Partakers Christian Podcasts

Bible Thought - Luke Looks Back Part 24

Study 24 - Luke 19:28–48

The Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem

 

Jesus cannot complete his mission without entering Jerusalem and confronting the authorities there. This he does, first with actions and then with words

Please read Luke 19: 28-38. It seems likely that Jesus had made some arrangements the twelve knew nothing about. Perhaps he had 2 sets of supporters: the apostles in spiritual matters and a group of organisers or deacons.)

Question 1: What makes that a reasonable thing to say? Are there any alternative explanations?

There is something a bit mysterious about the account of Jesus sending two disciples to get the colt. It is hard to be sure but there does seem to have been a prior arrangement made by Jesus that the two disciples did not know the details of. To think that Jesus knew through his divine powers that the colt would be there is probably to over-emphasize the divine in Jesus and forget that he was also human. The account of the way Jesus entered Jerusalem is full of hints of OT passages. Three of the most important are:

1 Kings 1:33-35 which reads: "Take your lord's servants with you and have Solomon my son mount my own mule and take him down to Gihon. There have Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him king over Israel. Blow the trumpet and shout, 'Long live King Solomon!' Then you are to go up with him, and he is to come and sit on my throne and reign in my place. I have appointed him ruler over Israel and Judah."

Psalm 118:26-27 Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD. From the house of the LORD we bless you. The LORD is God, With boughs in hand, join in the festal procession.

Zechariah 9:9 Rejoice greatly, Daughter Zion!

Shout, Daughter Jerusalem!

See, your king comes to you,

righteous and having salvation,

lowly and riding on a donkey,

on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

Each of these is important in that Jesus did things that ensured that he fulfilled these prophecies. Jesus often fulfilled prophecies without having any apparent control on what happened but this is totally deliberate.

Question 2: Why did Jesus make sure these prophecies were fulfilled? Why did he make his entry into Jerusalem into such a public spectacle?

He did not always do this. In John 7: 10 we read that after his brothers had left for the Feast, he went also, not publicly, but in secret. Jesus knew he would die in Jerusalem. He did not want to die quietly. This was the most important event in the history of mankind. It had to be witnessed by many people. Those people needed to have all the necessary and sufficient evidence that he was indeed the Messiah, the Anointed One, even if they did not believe the evidence. Question 3: What will each of the following have been expecting:

• an ordinary member of the crowd?
• one of the disciples?
• one of the priests, lawyers or leaders of the people?
• a watching centurion of the Roman guard in charge of keeping the peace?

This is something interesting to use our imaginations on. I reckon a member of the crowd would have been caught up in the excitement, possibly not knowing much about Jesus but sensing that something important was happening.  One of the disciples would have realised the significance of what was happening, have been exceedingly excited and wanting to be ready for anything including fighting. One of the leaders of the people would have been annoyed and worried, concerned that there might be a full blown riot before long. A centurion would have been making sure his sword slid easily out of its scabbard, that his men were all lined up and waiting, and relishing the prospect of a fight against a largely unarmed crowd. Luke's account continues with Jesus prophesying the total destruction of the city and the destruction of the temple. All of which actually happened in AD 70, just about the time Luke was writing, and involved the slaughter of most of the inhabitants of the city and the surrounding countryside.

We read Luke 19:19-48.

What Jesus said in Luke 19:46 is a combination of Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7: 11. I will read rather more verses than these because in both cases the context adds important ideas to those in the exact words Jesus used. Listen out carefully for those extra ideas, which form the next question.

Question 4a: Read Isaiah 56:3-8. What extra ideas are there in those verses that would have been of interest to the more knowledgeable people in the crowd.

Isaiah includes both foreigners and eunuchs, those who were excluded from the temple worship that governed all of life at Jerusalem feast days.

Question 4b: Read Jeremiah 7: 3-11. What extra ideas are there in those verses that would have been of interest to the more knowledgeable people in the crowd.

Jeremiah places conditions of good behaviour on temple worshippers. He is saying it is not enough just to be a Jew or an Israelite. Jesus was saying it was not who you were but what you were that mattered. If your worship at the temple was to be of any significance at all before God it was your life of faith that mattered, not whether you were a Jew, or not, or any particular sort of Jew. Perhaps Jesus and his disciples were just entering the court of the Gentiles, the great outer court of the temple from which the disabled (eunuchs) and foreigners were excluded, as he spoke. No race, or language, is any more important than any other to the Christian. The Bible Jesus used was a translation from the Hebrew to the Greek. We rejoice in the translation of the Bible into more and more languages. The way Jesus clears the temple in Luke 19:45 is a symbolic picture of the destruction of the temple.  So that destruction was not accidental or due to the will of the Roman general.

Question 5: What then is the significance of the temple ruins in Jerusalem now, for Jews, for Muslims, for Christians?

The temple ruins are of absolutely no real significance for anybody any longer except as interesting relics of something which is now meaningless.

Right mouse click or tap here to save/download this as a MP3 audio file

Bible Thought - The Centrepiece of Joy

The Centrepiece of Joy

Leviticus 16:1-10 & Hebrews 10:1-10

Introduction

Today, we dip into Leviticus 16, which I think is the centre and pinnacle of this magnificent book of joy.

 

The Lord spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron who died when they approached the Lord. 2 The Lord said to Moses: ‘Tell your brother Aaron that he is not to come whenever he chooses into the Most Holy Place behind the curtain in front of the atonement cover on the ark, or else he will die. For I will appear in the cloud over the atonement cover. (Leviticus 16:1-2)

 

5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: ‘Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; 6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. 7 Then I said, “Here I am – it is written about me in the scroll – I have come to do your will, my God.”’ 8 First he said, ‘Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them’– though they were offered in accordance with the law. 9 Then he said, ‘Here I am, I have come to do your will.’ He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Hebrews 10:5-10)

 

Leviticus 16 describes the Day of Atonement which was to occur annually on the 10th day of the 7th month. We know that God had chosen Israel to be His people and that they were supposed to be a shining beacon of light and hope to the world. As part of the covenant made with Moses, God said that He would be their God and they would be His people.

