Partakers Christian Podcasts

Luke Looks Back 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.

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

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 to save/download this as a MP3 audio file

Click on the appropriate link to subscribe to this website

Luke Looks Back 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 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 v8. 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 v9 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 Matt 5: 31, 32; 1 Cor 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 to save/download this as a MP3 audio file

Click on the appropriate link below to subscribe to this website

iTunes

Luke Looks Back 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

Click on the appropriate link below to subscribe to this website

Subscribe via iTunes

Luke Looks Back 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 v 11 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!

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

Click on the appropriate link below to subscribe to this website

Subscribe via iTunes

Luke Looks Back 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 to save/download this as a MP3 audio file

Click on the appropriate link below to subscribe to this website

Subscribe via iTunes

Luke Looks Back 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.

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

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.

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

Click on the appropriate link below to subscribe to this website

Subscribe via iTunes

Luke Looks Back 15

Study 15 - -Luke 11:1-13

Praying to the Father

A disciple asks a question about prayer and although he gets a model prayer he also gets much more. First the prayer. We read 11: 1 – 4. This is a shorter version of the prayer than Matthew’s. Matthew starts off with ‘our Father in heaven’ instead of just ‘Father’. Matthew introduces the prayer after warning his disciples against showing off in praying, long words and many words. I doubt whether he would want us to keep on repeating this particular set of words either. He wants honest heart prayers in our ordinary every day language. One good idea is to pray along the pattern he has given us but rewording it as we go. So we might start off: ‘Dear Lord and Father I am so amazed that you have asked me to address you like this’ or ‘may I call you Father this morning even if you seem rather far away just at the moment’ or ‘ you are in heaven and I am stuck here on earth but please hear what I have to say’.

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

Question 1: Think up 2 other ways you might start your prayer. Something like:’ I want to honour your name and who you are this evening as I pray – help me to do it by your spirit, please’ and an infinite number of other possibilities. ‘each day’ (11: 3 NIV) is a rare word in the Greek which may mean ‘today’ ‘tomorrow’ or ‘enough for the day’. Question 2: To which OT incident is it likely to refer? A cynic might ask whether this prayer is necessary in the day of the supermarket (at least in the world’s better off countries). The giving of manna and quail in Exodus 16 is being referred to. The owners of the supermarket probably think they filled the shelves but a greater than them, the Lord, organised the natural world for them to plunder! Question 3: Praying for the coming of the Kingdom could be dangerous. Why? What effect should praying like that have on us? What might it look like if it came and was openly apparent, as it is not now? It might come and where would we be then? If we have placed our trust in Jesus we shall enjoy the fruits of his faithfulness, but if not, not. If we ask for the coming of the kingdom we must live in kingdom style now, or else we are hypocrites. No one knows what it will look like with any certainty; all we do know is that it will surpass our wildest dreams. Question 4: Is it necessary to forgive every one who sins against us before we receive forgiveness from the Father? No. To say that would contradict every other place where forgiveness is mentioned in the Bible. What it means is that if we expect to be forgiven we need to live in the world of forgiveness. In the same way if we want to be loved by God we need to live in the world of love, which is what John meant when he said: Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. We read 11: 5 – 13. There is a problem in 11: 8. The NIV has ‘the man’s boldness’ but that is probably not as good as the TNIV ‘your (the person knocking’s) shameless audacity’ and even that is probably not right. The root meaning of the word being translated is ‘ avoidance of shame’ but In the original it is not ‘the man’s’ or ‘your’ but ‘by him’, which can refer to the person knocking or the one in the house being woken up. So it may mean that the person getting up has to do so in order not to lose honour and be shamed. It is amazing that Jesus used a parable in which the Lord God is shamed but that is the most likely meaning of this passage. Our experience of answers to prayer is probably not the same as is expressed in this passage. For something slightly different I will read out 10 statements we might make, or hear other people make, about prayer. I will pause very briefly after each and you can say ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘maybe’ after each. Then my comment will follow. Keep in mind what we have just read that Jesus said. 1) If we nag the Lord we will get whatever we want. Paul didn’t think so when he only prayed 3 times for his thorn in the flesh to be taken away. No, then. (2 Cor 12: 8!) 2) If we don’t get what we want it is because of our lack of faith. No it isn’t according to Jesus (Lk 13: 1 – 5). 3) All night prayer meetings are always more effective than one hour ones. Not according to Jesus in Matthew 6, but yes according to him in this passage. So it must depend on circumstances and attitudes. 4) Jesus was only making a point to antagonists in these verses – note that he calls his hearers evil in v 13. There may be some truth in this but it is a series of promises even if we find it difficult to see how they actually work out in our every day lives. Maybe, then. 5) Prayer is about learning to align ourselves with the will of God. If we do so successfully we shall ask and receive. This is the gift of discernment. Yes. Definitely true. 6) Prayer is always answered but God in his wise providence often gives us the opposite of what we ask for. Possibly true but it can be the way some people try to get past the fact that they feel they don’t always get answers to prayer at all. So, maybe. 7) Saying ‘if it is your will’ is a simplistic cop-out. Well, yes, it often is. 8) The struggle of prayer is not a struggle with God (like Jacob at the brook Jabbok, as often asserted) but with ourselves (as even Jesus experienced in the garden of Gethsemane) bending our wills to obedience. Yes. Very, yes. 9) Some people with wonderful tales of answered prayer may be adept at only seeing what they want to see. Unfortunately that does often seem to be the case. 10) We may expect our prayers to be answered only if we have a deeper sense of the Fatherhood of God than of our own need. No! In his abundant grace and goodness the Lord will often answer prayers from even his frailest servants, like you and me. I think passages like this are very difficult, particularly for those of us who live in the cynical, Western world. My questions probably reflect the fact that this is where I live. Those of you who live in a more spiritually open society may wonder why I appear to be so negative. If so, just treasure what you have got and pray for those of us who are not so well off spiritually.

