is that unjust?
• Are there other contexts to this story? Other levels that Jesus might be hinting at? Bring along your thoughts to the discussion...

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

We have three distinct topics to discuss today, and I intend we do them in the following order:

1. What it means to be 'GOOD'. I will take this one first because the passage throws up a significant number of ideas we should explore.
2. Are we any different today in the manner in which we approach children as was the common practice two thousand years ago?
3. Divorce, a sensitive issue for a significant number of committed Christians today. I personally do not make judgements on individuals' divorce status. Too many couples have gone through hell for me or others to make judgemental comments. However, scripture points us toward the ideal.

Part A: Matt 19:16-29, Mark 10:17-30, Luke 18:18-30.

1. The question was asked about a good deed to unlock the door to eternity. Christ pivoted in a different direction in His answer. Can you explore with me as to why He did this?
2. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments. Have Adventists nailed it?
3. Were the comments in this passage directed only towards the Jews? Remember that the Gentiles living among the Jews only had to keep the seven Noahide laws to be assured of a place in the world hereafter. Those laws don't include honouring your father and mother, bearing false witness, or loving your neighbour as yourself. As a gentile Christian, is my path to the pearly gates, somewhat gentler and broader than that travelled by the Jews?
4. We have explored being rich and entering the kingdom of heaven before. If I were to sell all my goods, and give the proceeds to ADRA UK, as well as making Steve's day as a trustee of ADRA UK, would it make me perfect?
5. Mercy forgiveness and grace; I thought these were the ingredients for salvation. Why do you think they were not highlighted on this particular occasion?
6. If I were to pose the question, do you follow Christ because you want to be on the earth made new, or because you want to live by His values, you would probably answer both. Hypothetically, If there was no life hereafter, would you have the same enthusiasm about living by His values?

"Live in such a way that if people should see you, they could see God's goodness in you"

Anonymous

Part B: Matt 19:13-15, Mark 10:13-16, Luke 18:15-17.

1. Children approaching Christ, the disciples saw as an inconvenience. The disciples being all male, I suspect was a major reason. The verses describing His response, I find very touching, emphasising the importance and love with which He regarded them. Do you think we have failed miserably to transfer Christ's important focus to our current, present-day society?

"Every known human society rests firmly on the learned nurturing behaviour of men"

Margaret Mead, the eminent anthropologist, written 70 years ago

Part C: Matt 19:3-12. Mark 10:1-12

1. "Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning, made them male and female?". This statement almost provoked me to get into the complexities of the trans debate. However, for another occasion, perhaps!
2. Idealised situation: No Divorce. If you must divorce, then only for adultery. Moses issued a concession: Under certain conditions a husband can put away a wife. Very unequal! Having witnessed the physical abuse that some women suffer, and the unseen mental trauma caused to both men and women in some married relationships, do you think a loving God would understand the ending of such a marriage? Do you think such leeway may be abused?

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

Read Luke 16:1-31 in 2 or 3 different translations. Our discussion will be based on the NRSVA.

Note the following word translations which might help understanding of this passage.

1. Shrewdly: Greek phronimo. The faculty of thoughtful planning/thinking. Ability to understand, insight, intelligence. Insight and wisdom. Sensible. Thoughtful. Wise. Prudent. Shrewd. (Note that the word has no implications of either goodness or badness.) See Eph 1:8; Matt 13:33; Luke 12:42; 1 Cor 10:15; 2 Cor 11:19
2. Mammon: Originally a Chaldean term, later Aramaic. Treasure. Riches (personified and opposed to God). Avarice.
3. Lazarus (= Eleazer): "one who God helps". 3rd most common name at the time.
4. Hades: Greek = Sheol, Hebrew = Gehenna (OT). See Josh 15:8, 18:16; Jer 7:30-34; Matt 5:22; 23:33.

The dishonest manager

Note the various meanings provided for the word translated here as shrewdly in 16:8.

1. From the limited information given in the text, how would you assess the character of the rich man?
2. Was the rich man right to praise his manager? Why?
3. Whatever did Jesus mean by his statement as recorded in 16:9?
4. What does this parable teach US about integrity and faithfulness?

The rich man and Lazarus

1. From the limited information given in the text, how would you assess the character of this rich man?
2. Having read the "Gehenna" texts (see above), and with our knowledge of Greek ideas of Hades, the teachings of the medieval Roman Catholic church etc, what would you tell people should anyone ask you about the ever-burning fires of hell?
3. Given the position SDAs take regarding the "state of the dead", was Jesus right to tell this story in the way he did? Why?
4. Given that Jesus told this story, does that mean that he endorses it?

Luke 16 generally

What connections (if any) can you see between the three sections of Luke 16 (1-9; 19-31 and 14-18)?

• PDF of these notes
• PowerPoint referred to in the discussion
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

Luke 14:25-35: The possible cost of being a disciple. Is it worth it? Are there any benefits?

The value of the lost individual in the eyes of Jesus, Luke 15:1-32.

1. the lost sheep
2. the lost coin
3. the lost son

• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

The gospel writers were more intent on telling us about the actions and sayings Jesus than they were in the detailed historical timing of the events.

This doesn't fit with our calendar and diary approach to life. We often judge the truth of an event, by "what happened when?".