 

What a contrast to the nations around them that worshipped multiple ‘gods’, made of material such as wood or stone and often thirsty for human sacrifice. Contrast those ‘gods’, with the God of Israel, who had made himself personally present with His people in the Tent of Meeting or Tabernacle. Let’s look briefly at what went on at this Day of Atonement or Yom Kippur. To listen to the rest of this Podcast use the link below to download

Click or Tap here to listen to or save this as an audio mp3 file

Bible Thought - Luke Looks Back Part 23

Study 23- Luke 18:31–19:27

Seeing and trusting

There are 4 sections in this study all of which have something to do with seeing and not seeing, understanding and not understanding or just plain hidden. The first section, Luke 18: 31–34 serves as a summary of what is to follow.

Do read Luke 18:31-34.

The disciples had a reasonable excuse for not understanding. What Jesus was saying was so strange and unexpected they could be forgiven for not understanding. But we, in all probability, have some knowledge of how things turned out so we do not have that excuse. v 34 provides a challenge to us, the readers or hearers: will we be blind or deaf, will we see or hear and understand? Blindness and sight are metaphors for no faith and faith. Have you moved from blindness to sight? Remind yourself what the effect of your blindness was and how you first knew that you were seeing or, if you are in a group, share together your journey from blindness to sight, darkness to light.

Question 1: What is the significance of the rising sequence of names given to Jesus by the blind man (named as Bartimaeus, literally ‘son of filth’, in Mk 10: 46). Those names are Jesus of Nazareth; Jesus, son of David; Lord.

Jesus of Nazareth probably meant to him the prophet with power to heal and who would have compassion on him; Jesus, son of David, meant Jesus was the Messiah; Lord that Jesus was worth following. The question and answer in 18: 41 may appear strange but begging was a profession in those days as it still is in some countries, dependant on a visible handicap and providing a good income. If the man was cured of his blindness he would have to find a job with no skills or experience to call on.

Question 2: The emphasis is not on Bartimaeus’ restored sight but his faith (18: 42, 43). What exactly did his faith consist of? What is this miracle saying to us?

The important phrase is ‘he followed Jesus’. He must have known something about Jesus or he would not have made so much noise trying to attract his attention. We, too, are not expected to start from detailed knowledge about what following Jesus means. We, too, are expected to get up (metaphorically speaking) and follow him.

Do read Luke 19: 1–10.

Zacchaeus was not only short of stature; he was a collaborator with the hated Romans. He would not dare to push his way to the front of the crowd for fear of a knife in his back. So he ran ahead! Not what an important man should do. But the crowd saw him go and mocked him so that Jesus learned his name. Jesus was intending to go straight through Jericho so that he would not have to spend time (possibly days?) being entertained with full ceremony. But he is prepared to go to Zacchaeus’ house.

Question 3: Note the significance of seeing in this account. Who does the seeing?

Everybody. Zacchaeus had to take action to see Jesus, Jesus sees him; the crowd sees what is going on and starts to mutter. The servant figure of Is 53 takes hostility meant for others on himself. Statements there like: “he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.” reflect the costly love that Jesus gives to Zacchaeus?

Question 4: We read earlier in this chapter that the rich man/camel had to go through the eye of the needle! What happened to prove that Zaccheus didn’t dodge round?

The promises of repayment Zacchaeus made are far reaching. If you do the Maths on what he said you will see that if he had cheated just on one eighth of his debtors he would end up with nothing. Perhaps he is saying that he has been a good man and that he has not been cheating in the past?

Do read Luke 19: 11–27.

Luke does not use the parable of the minas to teach successful stewardship as Matthew uses it in Matt 25: 14–30 but to explain the apparent non-appearance of the Kingdom (the people thought the kingdom of God was going to appear at once 19: 11). The parable uses a well-known and well-understood situation. 73 years earlier Herod the Great, second son of the just assassinated king, made a successful journey to Rome to petition Caesar to appoint him the next king of Judea. Later, about 37 years before Luke wrote, Herod’s son Archelaus had made a similar, but unsuccessful, journey seeking the same thing. (A ‘mina’ was about 100 days wages for a working man.)

Queston 5: What would be the likely outcome for a servant of the would-be king if (a) the petitioner who would be king was successful, (b) he was unsuccessful?

By their actions the servants would demonstrate their allegiance or otherwise to the man seeking to be king. Their future livelihoods, or possibly their lives, would be dependant on having chosen the right option. The last phrase of v 15 should perhaps read ‘how much trading have you done’ effectively asking how conspicuous have you been while I was away when it was known that you supported me. If I win, you win. If I lose, you lose.

Question 6: How was this relevant to the developing situation as Jesus travelled to Jerusalem? How is it relevant to us?

If he was indeed the Messiah he claimed to be and they showed their loyalty by open declaration of their support of him they would gain. If he wasn’t, they would be in a very dangerous situation. At least that was the way it looked. Things did not quite work out in that straightforward way. He was indeed the Messiah but they were still in a dangerous situation, humanly speaking. But in the vast story of human history they became very important. The comment of the third servant in 19: 21 must have been meant as a complement! He must have been suggesting that his master was something like a warlord in a country with much internal fighting going on!

Question 7: How can this and the master’s reply (v 21, 22) be related to Jesus, or to God?