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

Click on the appropriate link below to subscribe to this website

Subscribe via iTunes

Luke Looks Back 14

Study 14 - Luke 10:25-42

Loving God and Neighbour

The parable of the Good Samaritan is usually considered by itself. It should not be! It is part of a pair with the story of Mary and Martha. The two go together because in the original Greek the stories are about 'a certain lawyer' (v 25) and 'a certain woman' (v 38).

The two sayings of Jesus that conclude the stories are: in 37b 'Go and do likewise' and in 42b 'Mary has chosen what is better'.

Question 1.  Which saying is the more important in popular thinking and preaching? Which does the words Jesus used suggest is the more important?

There is a great deal more interest in the story of the good Samaritan because of its simple brilliance as a story and the way it can be taken as an example by anybody, Christian or not. Everybody recognizes that they should help other people; not everybody is prepared to listen to Jesus as Mary did. Yet the words that Jesus used strongly suggest that the latter is the more important.

Before we read the verses let's think about the structure a bit. The famous parable is set within two short dialogues, the first in 25 - 28 and the second in 29, 36 and 37. Both dialogues have the same, quite natural, formats: 1) a question from the lawyer; 2) a challenging question in reply from Jesus; 2') an answer to Jesus from the lawyer; 1') an answer to the lawyer from Jesus. The well-known parable is inserted before the question of Jesus in the second dialogue.

We read the first dialogue: Luke 10:25 - 28.

Did you get the pattern?

And the second dialogue: Luke 10:29, the story, 36, 37.

What a wonderful teacher Jesus was! Wouldn't it be good if all teachers were as good as he was at getting people to answer their own questions!

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

Question 2. In the first dialogue the answer of Jesus in v 28 does not exactly answer the lawyer's question in v 25. What significance can you see in the discrepancy? What does this tell us about the nature of eternal life?

The lawyer asked about eternal life. Jesus answered about life, a good life maybe but still only about life. What the Gospel's call 'eternal life' Jesus says starts in the here and now with a good life lived in this present world. That good life is a life of following him.

It is time to read the famous parable. Luke 10:30 - 35 and the conclusions Jesus draws in 36, 37.

Some things usually missed:

a) The lawyer's question in the first dialogue (v 25) is deeply flawed: one can do nothing to inherit.

b) The parable does not answer the lawyer's question in the second dialogue (v 29) but a slightly different one: 'Which of these three became a neighbour'.

c) The priest would have been rich, therefore on horseback contrasting the Samaritan's donkey.

d) The Samaritan would have risked his life taking a wounded Jew into a Jewish town, where the inn would necessarily have been. The men in the street might well have thought he was responsible for wounding the man and started to attack him before finding out what really happened.

Question 3.  Who is the Samaritan portraying? How does this relate to the point about the danger to the Samaritan going into a Jewish town?

Jesus is the Good Samaritan. All others aiming to copy the story are simply following his example. This is another point about the story often missed. In coming into this world Jesus fully accepted all the danger that was to him. He died on the Cross to rescue those who are wounded: physically, spiritually, morally.

Moving on to the second story: to put this story of Mary and Martha in context: the Jewish Rabbis said 'let thy house be a meeting place for the Sages and sit amidst the dust of their feet and drink in their words with thirst ... but talk not much with womankind.'