This modern approach doesn't seem to be of much importance to the Gospel writers. Why?

The contrasts between the cultural practices of those times are poles apart from those in the 21st Century western culture. That reality permeates through everything we have been studying.

I have no agenda in my own mind for this week, other than to stimulate robust discussion of the passage.

I have posed questions to stimulate your thinking. At the beginning of each section, I will invite additional questions.

The Narrow Door:

Jesus' Sorrow for Jerusalem:

Jesus at the Pharisee's House:

The Parable of the Great Banquet:

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

This week we will spend a few hours looking at some aspects of the Satan. This nefarious character is also known as Lucifer, the devil, Prince of Darkness, Beelzebub, Lord of Hell, the Evil One, to name but a few. It is commonly accepted, and I hope no big surprise, that the characterization of Satan has grown through time. One but needs to compare the Old Testament with the New to see this growth.

There is probably far too much here to tackle in one session, but let's see! (and this is just part of the theology of Satan!)

Speaking of Satan's growth, a good place to start is the last, and most complete statement on Satan's nature, to be found in Revelation 12:1-9.

• Read that passage.

Now it is very important for us not to assume that every other biblical author had read Revelation (or the Great Controversy). We have access to knowledge and understanding that other biblical authors did not.

Basically, John's Revelation builds on many traditions, images and tales from the Bible. He weaves them together to create a narrative that Adventists have come to call the great controversy. It is useful to look at what John is working with to build his narrative, to better understand what he is doing. So let's try to look at that.

As you read through the rest of this, try to think about how John the Revelator is weaving these threads together. What is he constructing and what is he destroying, what is he joining and what is he splitting, what is he loosing and what is he binding?

English translations struggle (or simply fail) to translate and differentiate between the Hebrew forms of satan (an adversary/obstacle), hassatan (the adversary/obstacle), and satan (Satan). Note that the first and last are identical in Hebrew (but not in meaning).

Read these passages that might refer to the satan/Satan in the Old Testament. If you can't find Old Nick, you might want to check something like the Young's Literal Translation (or the Hebrew 😀)

• Num 22:22-32
• Zech 3:1-7
• Psalm 109:6-9
• 1 Chr 21:1 //2 Sam 24:1
• Job 1-2
• 1 Kings 5:4
• 1 Kings 11:14-25

Job 1:6 associates Satan/the satan with the 'Sons of God' (often translated with other descriptive phrases like 'heavenly beings', 'angels of God' or simply 'gods').

Read these passages about the sons of God

• Gen 6:1-4
• Deut 32:8-43 (make sure you also read the NRSV and look at the footnotes in that version)
• Psalm 82

Revelation 12 hinted at another place we can find Satan in the Old Testament, with the moniker 'that ancient snake'. I'm sure almost everyone reading this immediately thought of the serpent that tempts the first humans, but there is a more ancient snake than that. This is a likely candidate for John's ancient snake or his dragon.

Read these passages:

• Gen 1:1-2, 9-10, 20-23
• Psalm 74:13-14
• Isaiah 27:1

Now our final bit, returning to Revelation, what role does the sea play in the great controversy? What aspect of God's victory could John be highlighting?

• Revelation 4:5-6
• Revelation 15:2
• Revelation 20:13
• Revelation 21:1

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

Last week we left Jesus denouncing the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, and reminding his audience of God's care and warning against blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Then suddenly a man in the crowd interrupts him...

(note Matthew 6:19-21; 25-34;) , see also Exodus 2:11-15 and 18:13-26.

Luke 10:21-18:27 is one long section in his gospel. In it he records a number of encounters, meetings and "discussions" that Jesus has with his disciples, the "crowd" and a wide variety of individuals, friends, Pharisees, and no doubt others which Luke has compiled. This week we will look at one part of this section in which Jesus again challenges not only his audiences but also us today.

(There's little chance we will get through all this but we'll do our best...!)

The parable of the rich fool (vs 13-21)

What treasures might we be tempted to store up for the future?
What does it mean to be "rich before God"?

Stop worrying! (vs 22-31)

To which people group(s) would Jesus address with these words today? Should the church of today preach the same as Jesus did on this topic? If so, how?

What are YOU worrying about? Be honest!

Look up Luke 12:30-31 in as many translations as possible. What is implied in the words translated as seek, strive, desire, worry about, be concerned, run after etc. about? How would you fill in the gaps in v37?

"For it is the nations of the world that ______ after all these things, and your Father knows that you need them. Instead, _______ for his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well."

Give alms! (vs 32-34)

How closely should we aim to replicate St Francis of Assisi?

The Watchful Slaves (vs 35-38)

Within the context of vs 36-38 how do you understand v. 37?

"Blessed are those slaves whom the master finds alert when he comes; truly I tell you, he will fasten his belt and have them sit down to eat, and he will come and serve them."

The Unfaithful Slaves (vs 42-48)

What do you think of the justice described in this section?

Division! (vs 49-53) (John Bercow's famous call)

Does this refer only to families? If not, then to whom? Does v. 51 imply that it is Jesus that brings division? If that is the case, how much should we, as Jesus-followers, cause division or seek to heal division?