Ps 18: 25, 26 relates to this sort of situation. It says of God ‘To the faithful you show yourself faithful, to the blameless you show yourself blameless, to the pure you show yourself pure, but to the devious you show yourself shrewd.’ It suggest that, at least in part, our understanding of God will depend on our general attitudes.

Question 8: The final comment in 19: 27 ‘But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them — bring them here and kill them in front of me. is realistic in the Judaean kingship, or warlord, scenario. How can it possibly be related to Jesus, or God?

This is another unfinished story. We are told what the enemies deserved, not what actually happened to them. Compare what we deserve and what we actually get from the Lord. After Jesus had said this, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem. So says 19: 28, finally bringing to an end the long account of the journey of Jesus to Jerusalem and introducing the last phase of Luke’s account of Jesus’ life, death and victory.

Tap or click here to save/download this as a MP3 audio file

Bible Thought - Luke Looks Back Part 22

Study 22 - Luke 18:9–30

The Way of the Kingdom

We now come to two very significant parables either side of a short and rather surprising paragraph. I think we should start off with some explanations. The first parable is not about ways to pray but about righteousness (Luke 18:9). Righteousness is a very important, but very tricky, word in the Bible. Our English word has been used to translate a word in the Greek, which does not quite mean what our word means! In fact the Biblical word carries with it a whole set of meanings that no single word in English can possibly include. Our word has as its primary meaning ‘being right’, in the sense of being morally and ethically right in the scale of good and bad. But the Greek word in the NT is used to translate an OT word, which is primarily about being accepted, about being in relationship with someone. Our word is an accountant’s word; the OT word is a social word. Of course, in the OT one can only be accepted by a Holy God if one is right in the moral sense too, but that idea is secondary. And then a third implication of the word is that if you are accepted by God then you are within the covenant that God struck with Abraham. So the word means being accepted by God, being good and being within the covenant.

Also, a big family of related Greek words about righteousness have to be translated by English words with two very different roots, righteous and justify, which don’t sound as though they have anything to do with each other. If there was an English word ‘righteous-ify’ things would be much easier but, unfortunately, there isn’t. So ‘justify’ in Lk 18:14, and through all the rest of the NT, would be righteous-ify, if there was such a word. So our reading from Luke 18 is going to start off with ‘to some who were confident of their own righteousness …’ which could be translated ‘to some who thought they, being better than everyone else would be accepted by God and were within the covenant.’

Please read Luke 18:9 – 14.

The whole focus of this parable is about how one can come to be accepted by God, to be in a saving relationship with God. How? The answer is in the meaning of the word translated ‘mercy’ in v 13, which is exactly the same word translated ‘sacrifice of atonement’ in Rom 3:25 and 1 John 2:2. The time for prayer in the worship centred on the temple, which is when these 2 guys would have been praying, was the time of the sacrifice for atonement, as mentioned in the first few verses of this gospel when Zechariah went into the temple. The tax collector was effectively asking ‘Lord, make this sacrifice, going on right now, an atonement for me, a sinner’.

Question 1: What is the only way we can be righteous, that is be accepted by God?

As the write to the Hebrews says ‘Jesus was like us in every way in order that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. (Heb 2:17)? Or, as Paul says ‘and all are justified-righteousified-freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith.

Question 2: What other words are used in the Bible about the way God deals with us, which particularly emphasize our relationship to God?

There are all the words about adoption, being children, and having an inheritance. For instance Paul says:‘those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba Father.” The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. If we are children then we are heirs …’ There we have adoption, sonship, recognizing God as our Father and being heirs all in Rom 8:14 – 16; all of those are words about relationship. Paul piles up the same sort of relationship words in his letter to the Galatians too.

Question 3: What is the important difference between the Pharisee’s prayer and the tax-collector’s?

The Pharisee was relying on his own goodness to make him acceptable to God. But, like all of us, he could not be good enough to be acceptable to God who is pure holiness. The tax collector knew that he was not good enough to be acceptable so he asked for the mercy of God, the atonement from sacrifice. He did not realise that all sacrifice at that time was only of value because it was a foretaste of the perfect sacrifice that Jesus would make on the Cross.

Question 4:Aren’t we glad we are not like the Pharisee …. Oops! There is something wrong with that question. I think I had better do another question 4.

Please read Luke 18:15 – 17.

Question 4: Children were not then the little gods they are in many cultures today. So what is Jesus emphasising by his statement in 15 – 17?

Children accept what comes to them rather than attempting to organise the world around them to their advantage. Jesus is saying that we too can only progress by a accepting what is given to us from the Lord.

Please read Luke 18:18-30

Question 5: What is the rich man suggesting by his use of the word ‘inherit’ (v 18)? How do we inherit?

He would seem to have understood that eternal life is not something we can demand but depends on the gift of someone else. So the important thing is being in right relation to the person who gives, in this case, God. We can only inherit through the gift of God. Paul says in Gal 4:4 – 7 ‘God sent his Son, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship. Because you are his sons, you are no longer slaves, but God’s children; and since you are his children, he has made you also heirs.’

Question 6: Compared to most of the people who have ever lived most of us are relatively rich! After all you must be sitting in front of a screen of some sort to be hearing or reading this. What then do we do with verse 22 where Jesus said ‘You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.? Are we thereby failing in our obedience?

We are very fortunate people. but we cannot live in most of our societies without being able to pay our taxes, pay for the electricity and everything else we necessarily have – well, nearly necessarily have, anyway. The real punch line in what Jesus said is the last phrase ‘come, follow me’. If we do that all else will fall into place. We can enter the Kingdom. So that we will remember his warning Jesus gave one of his most memorable over-statements. Various attempts to explain camels as ropes or needle’s eyes as narrow gates are wrong. Just remember what Jesus said. That is the point of what he said.