We read Luke 10:38 - 42.

In that culture a teacher sat to teach and a student, necessarily male, stood to recite and sat to learn.

Question 4.  How does Luke indicate that things were not as they would have expected them to be?

Mary was sitting and listening. We can only imagine what the reaction of the men who wanted to be around Jesus might have been. Horror, shock, disgust, amusement - perhaps just a few of them would praise her for what she did.

We are dominantly either doers or hearers: the Samaritan or Mary. By putting these two stories together Luke, and Jesus, are presumably saying that we ought to be both.

Question 5.  How can the doers learn to listen better? How can the hearers learn to be more practically active?

These things are a matter of intent and will. Doers can always say 'I'm too busy' and hearers can say 'Ill do it tomorrow when I have finished listening'. Only if we are prepared to listen to what the Word of God is saying to us will we be all that we should be.

Question 6.  How does verse 42a provide a complete answer to the lawyer's original question in verse 25?

If we truly follow Jesus all the rest will fall into place. We are never told whether the lawyer did set out to follow Jesus. We know that Jesus told him what he needed to do. Some of us need the same advice: 'go and do likewise'.  Some of us need to copy the example of Mary more closely.

Which category do you fall into: more action or more meditation?

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

Click on the appropriate link below to subscribe to this website

Subscribe via iTunes

Luke Looks Back 13

Study 13 - Luke 9:51 – 10:24

Mission!

From Luke 9:51–19:27, Luke has Jesus on the road to Jerusalem. Luke has put together many incidents within this journey story because after 8 chapters, at 17: 11, they are only just leaving Galilee! There is no clearly discernable structure to this part of the gospel. It contains some 8 major parables and many minor ones, most of them only found in this gospel. Please read 9:51–55. James and John got it badly wrong in this first story from Samaria. People are always tempted to use strong-arm methods. They may be violent, use their superior status, use financial pressures, try psychology, and so on. James and John reckon Jesus has power. The people in the village are not friendly so they think he should zap them. Question 1: Which strong arm method are we most likely to be tempted to use when the gospel is rejected? Jesus totally repudiates using any such. How can we counter the tendency in ourselves? Your answer will depend very much on where you live. In some countries of the world it is very dangerous to try and force other people to do what is wanted. We have to be wise as serpents, and harmless as doves as Jesus said. Only by making a determined effort to grow more like Jesus in the power of the Holy Spirit can we have any hope of overcoming our natural tendencies in things like this. Please read 9:57–62. Here Luke brings together 3 statements about the conditions for following Jesus. The first concerns comfort; the other two are about how we are to live in family relationships. All three appear rather harsh. But except for a few naturally nomadic souls most of us operate better from a secure base of stable home, family and friends. Question 2. How much do such things mean to you? How do you square the ‘no holes, no nest’ challenge with how you actually live? This is a tough one. Few in ministry or on the mission field put the kingdom totally before family. To do so is probably to experience destructive hostility. Perhaps what Jesus said is one of the overstatements, called Semitic hyperbole, like when he said ‘If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.’ Or ‘it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.’ These saying may sound strange to us but they are the ones we find easy to remember! In the last four episodes Luke has told us about welcoming little children, who was for or against Jesus, James and John’s attitude and the conditions for following Jesus. In all of these the disciples have misunderstood Jesus in one way or another. Question 3. What do they tell us about Jesus? There are many answers to this question, among them:

• the essential humility of Jesus,
• his conviction that, in spite of that humility, he was the Messiah, outranking all previous prophets,
• he had unique insight into what the people around him were thinking,
• he organised things ahead of time very carefully,
• he exercised complete authority over the disciples,
• he sometimes struggled with the task that he had (when he said he had nowhere to lay his head),
• and, he had total conviction about what he was doing (when he talked about looking back–you cannot plough straight if you look back).

Please read 10:1–23. This is a difficult passage in many ways- but none the less interesting! We will ignore what nearly duplicates what happened when he sent the 12 out–in the previous chapter. Some of these verses copy statements in Matthew 11 into a different context. One verse sounds as though it has escaped from John’s gospel! Question 4. The 70, or 72 (equally likely) of 10:1 is probably a symbolic number reflecting the 70, or 72 (equally likely!) nations listed in Genesis 10. If so, what does this suggest? The way they used numbers in those days this is probably a deliberate repetition of the number to indicate that the mission was to be to all the world. One writer identifies 10 principles for mission in 10:1–11. Identify what they are and give them titles from the following clues. This is easy to do if you have a Bible in front of you; much more difficult without.