Interpreting the Time (54-56)

Given the war in Ukraine, the Financial Crisis, the Energy Crisis, the current Strikes, Covid and the NHS(S) crisis etc. and the state of Christianity in the world today how should we interpret the "present time" ?

• PDF of these notes
• Additional notes from Mike
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)
• PowerPoint referred to in the discussion

It's purity again folks!!!!!

External purity, because that's what folks see. After all, if we get the externals right, what a marvellous testimony to others, that we are assiduously following what the Lord commands, therefore representing Him. After all, by keeping these commands, by definition, we may not be sinless, but we must be pretty close. If not the Gold Certificate, we at least have the Silver.

These Pharisees had their list of fundamentals and their reasons for following them. After all, they had their experts in the law. (Michael Gove would have a field day).

In Matthew 5, Christ was rigorous with the law, yet, in our studies, it is hard to find an example where he pressed home a charge of technical breach of the law. Instead, he pushed us to be forgiving to the sinner, generous to the poor, and compassionate to the mentally and physically troubled. He constantly draws my attention to the ultimate, strategic goal; to love God with all my heart and my neighbour as myself.

Luke 11:37-44

Why did they crave religious status in their society through externals?

Isn't this status thing equally a problem in our current secular society?

Luke 11:45-52

The lawyers are at it again! Our current crop of lawyers in the UK have made life almost unbearable with their avalanche of health and safety regulations. Sensing the legal/religious climate of 2000 years ago, it was ever thus.

What's the problem with burdening people with so much legal guidance in religious matters? Surely it was done with the best of intentions? Or was it to flaunt their power?

Luke 12:1-3

Meanwhile, when the crowd gathered by the thousands, so that they trampled one another... What inference can you draw from this scenario? "Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees, that is, their hypocrisy"

"Sincerity makes the very least person to be of more value than the most talented hypocrite"

Charles Spurgeon

Luke 12:4-7

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, when sentenced to hang after his alleged plot in the attempted assassination of Hitler in July 1944, so impressed his jailers that they were prepared to help him escape. He refused. Why?

Is the bit about the sparrows and the counting of the hairs on your head hyperbole?

Luke 12:8-12

The unforgivable sin again. It appears he was aiming this comment at a number of the Pharisees. Please explain!

At times, in 21st century Britain, I have attempted to portray to people that the christianity in which I believe is valid, relevant, and has at its heart a God of grace, love and forgiveness. Frequently, I appear to fall at the first or second hurdle. Is this because of a combination of cognitive deficiency and lack of faith?

What does it mean that "the Holy Spirit will teach you at that very hour what you ought to say"? Can Virtual Vestry contributors give examples of where this has occurred in their past experience?

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

I cannot do tangible jigsaw puzzles. I have learned to graciously demur from excited invitations to have an evening - or a week - of putting together a 1500 piece picture of Starry Night. I wouldn't say doing them is torture...not quite.

I do however, love seeing, in my brain, metaphoric photos of concepts and watching them float by until, sometimes of a sudden moment, they coalesce to become a complete picture. Thinking about this lesson has been that process for me. Thanks for coming along on the journey.

I very much appreciate being asked to think about these two incidents. I wouldn't have thought about their similarities otherwise.

What I am going to do here is layout a collection of "puzzle pieces", share some questions and have us see what kind of picture we put together in this Sabbath's discussion.

The puzzle pieces are tidbits to, perhaps, help us see and hear the way the people in the two stories would hear them.

The puzzle pieces will include: the authors of the story, the audience for the story, meanings of names, the concept of irony, the character of God, the histories of the stories, the Mesopotamian notion of war on two planes, the notion of expelling (Judges to Revelation), rescues by God, the grace of God.

I passed along a couple of short articles about each of them (see 'Resources', below). My synopsis: Matthew was a retired (well, change of career) Jewish tax collector. His skill set was methodical collection of materials (money or stories). I believe he was writing to Jews who had become followers of The Way. He used stories from their known history to help illustrate lessons that connected them to Jesus. Luke was, by most accounts I have read, a physician. His training was in healing. His Greek was erudite. He wrote in story form. It seems to me that Luke was writing to convince Jews (and probably anyone else who would listen) that God is a God who heals, who very much wants us to allow ourselves to be healed, and wants the salvation of the Jews.

Matthew:
Jews or Jewish followers of Jesus. Matthew wants these people to see evidence of why Jesus is the Messiah.

Luke:
It seems to me that he wrote to anyone who needed to know more about God's redeeming character, Jesus' mission, God's love for the Jews, and God's ultimate power, and God's methods.

In Hebrew culture names are often used to designate character or function or wishes for the named being.

Beelzebub or Beelzebul - Baal (or lord) of the flies. A name derived from a Philistine god worshipped in Ekron. Later a name used by some Abrahamic faiths to mean the chief of demons or the adversary.

Ekron - barrenness, torn away

Jesus - Hellenic derived from Hebrew Joshua - Rescuer

In Mesopotamian cultures there was frequently the belief that what happened in a battle on Earth was a parallel of what was simultaneously going on in the heavens. If Israel won or lost it would indicate that Yahweh won or lost.

Hebrew is a concrete language that used actions, people, places, stories or events to represent conceptual ideas.