Question 7: We have just had 3 lovely stories:the Pharisee and the tax-collector, the children coming to Jesus and the rich man asking Jesus about eternal life. What are the similarities between these three stories?

They are all focused on how we should approach God. In the first story we are told that being religious and pious are not sufficient ; in the second that it is all too easy to allow maturity and being worldly wise become a barrier; and finally that riches and good deeds are likely to be a hindrance to us. As one hymn writer said long ago “nothing in my hand I bring; simply to thy cross I cling”. I do hope all our hearers are doing just that.

Right mouse click or tap here to save/download this as a MP3 audio file

Bible Thought - Luke Looks Back Part 21

Study 21 - Luke 17:1-18:8

Faith and its consequences.

This next section of the Gospel contains a collection of small episodes mainly about faith and its consequences. We read about having to be careful not to hurt anyone else, being prepared to serve in any capacity, giving thanks and praising the Lord, looking forward and behaving in the light of the coming kingdom and being persistent in prayer.

Please do read 17:1 – 10

The 'little ones' (v2) are not defined but we probably will not be far wrong if we take them to be any Christians young in faith. 'to sin' (NIV) is more literally 'to stumble'.

Question 1: Is the advice of 17:4 realistic? Can we sensibly forgive someone seven times if they keep on repeating the same thing for which we need to forgive them? Compare 1 Cor 5:1, 3b-5. What is the significant difference between these two situations?

Perhaps we should not forgive anyone 7 times if, by so doing, we encourage the persistence of the problem. There has to be a difference in our reactions when we are acting as private individuals and when we are acting on behalf of the church. In the situation in 1 Corinthians Paul is acting on behalf of that fellowship.

Question 2: Jesus cannot be saying to the disciples in 17:5, 6 that they have no faith because they cannot throw a tree in the sea! However he must be saying something about faith. What?

Perhaps this is just another example of Jesus' dramatic over statements to make a memorable saying. But even so Jesus was challenging the apostles to think bigger about prayer than they had been accustomed to doing. Probably we all need to think bigger about prayer - I certainly do.

Question 3: What is the Christian service (17:10) you do, or have done, which you have found hardest to do - only doing it out of a sense of duty? Does asking that question imply a wrong attitude towards duty?

You will have to answer the first part of that question yourself. Luke put the comment about duty immediately after the sayings about prayer. Perhaps what we think of as duty he is suggesting we should think of as prayer.

Please do read 17: 11 - 19.

The story of the 10 lepers is all about seeing and not seeing - a recurrent theme in this gospel. (see also Lk 8: 10; 10: 23, 24). It reminds us of the story of Balaam and his donkey. The seer who could not see and his donkey who could see.  Does that mean we need to be donkeys and not seers, I wonder?

Question 4: Who saw what here and with what effect? Who failed to see? What do we find the hardest things to see (in this sense)? What do you do when you see?

The first person we are told 'saw' was Jesus. Then just one of the lepers 'saw' he was healed, although presumably all 10 of them had been. That one leper saw more deeply than the others what Jesus had done for him. And so he had faith. Probably the other 9 did not have faith, but went on their way as spiritually stupid as they came. He got far more out of his meeting with Jesus than the rest did. A clear warning to us.

Please do read 17: 20 - 37.

This section is about the Kingdom of God and is not easy to understand as Jesus seems to have made 2 sets of prophetic statements. The first is about what would happen to Jerusalem - and did happen to Jerusalem some 40 years later when, in response to a revolt by the Jews, the Romans attacked it, besieged and largely destroyed it with huge loss of life. The second set of statements is about what will happen at the end of the world. The fall of Jerusalem was the end of the world as they knew it; the end of the world will be the end of the world as we know it. It is not at all easy to know exactly which some of the statements refer to. The destruction of Jerusalem is a sort of prophetic foretaste of that still future end. The very important phrase that is used to summarize the teaching of passages like this is 'Now, but not yet' meaning that the Kingdom was there in the presence of Jesus and is here now in the presence of the Holy Spirit but is not yet evident in its full and final glory.

Question 5: What does Jesus say here concerning the 'Now'? But the question of the Pharisees was about the future. What did Jesus say here about this 'not yet' aspect of the Kingdom? What do his words suggest our attitudes to these two aspects should be?

The now of those days was as difficult as anybody's now of today, full of wars and rumours of wars. Mankind has not changed much in these last 2000 years. Although Jesus clearly knew there was to be a last day he offered no suggestions at all about when it would be. The 'not yet' has already stretched out for those 2000 years. That fact inevitably affects our thinking, making us careless when we should be preparing for it. Jesus is warning against such carelessness. Be warned.

Please do read 18: 1 - 8.

The parable of the unjust judge is difficult. It probably belongs more to what goes before, the sayings of Jesus we have just been thinking about, than what comes after. Its primary meaning is not about persistent prayer in general but of our attitude to the expectation of the final day for at least 4 reasons:

• It is about a judge - and the final day is one of judgment;
• There is a general Biblical expectation that the apparent inequities of this present life will be compensated in the future life as Luke 6:21 and Luke 6:25 teach us and that is evident here.
• 18: 7 is similar to Revelation 6: 9 - 11 which is very clearly about the future in heaven.
• 18: 8 is about the coming of the Son of Man and that reflects Dan 7: 13, 14, 26, 27

Question 6: What compensating justice in the future life would most please you? Is that wish one that will encourage the Lord to think that he has found faith in you, or were you just being rather selfish?

It is a good job that only you know what your answers to those 2 linked questions are! It is too easy to read this story as teaching that the Lord measures prayer by its quantity. That seems inherently unlikely. What about its quality? Paul only prayed about his thorn in the flesh 3 times and then decided he was stuck with it. We might have been tempted to go on pleading with the Lord like the widow in this story. Somewhere between the two stories is the right balance.