Beelzebub/Ekron and Israel/Yahweh

1. Joshua 13: 1-7 - God will deliver (cast out). Israel to occupy
2. I Samuel 5:10 - Ekron, in fear, sends the ark home.
3. 2 Kings 1 - Ahaziah, Elijah, Baal Zebub
4. The Curses
   1. Amos 1:8 - I will turn my hand against Ekron
   2. Zephaniah 2:1 - Ekron will be emptied, uprooted
   3. Zechariah 9:5 - Ekron will writhe in agony

Matthew 12:22-31/Luke 11:14

The confrontation. The expelling (rescue). The denial of the priests.

Jonah

There were parallels here I didn't expect.

• 1:4,5 - God in charge of storm. The other deities are of no help.
• 2:1 - God rescues Jonah into and out of the large fish
• 3:00 - God offers grace to Nineveh - they accept. They are saved... But then, as in the Matthew and Luke stories, God's "representative" complains, and yet still becomes an object lesson of the 3 days.

1. If we think in terms of Kohlberg's states of moral development what stage/s do you think the original audiences lived? Note: Obviously there are other wonderful models of this concept. In my experience Kohlberg is one of the best known.
   1. Obedience and punishment
   2. Self-interest/quid pro quo
   3. Interpersonal accord and conformity
   4. Maintaining social order
   5. Social contract
   6. Universal ethical principles
2. How are we the same or different from the "first" audience (s)?
3. Given the varying ways the people in our lives live, how would we share these stories or our understanding of them?
4. Can we put ourselves in the place of the Pharisees and understand some of the complexity of their motives? (I, by the way, have a very difficult time doing this.)
5. What are the ways you see God's grace in these stories?
6. Of the stories in our texts or their origin tales which is your favorite? Why do you like it?
7. What parts of these stories are "teachings" or encouragement for you?

• PDF of these notes
• Two additional references from Catherine:
  • Luke's Secondary Audience
  • Who was the intended audience for the Book of Matthew?
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

Jesus often travelled through Samaria. The Samaritans and Jewish communities had an intense dislike for each other. Despite this Jesus went out of his way to minister to the Samaritans. Luke 9:51-55. One village refused to welcome him because he was on his way to Jerusalem. James and John displayed the normal Jewish attitude by suggesting calling down fire from heaven to destroy them. What other prejudices did the disciples display?

## IS FAKE INFORMATION the basis for discrimination and the demeaning of others?

• Can anything good come out of Nazareth?
• John 7:48 "Aren't we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed."
• He is a friend of tax-collectors and sinners!
• Etc, etc, etc...

There is one KEY difference between the mission of the 12 and the Seventy? What is it?

Why did Jesus give the instructions he did? Do they make sense?

• Why two by two?
• No purse or bag or sandals.
• Don't greet anyone on the road.
• Peace on this house! (Is this a magical gift of common sense?)
• Do not move from house to house.
• Moving on if not welcomed.

Is it possible the naming of Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum, is based on what happened when the 70 went to them?

In Luke 6:17-7:10 we have Luke's account of a sermon that is the Sermon on the Mount or a parallel sermon. The outline is as follows:

• Blessing and Woes.
• Love for Enemies.
• Judging Others.
• A Tree and Its Fruit.
• The Wise and Foolish Builders.

Followed by the Faith of the Centurion ... who of course was a Gentile.

Trying to understand today's passages without the backdrop of the detailed teaching of Jesus in Luke 6 and 7 is an act of futility!

Luke was familiar with the Jewish way of thinking, but he was also aware of the inbuilt prejudices of Jews including many of the Apostles. Mark and Matthew wrote to a Jewish audience. Luke wrote to Gentiles. He seems to have deliberately focused on Jesus' spirit of openness to non-Jews and Samaritans. In the light of the Gospel being preached to the Gentiles Luke was deliberately spreading some fresh thinking to keep the balance the church needed for its future.

Mark and Matthew concur on Jesus' response to the expert in the law but chose not to include the PARABLE.

## IS THE PARABLE VITAL TO OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE MISSION OF JESUS?

1. Why does Jesus introduce the 3 characters: PRIEST, LEVITE, SAMARITAN?
2. What value does it have in our lives today?
3. What prejudices impair the witness of the church in our age?

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

John 8:12-59. There is a huge amount in these passages, so I am going to select just a few points for discussion.

We will spend a few moments attempting to discover how the Pharisees arose and what they believed. Throughout this study I want us to challenge the historic prejudice that we have against the Pharisees.

We need to spend a few moments examining the Pharisees' concept of the 'messiah'. It was a major reason for their antagonism towards Christ.

1. Verses 12-20
   "I am the Light of the World..."

   Discuss the meaning of this and the Pharisees' response.

2. Verses 21-30
   "Who are you"?

   It appears the Pharisees were confused, antagonistic, curious, closed-minded, threatened and uncertain. It is said that some of these verses are among the most difficult in the scriptures. Could we answer this question today to a group of secularists?

3. Verses 31-36
   "If you remain in my word, you are truly my disciples: and you will know the truth: and the truth will make you free".

   Describe the conditions for discipleship. Has the 'truth' made you free?