Right mouse click or tap here to save/download this as a MP3 audio file

Bible Thought - Luke Looks Back Part 20

Study 20 - Luke 16:1-31

The Problem of Riches

This chapter, which is difficult all the way through, gives us one of the most puzzling of all the parables, as, if it is misread, Jesus appears to commend dishonesty. The story is about a landlord’s estate-manager or steward who was sacked for inefficiency in an unusual way: there is no lengthy argument or plea for reinstatement as you would have expected in that culture; the steward ceases immediately to be the approved agent but the rent books are not taken from him.

Please read Luke 16:1-8

The estate-manager was able to reduce the rents and get the tenants to note the changes (v 6b, 7b), probably with the promise to share the reductions with him quietly afterwards. Because of the tenants writing on the documents the landlord cannot reinstate the changes without losing face and honour. Clever!

Right mouse click or tap here  to save/download this as a MP3 audio file

Of course the chapter division was not in the original documents so this story follows closely behind the one of the Prodigal Son (or whatever you decided to call it) and this story supports that one in some ways.

Question 1: What are the parallels between this parable and that one? 2 noble fathers or masters; 2 ignoble dependents; 2 moments of truth regarding losses; 2 pleas for mercy; 2 problems of broken trust and its consequences.

Question 2: What knowledge of the nature of the landowner did the estate-manager display by what he did? Think particularly of why the landlord dismissed him; why he didn’t imprison him; why did the landowner agreed to pay the price for the deception? What does this parable teach us about the nature of God?

In that sort of culture there would very likely be a relationship several generations long between the families of master and steward. Honour has to be maintained on both sides so grace is necessary. Our God is a God of relationships not accounting practices. Our God is a forgiving God who, because of the sacrifice of Jesus is prepared to forgive the many things we have done which we should not have done, just as the master forgave the manager things he should not have done. We were careful to end the story at verse 8. Most Bibles paragraph this chapter in a way that suggests the next few verses are also part of that story. But that is unlikely because it would make verse 9 suggest we should be as dishonest as the manager and v11 and 12 sit very uncomfortably with the parable when they do make good sense in isolation. The next parable clearly starts at v19. In between is a collection of sayings, probably from some other occasions, linked by key words and ideas.

Please read Luke 16: 9 – 18.

Question 3: What does v9 mean if it is to be read separately, not relating it to the story before it.

It teaches us that worldly wealth is not to be used solely for our own benefit. We are to use it for other people as well. It also reminds us that the day will come when our worldly wealth will be gone and we shall have to give account of ourselves before judge Jesus. One commentary labels most of these verses ‘Condemnations of the Corrupt at Heart’, which fits well. Verse 18 is the most terse and hard of all the NT statements about divorce and should not be read in isolation from the others in Matthew 5: 31, 32; 1 Corinthians 7: 10, 11.

Question 4: What are the barriers against which people are forcing their way into the Kingdom in your world (v 16)? Obviously you have to answer this one yourself.

Please read Luke 16:19-31

The difficulties continue! Lazarus is the only person in all the parables who is named (although one papyrus calls the rich man Neues). Purple clothing was strictly reserved for the elite of Roman society. Abraham’s side (literally bosom, that is Lazarus was reclining at the table beside Abraham) was thought to be the best place to be after death. The whole story, like the rest of the parables, is probably not meant to be understood as a real life episode. We should not draw any conclusions about the geography of heaven and hell from it.

Question 5: What does the attitude of the dogs, (savage, guard?) dogs to Lazarus tell us about him? The dogs were expressing what the rich man should have done. Lazarus is clearly depicted as a nice guy, a likeable fellow.

Question 6: What does the rich man’s attitude in the after life to Lazarus tell us about him? He thought of himself as a big man so Lazarus ought to act as his slave. He failed to realise that we are all equal in death, and indeed ought to consider others equal to ourselves in this life. Again the parable lacks an ending. The last statement has an element of wry humour about it. Jesus clearly realises that his death will not be the last event of his life.

Right mouse click or tap here to save/download this as a MP3 audio file

Bible Thought - Luke Looks Back Part 19

 

Study 19 - Luke 15:1-32

The Joy of Recovery

 

This chapter contains two marvellous double parables. The first is that of the lost sheep and the lost coin; the second that of the prodigal son, the loving father and the unhappy elder brother.

Please do read Luke 15: 1 - 10.

 

There is one obvious problem with the story of the lost sheep: would a shepherd really leave 99 sheep in wild country? Probably not. But a flock of that many sheep would need more than one shepherd so he would not be leaving them alone. It is important to note that the one who went searching was the owner and therefore comparatively rich.

 

Question 1: Sheep are smelly animals. What is suggested by the carrying on the shoulders? And by taking it home and not back to the flock?

 

As so often Jesus is emphasising that he is interested not just in the smug posh people who thought they alone mattered but the ordinary people, the country people, the working people. He is taking the sheep home to show that everybody is welcome in his Kingdom.

Question 2: What are the similarities and deliberate contrasts that make it reasonable to call this (v 1-10) a double parable rather than two separate parables?

 

Most of the verbal contrasts are obvious. But don't miss the careful balancing of a story about a man with one about a woman. This is typical Luke. All too many parts of the church world-wide have not come to terms with the way Jesus treated women on equality with men. The two parables are set in a strictly male world and a strictly female world yet they carry the same message. They go together hence I call them a double parable.

Question 3: How does the double parable answer the 'mutterings' of v 2? What was the main contrast between the world in which Jesus lived and the one he is describing? What does this contrast say to our present day situation?

 

It answers the mutterings by contradicting the ideas on which they were based. The posh people were not interested in the other people. They did not see everybody as their neighbour. We need to look at our own attitudes and those of our church very carefully and very honestly to make sure we are not like those people.