4. Verses 37-45
   

   This is a debate about the identity of, and belonging to, the Father. He accused those Pharisees present that they belonged to their father, the devil. Why did Christ resort to what appears fairly extreme language? Pharisees were undoubtedly legalists. Would you suggest legalists in your church were of their father the devil? There must have been something else going on!

5. Verses 46-55
   

   The Pharisees had great difficulty charging Him with being a sinner. However they attempted portraying Him as being delusional. Two thousand years ago, would you have been able to understand what Jesus was talking about?

6. Verses 56-59
   "Before Abraham was I am".

   This was a 'gotcha' moment. Why did the exchange turn from dialogue to violence?

No scientific theory touches on the mysteries that the religious tradition addresses. A man asking why his days are short and full of suffering is not disposed to turn to algebraic quantum field theory for the answer. The answers that prominent scientific figures have offered are remarkable in their shallowness.

David Berlinski, 'The Devil's Delusion'.

• PDF of these notes
• Two additional documents from Jim to give us more background:
  • The Pharisees
  • The Pharisees view of the Messiah
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

I have a bit of a problem...

• All good Christians are supposed to want to go to heaven (whatever that may be), and to live with God, and to live as God intended us to live.
• All good Christians get their fundamental ideas on the nature of God, and of how God intends us to live, from the Bible.

So, here's my problem: if the nature of God and the operating instructions as to 'how to live as God intends' are as described in the books of Moses in the Bible, then I'm not too sure I want to go to heaven. I don't want to live in a place where the actions described in Deuteronomy 22:28 (1) reflect the true and holy wishes of God. I'd rather live in 21st century UK, where such behaviour would result in a well-deserved jail sentence.

Does Deuteronomy 22:28 (and many other similar texts) really reflect all that is good and pure and decent and godly?

Plato, the ever-reliable Greek philosopher, gets to the heart of the problem and asks

Whether a thing is good because God says it is good, or does God say it is good because it is good?

Should I desire to enforce Deut 22:28 because God demands it? Or should I reject God because I hold God to a higher standard? Or, ... what?

Where is the 'good' in Deut 22:28? And where is the 'good' in the texts for today - the story of the woman brought to Jesus for stoning?

John 7:53-8:11 is a challenge for biblical scholars. It is often not included in the earliest manuscripts of John's gospel. Or it appears in Luke 21 instead. Some consider the story to be an agrapha, an unwritten story to the church and passed on in oral form and finally recorded in the gospel of John (2). Whatever its origin, it appears in all the most popular English versions of the Bible. As Milne (3) writes, "the hesitation over this paragraph may be partly due to its content, as on the surface at least it appears to express a liberal attitude to sexual sin on Jesus' part. The spirit of the passage, however, is such that its place within the Gospel corpus has been universally accepted'.

So, it is here, and we must deal with it.

The story seems simple enough. Jesus returns to the Temple court (rather surprisingly given what happened the last time he was there) at the end of the Festival of Tabernacles. It's one of the special 'Sabbaths' that bookend the week-long festival. Jesus begins teaching and is interrupted by a delegation of Pharisees who have a conundrum. A conundrum that is an explicit threat to him - as there's no good answer for what is about to happen.

"Here's a woman", they say, "and we caught her doing things she shouldn't have been doing with someone who wasn't her husband. Moses says we need to stone her. What do you say?"

Jesus says nothing. He writes something in the sand. We don't know what. He then says to the delegation of Pharisees, "If you are without sin then please throw the first stone". He resumes writing in the sand.

The delegation fizzles out and departs, one by one.

Jesus asks the woman, "Where are your accusers?". She says that they have gone.

Jesus responds, "Then neither do I condemn you, go now and leave your life of sin".

Read the story and read any commentaries you can find on it.

In the NIV the story runs to 222 words. I hope, by the end of this week's discussion, to convince you that these 222 words contain one of the most radical ideas in the New Testament.

The Legal Question

Here's what we know of the legal situation.

• The books of Moses are clear on the necessity of stoning adulterers (Ex 20:14, Lev 20:10, Deut 22:22-24)
• The phrasing of the accusation "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery" would indicate that (somehow) the accusers were witnesses to the event.
• Having witnessed the adultery, the accusers could and should organise a stoning (Deut 17:6-7, Deut 19:15).

A Straightforward Reading

In my memory of hearing these events being discussed in church sermons and study groups the story is often explained thus:

• Woman is caught doing a bad thing (let's leave aside the absence of the other party to this adultery - where is the man?).
• Pharisees ask Jesus, in the light of Moses' commands, "what should be done with her?" It's a trap!
• Jesus writes something (what??!) in the sand and invites the sinless people to start stoning.
• The accusers leave. The witnesses have gone.
• "Who is going to condemn you?"
• "No-one"
• "OK, off you go and behave better next time..."

And we're done...

Questions:

1. Does that reading make sense to you?
2. Is it legally justifiable?

Legal Reading #1

Many commentaries on this story claim that the absence of the male half of the adultery means that the entire accusation is invalid, and, because of this, Jesus can get her off on a legal technicality.

Woman on her own = no good.
No Man = no case to answer.

And because of this legal technicality Jesus cleverly manages to get the woman off and simultaneously maintain the letter of the Law.

Does that sound right to you?