The second double parable is perhaps the greatest short story ever told.

Please read 15: 11 - 32.

 

This is where the idea of a reflection that I mentioned earlier becomes really important to understand what Jesus was saying - or rather the importance of what he did not say. Both parts of the double parable are reflections. The first goes like this:

a. son lost

b. sin - everything lost

c. rejection

d. change of mind - inadequately

e. acceptance

f. repentance - everything gained

g. son found

Question 4: Is what I have just said correct? I said it started with the son being lost and ended with the son being found. Should it rather be "the father's loss" and "the father's gain"? And I might add, if so, might that change the title of the story - a question we will leave until we have looked at all the story.

 

One commentator makes the following frequently overlooked points about that society and culture:

• A man was expected to give an oral will only when dying, as Jacob did in Gen 48 so the boy was effectively asking his father to die!
• To break with convention like that would have merited a beating.
• It was undignified for an elderly man to run. He wouldn't! But this one did.
• The father's kiss of welcome and greeting outside the local village stopped the villagers mocking the despised son as they would naturally have done otherwise.
• A calf was killed. A sheep would have done.
• The elder son would have been expected to act as the reconciler in the family dispute.

Question 5: Was the father properly even-handed to his sons?

That is as hard a question to answer as any. I think it will depend on who we are how we answer that one. I would say - doubtful. But it is only a parable.

 

The second part is nearly a reflection:

a. elder brother comes

b. he is told his brother has arrived

c. his father attempts reconciliation

d. he complains - how you treat me

e. He complains - how you treat him

f. his father attempts reconciliation

g. he is again told brother has arrived

h. ????

 

The second part of the parable is incomplete - we do not know how the elder son responded. That is made very clear by looking at the structure, the reflection. And that leaves us with some major questions to answer.

Question 6: Who is the story addressed to? Why is it left open like this? How would they have responded? How would we have responded?

 

At the beginning of the chapter we are told that the Pharisees and the teachers of the law were muttering about Jesus and he told them these parables. It was clearly left open to make them think how they would have finished the story off and what the implications of their ending might be. How would we have responded? I think the only possible answer to that is 'with difficulty'.

Question 7: This double parable is almost always called the parable of the prodigal or lost son. But is that the right title? After all only the first half is about him. What should it be called?

 

The first part should surely be called something like the parable of the Forgiving Father. The second part might be the parable of the Unforgiving Brother. But then you may have other, equally good ideas.

One final question remains which I will try to answer myself. It is this: do we always hear most about the prodigal son because the message of the second part of the parable is a lot harder for established Christians to take? I think that is a distinct possibility. It is nice and comfortable for all the Christians listening to hear someone preach about the prodigal son because it does not affect them. But thinking about the elder brother, the person who is already religious but fails to show his faith in his attitude to his younger brother, is not so comfortable for them. Oh, yes, younger brother had been a bad lot and had squandered the inheritance so there were plenty of good excuses elder brother could give for his attitude. But Jesus left his story deliberately unfinished to make his listeners, including you and me, wonder about themselves.

Right mouse click to save/download this as a MP3 audio file

Bible Thought - Luke Looks Back Part 18

 

Study 18 - Luke 13: 10 – 14:35

The Great Reversals

We read Luke 13:10–17. Question 1: In these verses how do the Lord, and Luke, heighten the contrast between the woman before and after? By emphasising the ‘bent’ and the ‘straight’, we may well be meant to see these as metaphors for sin and righteousness.

We read Luke 13:18–21. Question 2: The two small parables about the mustard seed and the yeast) say something obvious about size. What else do they say? Growth is a major factor in both little parables. And the fact that birds could perch in the tree suggests there will be unclean – non-Jewish people - in the Kingdom. What sort of tree Jesus had in mind is not clear; mustard seeds do not normally grow into a tree. Was Jesus, with his great sense of humour, deliberately suggesting that the impossible would happen? Yeast too is unclean, with the same suggestion.

We read Luke 13:22–35. Isaiah 25 & 60 provide the background for the first story here. There we read: On this mountain the LORD Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine— the best of meats and the finest of wines. On this mountain he will destroy the shroud that enfolds all peoples, the sheet that covers all nations; Nations will come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your dawn. Your gates will always stand open, they will never be shut, day or night, so that men may bring you the wealth of the nations— their kings led in triumphal procession. Then will all your people be righteous and they will possess the land for ever. They are the shoot I have planted, the work of my hands, for the display of my splendour. The least of you will become a thousand, the smallest a mighty nation. I am the LORD; in its time I will do this swiftly. The Jews of Jesus’ day were inclined to forget the bit about ‘all nations’ and think they were the only privileged people who would see the Kingdom. Jesus is saying that the situation will be much reversed if they are not careful – as they weren’t.

We read Luke 14:1–14. Question 3: Why does Jesus not say something like ‘If you come back tomorrow I can give you proper attention and not offend anybody.’ Instead of (Luke 14:3–5)? Jesus is using the situation as a teaching opportunity. He is saying that the human situation, demanding the healing of the man, is more important than the religious duty of keeping the Sabbath. At first glance Luke 14:7–14 reads more like advice than a parable. There are two hints that it is a parable: the word translated ‘honoured’ near the end of v 10 is the same one usually used for ‘grace’, so it is literally ‘get grace’; and the saying in v11 is obviously like Luke 13:30, which refers to the kingdom.

Question 4: Necessarily, some are Chief Executive Officers, bishops or head teachers. How does the teaching (Luke 14: 8 – 11) apply to them? They must be careful not to exalt themselves. If others exalt them that is alright. Once again Jesus is emphasising the importance of motive in all that we do. Other people can not see our motives but we know what they are, if we think about them, and the Lord knows anyway. Jesus breaks the accepted social conventions of good behaviour (Luke 14:4,7 & 12).