Where does the Law say that both parties must be tried together? The Law doesn't say that - it simply says that if adultery happens then both parties are guilty and should be punished. It does not say that if one party manages to escape then the other party has nothing to answer for.

And, surely, if the Law absolutely required both offenders to be present then the Pharisees would have known that and prepared accordingly.

If I do a bank robbery with five of my mates and they can all run faster than me when the police come chasing and I'm the only one that gets caught - do I get arrested? In court does the judge say, "Well we haven't managed to catch your sidekicks so you can go now". I don't think so.

If Jesus got her off the charge by a technicality - doesn't that have the bad taste of Amazon's tax arrangements? "Yes, we're obeying the letter of the Law." Isn't that a triumph for the legalists?

She should have been stoned...

Legal Reading #2

I've also read that it wasn't possible to perform a stoning because the Romans were in charge and there were limits on what the Jewish authorities could do.

Look ahead to Acts 6-8. We're in Jerusalem a few years later. A chap called Stephen is preaching up a storm and upsetting the Jewish authorities. When they'd had enough (Acts 8:57-58), they literally ran him out of town and stoned him beyond the city gates.

If they could do that to Stephen, then why didn't they do that to the woman?

She should have been stoned...

Legal Reading #3

Jesus pointed out the hypocrisy of the accusers and they vanished.

This one is really interesting...!

The accusers were hypocrites, knew it and left.

So what?

Since when does the judicial system require that all participants in the system are blameless? Yes, the Jewish authorities put in place some strong safeguards to keep scoundrels from being in charge of courts, but blameless accusers are hard to find.

Again - I'm in court for my bank robbery. The judge is about to pass sentence and I turn to him and say "Your Honour, I happen to know that you've got a little affair going with one of the court reporters. I declare you unfit to judge me". To which the judge says, "It's a fair cop - you can go now". I doubt it! He would quite rightly say "Be quiet" and send me directly to jail.

Bluntly the hypocrisy of the Pharisees has absolutely nothing to do with the guilt of the woman.

She should have been stoned...

A Disturbing Alternative

What about this for a legally compliant alternative story?

• Jesus dismisses the Pharisees in the same way as the actual story.
• But - Jesus gets the witnesses to the adultery to stay.
• Jesus takes charge of the situation.
• Jesus organises the stoning.
• The woman is killed.

The Law is upheld. As Deuteronomy says, "you shall put away the evil from among you". Jesus would be a good upstanding citizen and doing his civic duty.

What do you think of that idea?

What Did Jesus Do?

Here's what actually happened:

• Jesus dismissed her accusers.
• She did not ask for mercy.
• She did not ask for forgiveness.
• Jesus did not accuse her.
• Jesus sent her on her way.
• Jesus asked her to try again.

Jesus dismissed the accusers. We don't know how he dismissed the Pharisees. The writing in the sand is forever lost to us. But he did something and it worked.

Note what she didn't do. She didn't ask for mercy. She didn't ask for forgiveness. That is interesting!

And most radical of all - Jesus did not accuse her!

And here we get to the heart of why I think this is one of the most radical passages of scripture.

• Was she an adulterer? Yes.
• Was she guilty? Yes.
• She is sent on her way.

Why did Jesus do that? Because he wanted her to have another chance.

(Well, my conclusion anyway - bring yours to the class discussion)

We often see this story as being a clever trick by Jesus on the cartoon villain Pharisees. Yeah!! Jesus got the better of the Pharisees. Yeah!! They left with their tails between their legs. Yeah!! He 'won'.

But never forget that at the heart of this tale is a petrified woman, probably no more than a kid, caught up in a man's dirty sordid scheme in a dirty sordid man's world. And Jesus said something incredible to her...

And here's my take on this story. And it's my take and I accept responsibility for what I'm about to write and what it implies and, yes, other opinions are available, and we shall discuss yours!

At the end, at the heart of this tale is this-

The life and hopes and goals and dreams and future of this woman were more important to Jesus than what it says in the Books of Moses.

I know that's a difficult statement. But there's really no other way to interpret this. Either Jesus does a too-clever-by-half lawyers' trick and gets her off on a technicality that I don't think is valid anyway - or he really is playing by a different set of rules.

And we (me, you, this beloved Church of ours) really need to pay attention to that!

Let me leave you with the neighbour of everyone's favourite text... John 3:17:

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

1. In almost every discussion that I've had on the balance between keeping the Laws of Moses and exercising grace, someone will quote Matthew 5:17-18,

   "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished".

   • How do you square that text with the actions of Jesus in John 8?
   • Is Matt 5:17-18 the trumpiest of trump texts? Can you literally take any (and I mean any) part of the Law and assert Jesus' support in applying it to the letter?
2. I find, in the story of the lady who would not be stoned, an answer to the problem with which I began this discussion - do I want to live with, and honour, and worship, a God for whom Deut 22:28 is a Good Idea? For me, the answer is 'No'.
   
   Jesus' actions in this story show me that God (for Jesus is God) did not think that this Law of Moses was a Good Idea (quite why Deut 22:28 exists in the first place is a discussion for another day). There is a 'higher' ethic and Jesus displayed it. That's good enough for me.
   
   
3. Plato's "Euthyphro dilemma" -

   is a thing Good because God does it, or does God do Good things?