Question 5: Why does Jesus do and say things that so offend people? Does this give us as ambassadors of the gospel a licence to offend people? Jesus places the rules of his Kingdom above the social conventions of his day. He wants people to understand that. We should only offend people for the same reason and then not if we can avoid doing so.

We read Luke 14:15–24. The background to the implied question in 14:15, who will be at the great feast in heaven, is interesting. Isaiah clearly thought Gentiles would be present in his prophecy of that event that we have already looked at. Jews of the time of Jesus could not accept that and suggested things such as - that the angel of death would be present to destroy the Gentiles, forcing the believers to wade through the blood to reach the banquet! Jesus is being asked for his opinion.

Question 6: People don’t buy fields or houses without seeing them, oxen or motorcars without trying them out (Luke v14:18-19). What is Jesus suggesting by his imagery? People make excuses for not doing what they know they ought to do. That is true here in our world. It is true even when the decision taken here in this world has implications in the age to come. Curiously, the third excuse (Luke 14: 20) is much better than the others! (Deut 24: 5)

We read Luke 14:25–35. Question 7: There are 3 conditions here (Luke 14:26, 27, 33 and in 18, 20) for discipleship: renouncing family ties, being prepared for suffering and forsaking possessions. Which is the hardest, which the easiest of these? The answer to that question is up to you. Even allowing for the fact that the ‘hate’ of Luke 14:26 is another example of exaggeration for effect few are prepared to renounce family ties as completely as this suggests. To do so seems to run counter to all other NT teaching.

Question 8: When I was at university, a long time ago, the Gospel sermons on a Sunday evening were expected to include a section on ‘counting the cost’. It did not appear to lessen the number of converts. How does that compare with what you hear as the preaching of the good news? That was a tremendously good thing to do and fully in agreement with what Jesus taught in these verses.

That has been the second successive long passage with many small episodes, stories and parables. Since you have got this far – well done. The next study includes the parable of the prodigal son so it is rather easier to understand what it is all about. Look forward to it!

Tap or click here to save/download this as a MP3 audio file

Bible Thought - Luke Looks Back Part 17

Study 16 - Luke 12:13 – 13:9

Priorities in life

There are at least 12 different parables or sayings in this section. The theme is how we should set our goals and live our lives in view of the uncertainty of this life and the promise of the life to come.

We read 12: 13 - 21.

Question 1:    Why exactly was the rich man such a fool? (You should get at least 4 different ways in which he was stupid.) Here is the story again.

The 4 things I can see in this passage are: He assumed he would still be alive to enjoy the produce from his crops.

He ignored the concerns of other people.

He assumed that "eat, drink ... " would lead to joyful merriment.

He ignored the claims of God on his life.

Question 2:    Isn't having big enough barns for your crops common sense? Isn't it what this world runs on?

 

Yes! It is what this world runs on. It is all a question of motives - good or bad. The teaching of the parable is summarized in the final phrase:  he worked for himself and was not rich towards God. It is not easy to be consistently rich towards God but that must be our life-long ambition.

Next we read 12: 22 - 34.

These verses are all about worry. A great deal of Western culture is driven by worry; if yours is not Western I have to leave it to you to work out how closely this conforms to your situation. We, in the West, are trained from an early age to think we must have the right toys, the right clothes, the right boy's toys, cars, etc. and to worry if we do not!  We cannot completely opt out of our world. In the words of Jesus we need to be 'in the world' but not 'of the world' (Jn 17: 11, 14).

Question 3:    Some of the Lord's servants rely on 12: 31 but if we all did that who would be the givers through whom the Lord would supply us? How then should we understand this?

We need to balance this saying with what Paul said to the Thessalonian Christians in 2 Thess 3: 10 - 'if a man will not work he shall not eat'. Somewhere between the two sayings is the right course for each one of us.

We read 12: 35 - 48.

This section includes no less than 4 different sayings about masters returning home or thieves breaking in. Most likely Luke has brought together things that Jesus said at different times simply linked by key words or ideas. The first homecoming is in v 35 - 38. The old Syriac and Arabic translations (culturally closer to those days) have the servants expecting the master who withdraws from the banquet (both equally possible translations) thus suggesting a pre-arranged plan for the master to bring food home from the banquet for his servants whom he then serves.

Question 4:    Assuming that is correct, what does this parable teach about the final great banquet (Is 25: 6; Lk 13: 29, 14: 15)?

 

This is an astonishing picture of Jesus receiving us, his servants, and serving us the good things of the great feast.

Question 5:    In the third and fourth episodes of masters returning (12: 42 - 46 and 47, 48) the emphasis is quite different. What is it?

 

These two parables, or sayings, with their emphasis on senior servants abusing their position over lesser servants, were probably chosen for inclusion by Luke to make some pointed comments to the church leaders of his day, some 40 years after Jesus said these things. They may well be strong rebukes to some church leaders in our day.

Question 6:    How do you understand the brutal bits (12: 42b, 46b, 47b) in these 2 episodes? Compare 1 Cor 3: 12 - 15. Is it better to shun responsibility in the work of the Kingdom and make sure we are not entrusted with too much? Why, or why not?

 

These sayings are a warning to all those who work in the church: from preaching, to Sunday School teaching and looking after the crèche, to work hard at our tasks, not to take them lightly and not to forget that we need the presence and the power of the Holy Spirit in all that we do for the Lord. Paul said: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you.
 if we do that we shall not go far wrong.

Read 12: 39 - 45.

The sort of family division mentioned in 12: 49 - 53 is rather alarming. We must never be responsible for the destruction of the peace, except for the fact that we follow Jesus. We must do all we can, apart from denying him, to avoid division.