   - is a tricky question. I lean towards the latter. God does Good. What do you think?

1. Deut 22:28 NIV: ""If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
2. Kenneth E. Bailey, Jesus Though Middle Eastern Eyes, p229
3. Bruce Milne, The Message of John, p116

• PDF of these notes
• PowerPoint slides used occasionally in our discussion. They were taken from a talk I did several years ago in Crieff church on John 8. They are (hopefully) internally consistent and make sense!
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

1. Read John 9:1-12.
   • Being blind from birth suggests to me a birth defect. What is our attitude to any abnormality or defects seen in others?
   • How do we differentiate between sin and the sinner and the effects of sin on the world?
   • Why did Jesus use a different method of restoration for this blind man?
   • There is confusion - is it the same man? So let's take him to the Pharisees. Why take him to them? Which Pharisees?
2. John 9:13-34.
   • Is the controversy with the Pharisees all about the sabbath or is it about the healings?
   • What do you think the Pharisees are concerned about?
   • What about verse 27? What is answer a good one?
   • What do you think verse 34 means?
3. John 9:35-41.
   • The man worshipped him - is that a reasonable reaction?
   • Once again the Pharisees misunderstood Jesus - were they thick or was it a deliberate act?
4. John 10:1-6.
   • What is your take on this scripture? What do the different elements represent?
5. John 10:7-15.
   • What do you think is meant by the sheep "knowing my voice?"
6. John 10:16-18.
   • What other sheep?
   • Was Jesus in total control or not?
7. John 10:19-21.
   • Some believed, others did not - why?
8. John 10:22-42. Almost the final showdown but not quite...
   • The festival of dedication - what is it?
   • How would we deal with Jesus today?
   • In the narrative who was going to stone Jesus?

• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

The events surrounding this visit to Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles has multiple dimensions. Jesus had turned down the suggestion of his own brothers to go with them to the festival. He later decided to go arriving halfway through the week.

The passage seems to present several issues that we need to discuss.

1. The confusion that existed among the people caught up in the drama.

   • Some of the people knew the Leaders wanted to him dead. (v.25-27)
   • Some of them were shocked to hear that Jesus believed that.
   • They all had different ideas of who Jesus was.
   • There was secret private whispering about him throughout the city.
   • There was a deep sense of fear about the Jewish leadership.

2. Jesus' deliberate choice to go back to the conflict he had with the Jewish leaders when he healed someone on the Sabbath.

   That incident galvanized the leaders in their desire to kill him. (John 5:1-18)

   Why did Jesus suddenly connect the healing of the man to the circumcision of a child on the Sabbath? (John 7:21-24)

3. The authority of Jesus to behave and teach as he ought.

   Jesus spoke 4 times about where his authority came and evoked strong responses.

   • John 7:16-19
   • John 7:28-31
   • John 7:30-36
   • John 7:37-44

4. Anger, Confusion & Frustration among the leaders

   Jesus had created manic hostility from the leaders yet had effectively outwitted them.

   He had said everything that needed to be said.

   He had effectively challenged their own authority and accused them of rejecting the standards of the one the claimed to represent.

   Can you see any connection with this sermon from Daniel Duda and the contrast he made between conformity and grace?

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

This week is a potpourri of stories and parables.

If we follow the chronology of Jesus's life in Matthew, this section is Jesus's fourth great sermon. After the sermon on the mount (Mt 5-7), Jesus preaches about mission to the twelve (Mt 10), about the kingdom of heaven (Mt 13), and here about the church. Later, he will give his final sermon on the mount of olives.

Luke and Mark place a difference emphasis on Jesus's life, so the sermons are not present there like they are in Matthew. Many of the passages in Matthew 17 and 18 are unique to Matthew, given us an insight into his specific knowledge and theology.

I have given each story and parable a title, and included where they can be found in Matthew/Mark/Luke.

This week, I'd suggest reading them through in your Bibles, comparing Matthew's retelling with Luke's and Mark's. For some I have added additional questions for you to consider (and for us to discuss on Sabbath!).

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

The Blue Letter Bible (our nominal 'study guide') has captioned this set of texts as 'The Journey To Jerusalem'.

We are entering a somewhat 'bits and pieces' section of our story. All three scripture references for today are short and slightly disconnected from any broader narrative thread and from their immediate context. So, what do we make of them?

Luke 9:59-62 says some hard things - " But Jesus said to him, 'Let the dead bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.'" and "Jesus said to him, ''No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God'". What do you make of that? Often, this passage is interpreted by those who might be described as being on the zealot wing of Christianity as being a very clear call to arms. You have the permission of Jesus to ignore your local responsibilities because there's something much more important that needs doing.

• How would you respond to such a claim?
• Can you think of other statements of Jesus that would promote, for want of a better term, family responsibilities?
• "If you can keep your head when everyone around you are losing theirs, then you don't undertand the seriousness of the situation" goes the old joke. Have we become complacent? Are we too comfortable? Do we much prefer the 'my burden is easy and my yoke is light' Jesus over 'let the dead bury the dead' Jesus?
• In a number of translations this passage from Luke, and its counterpart in Matthew, are entitled "Would-Be Followers of Jesus". Is that fair?

The story in John 7 is concerned with attending (or not) the Sukkot, or Feast of Tabernacles, in Jerusalem. Those who could were commanded to journey to the Temple in Jerusalem for the seven days of the festival. Jesus makes the unusual decision not to go in a discussion with his brothers (an interesting aside in itself - one of the few references to Jesus' immediate family):

"My time is not yet here; for you any time will do. The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that its works are evil. You go to the festival. I am not going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come."" After he had said this, he stayed in Galilee.
John 7:6-9

However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret.
John 7:10

• Why the subterfuge? Why say "I'm not going" to his family and then go anyway?
• Jesus says nothing for 3 days or so ("halfway through the festival"). Again, try and put yourself in his shoes... what is happening here? Why the delay in getting started with teaching? Is there a lesson here in 'context-sensitive' evangelism?

• PDF of these notes
• PowerPoint referred to in the discussion
• Some background reading:
  • An article from Religion News Blog in which an Opus Dei priest makes a defence of self-punishment of the body.
  • "What Is the Festival of Tabernacles - Sukkot?" from the IFCJ (the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews).
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

Greek vs. Hebrew thinking

1. Did Jesus die the First or Second death? (cf. Rom 6:23; Rev 2:11; 20:6.14-15; 21:8)
2. Did Jesus just rest in the tomb (since it was Sabbath), or "sleep" (to use His own term for death)? Or did Jesus enter some state of total non-existence only to begin a new state of existence at the instant of resurrection? (Col 3:3)
3. Did Jesus die a human death only? What happened to the Divine nature during the "three" days? What happened to The Word when the Word that become Flesh died? Was "the Word" diminished and then restored?
4. How did the death of Jesus affect the Trinity? Did it tear itself apart on Good Friday?
5. How much "fully human" was there in the resurrected Jesus?
6. Thoughts on the "fully human, fully divine" Jesus ascending as per Acts 1
7. How "fully human" is Jesus as he "sits at the right hand of the Father"?
8. The vast majority of Christians believe the blood of Christ brings about salvation. How might Lev 17:11 affect our understanding of this? Should we instead emphasise Christ giving up his life over Christ "spilling his blood"? In light of that, how to understand Heb 9:12.22?
9. How to understand 1 Peter 3:18-20? How do we explain this difficult text (cf. 2 Peter 3:16) in a way that does not create even greater exegetical or biblical/theological problems (cf. 2 Cor 6:2; Heb 9:27)?

• PDF of these notes
• Zoom chat
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

In light of chapter 16 of Matthew here are some questions:

• What does transfiguration mean?
• Why the transfiguration?
• Who and what was it for?
• Why Moses and Elijah ?
• Why only three deciples?
• What do you think of Peter?
• Why secrecy?
• What about the voice from the cloud?
• Are the differences between the three gospel accounts of any significance?

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)

Just over a year ago (March 2021) we began to study and consider what Jesus did and said to others and what was said and done to Jesus by others as reported in the Gospel record. For the past three months we have considered who Jesus was/is and the implications thereof. We now return to the Gospels, hopefully with a greater understanding and appreciation of who Jesus was/is together with what he said and did for humanity whilst on earth and now in his current ministry in the heavenly sanctuary.

As we left Jesus and his disciples at Caesarea Philippi we read of Peter's "Great Confession" (Matt 16:16). Next week we will pick up the story as Jesus tells his disciples about his impending journey to the cross and suffering. This point in time is often referred to as "The Great Turning Point" in Jesus' ministry. The second half (approximately) of each gospel is devoted to the events which follow. The writers must have considered it the most important time of Jesus' life on earth to be passed on to their readers. However, before we get into the details of Jesus' last weeks on earth we will think about how fortunate we are to have access to both the Gospels and Hebrews - something the very earliest Christians did not have. If there is time (!) we might think about how we can apply what we learnt from Hebrews to the more historical accounts of the Gospels.

Please read as much of the following as possible: Matthew 1-16:20; Luke 1:1-2:52; John 1:1-4:45; 5:1-47

• How important is it that both the book of Hebrews and the Gospels are included in the New Testament? What might we learn from one that we could not have learnt from the other?
• The book of Hebrews and the Gospels are radically different in both style and content. How might our studies in the Gospels (as far as we got) have influenced our thoughts and beliefs as we studied Hebrews? You might wish to jog your memories by referring to the relevant study notes on the first part of The Story of Jesus series and our Hebrews study (Feb and March 2022).
• There are very few references in which people state that Jesus is the "Son of God" in the Gospels (Mt 14:33; 16:15; Mk 1:1; Jn 1:34; 1:49; 11:27; 20:31). Check out these incidents. Do you think Jesus' disciples and audiences had any inkling about Jesus being "superior" to angels, Moses, Melchizedek or his imminent becoming The Heavenly High Priest?
• In Hebrews we read about Jesus' "superiority", his High-Priesthood and ultimate entry into the heavenly sanctuary. How might our discussions over the past few weeks on those topics influence our studies in the second halves of the Gospels where we will journey with Jesus, his disciples and the people around them to Jerusalem, the cross, the resurrection and his ascension?

• PDF of these notes
• Audio recording of class discussion (password protected)