We read 13: 1 - 5.

One writer commenting on these verses says: Jesus' question and answer react to the popular notion that sin is the cause of calamity. If God is responsible for everything and God is a just God, the calamities must be the result of human sinfulness.  The fallacy in that argument is the notion that God is the immediate cause of all events, which leaves no room for human freedom or freedom in the created order, and therefore for events that God does not control ...'.

Question 7:    Do you agree with that statement?

 

This is a very doubtful argument, theologically. It leaves God as less than sovereign. The problem that led to the question to Jesus is basically the same as that faced by Job and, in the book bearing his name, the only answer given is that God is an unchanging rock for those who love him in spite of all apparent evidence to the contrary. Perhaps the phrase 'the ordinary chaos of life', accepting that God is sovereign but we can have no idea what he has determined, no window into his sovereignty, is a good and acceptable summary of these verses.

Finally we read 13: 6 - 8.

This little parable of the fig tree is based on Is 5: 1 - 7.

Question 8:    What does Jesus add to what that passage teaches? Here is the passage in Isaiah:

 

He includes a time marker, a year; probably to be understood as a period of grace before Israel would be "cut down". (Which turned out to be nearly 40 years before the siege and destruction of Jerusalem in AD 69, 70.)

 

Right mouse click or tap here to save/download this as a MP3 audio file

Bible Thought Luke Looks Back - Part 16

Study 16 - Luke 11:14 – 12:12

Controversies

As they moved towards Jerusalem antagonism to all that Jesus represented grew. There is no clear pattern in this passage. Problem piled on problem; attack followed attack.

Question 1: According to the experts those of us who live in the Western world live in a Christianised, but now post-Christian society and therefore in a situation much less clearly defined than it was in New Testament days. Then they knew who the enemy was. We can be much less sure. Apathy, rather than antagonism is our main enemy. Do you agree? If so, give examples of where this can be seen.

Our world is clearly Christianized by its historical background. But there is a steady movement to a more secularized society in most of the Western world, showing in slightly different ways in different countries. In the UK this shows in strong arguments in the media that ‘religion’ is to have no role at all in politics or civic life. The adviser to one former Prime Minister announced that ‘we do not do God’. What is called ‘multiculturalism’ is appealed to to prevent any idea that Christianity has a special role in society in spite of it having been dominant for more than 1000 years. It is important for you, as it is for us, to think through how the culture of the society in which we live interacts with our Christian faith. Read Luke 11: 14 – 28. Jesus clearly divides the world he lived in into two warring parts: the Kingdom of Satan and the Kingdom of God (11: 18, 20). (By using a word about war I do not mean that there is any place for physically aggressive fighting in our faith. Defence may be another matter.)

Question 2: Can we divide our world the same way? What are the implications of doing so?

We need to be very careful here. It is all too easy to think where we are is the Kingdom of God and what opposes us is the kingdom of Satan. It may be but it may be just our arrogantly self-centred view of the world. Yet Satan is an all too real force in the world; indeed it is easy to argue that he has been more active than usual in the last 100 years in all the wars, massacres and famines that have plagued the human race.. We ignore him at our peril.

Question 3: When Jesus talks in terms of warfare (Luke 11: 21 – 23) he distinguishes between those who are with him and those who are against him. Where is the front line today between those he describes as ‘with me’ and those ‘against me’?

The answer to this one will vary according to where you live. As a general statement perhaps it is best to say that those, and only those, who are prepared to say “Jesus is Lord” are those who are with us.

Question 4: Luke 11:24–26 suggests that turning over a new leaf is counter- productive. Can you illustrate this from your own experience by citing the case of someone who tried to turn over a new leaf without a spiritual dimension to it and slipped back into their old ways, or worse? Question 5: In what way does 11: 28 take 10: 39 forward another stage?

Mary was commended for listening. This verse says we must not only hear the word of God – we must do it. And, remember, Jesus means by ‘doing’ action in the world, in loving other people and acting in their support, not just sitting in church and attending worship or praying regularly. There are plenty of other religions in the world which are all about doing the right religious things; none others which are so focussed on our behaviour towards other people. We read Luke 11:29–36. The emphasis in Luke 11:16 and Luke 11:29–32 is on the absence of any sign except the presence of Jesus. But at least they looked for a sign. If our generation does not do so, the likely judgement on them (or should that be ‘us’) sounds as though it will be grim. We read Luke 11:37–54. If you belong to an ordinary small Protestant church, as we do, our religiosity may appear to an outsider very vague and unfocussed compared with that of most overtly religious people (high Church of England, RC, Muslim, Mormons, Hindu etc.). We have no liturgy, no splendid ceremonies and ceremonial wear, no prescribed level of contribution, no required standards of behaviour. So we escape the accusations of Jesus in 11: 39 – 52. Yet we are not blameless!

Question 6: For each of the 7 Woes (counting 39 – 41 as the first) think of how they might be reworded to attack our weaknesses (mostly the exact opposite of theirs).

Would the Lord say ‘woe’ to us? I don’t need to tell you what I think the answer to that question would be! Finally we read Luke 12: 1 – 12. These verses are about is about a demand for a total commitment that is quite frightening. We can (do?) often slide sideways from these statements in a smoke screen of words.

Question 7: Which statement in these verses, Luke 12: 1 – 12,

• do you find most difficult?
• do you most encouraging?

Of course the answer to that one is up to you. For me the most difficult is the idea that those who do not follow Jesus will be thrown into hell; and the most encouraging is the fact that God knows all about all the sparrows that squabble in our back garden thinking they are singing when they are making the most awful noise. There is great hope for you and me in that statement.

Tap or click here to save/download this as a MP3 audio file