• plentiful harvest
• ask
• go
• wolves
• do not greet
• eat
• near kingdom
• not welcome
• wipe dust
• the kingdom.

Question 5. Jesus relates his vision of the fall of Satan (10:18) to the success of the disciples work and describes their triumph over evil forces in metaphorical terms. What does that mean for us? What popular misconceptions does it not mean? It is exciting to realize that we can gain victories over Satan as we surely can. But we need to be very careful who we listen to. Some people will make great claims of triumphing over Satan here, there, and everywhere, and performing all sorts of different miracles whenever they like. A very few people can do these things, but they are usually not the ones that make the great claims. Question 6. If we take what Jesus says in v 19 as applying to us nothing will harm those on mission. What we experience in these days seems rather different. How do we cope with the discrepancy, if it is one? From which of the verses between 18 and 23 do you take most comfort? There is no evidence that the Lord protects even his best servants from the troubles of life. Even those working hardest for the Kingdom can get cancers or die in car crashes. Remember, he did not protect his Son, and that fact should be sufficient to protect us from falling victim of wrong attitudes to the disasters of life (as we see them to be). We finish this study by echoing Luke 10:2 - Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field.

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

Click on the appropriate link below to subscribe to this website

Subscribe via iTunes

Luke Looks Back 12

Study 12 - Luke 9: 1 - 50

The end of the ministry in Galilee

This is an important chapter for at least 3 reasons:

1. it contains the important question ‘who is this’ 9: 9
2. the even more important answers ‘the Messiah’ (v 20) and ‘the Son of God’ (v 35). That Jesus calls himself ‘the Son of Man’ (v 22) is also important.
3. it ends the second and long section of Luke’s Gospel Chapters 3 to 9: 50. Telling us that Jesus sets out for Jerusalem in verse 51 indicates the end. This whole section is about Jesus’ Ministry in Galilee.

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

Read verses 1 to 9.

Jesus gives surprisingly detailed instructions about how the apostles were to go on the very first mission in the first 6 verses. Of course the culture in which they were to operate was very different from today’s – anywhere in the world. We might wonder if he sent us on mission what Jesus would forbid today. Would it be car, mobile phone, ipod, radio, credit card, bottle of spring water? Would we survive without these things?

Question 1 - Under what circumstances should we ‘shake the dust off our feet’ as Jesus told his disciples to do if they were not welcomed?

This is a tricky one to answer. Perhaps Paul did this in Philippi. It says ‘they went to Lydia’s house. Then they left.’ The locals could not be said to have welcomed him. It says ‘the crowd joined in the attack against Paul and Silas’. But there are stories in the history of the church where people have worked and ministered in a new area for a very long time before anyone has come to faith. When that has finally happened there has often been a real movement of the Spirit. It is hard to say the workers should not have waited.

The next story is of the feeding of 5000 people. We read that in v 10 - 17.

The account of the feeding of the 5000+ (v 10 – 17) is written so as to remind us of the last supper. It includes the words: taking bread – giving thanks – broke – gave to.

Question 2 - What do the statements ‘Jesus said “you give them something to eat” ‘ and ‘the disciples picked up 12 basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over’ mean as comments on the Lord’s Supper?

We meet at the table of our Lord to receive grace and renewal from him as we remember the most significant event in history. Yet we bring food to the table – we have a part to play in the ceremony. Such is the grace of God that we have much left over afterwards. For all the wonder of the simple ceremony we have a part to play.

By the order Luke puts things in he suggests that in the eating of bread they recognized the Messiah. In the eating of bread on the way to Emmaus they recognized the Lord (24: 30, 31 which says: When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight.

Question 3 - How does that thought, whether taken from this story of the feeding of the 5000 or the event on the Emmaus road, translate into our communion service?

It is his ceremony, not ours. We are to see, beyond the bread and the cup that he is there and blesses us.

Read verses 18 – 27.

Herod asked ‘who is this’ earlier in the chapter. Peter answers here, as Jesus prayed and talked to his disciples in a way that was completely meaningful in that culture.

Question 4 - Peter said that he was the Christ or the Messiah of God. What is the best and most accurate way to answer the question ‘who is this’ in your culture?

The answer will depend on where you are. To many people to say he is the Christ is only to give him a name, so that is not very meaningful. The Son of God is one possibility, but that can be misunderstood in some cultures. The Saviour is another possibility.

The title Jesus used of himself ‘Son of Man’ is difficult and puzzling, which is perhaps why Jesus used it. It meant no more than ‘a male human being’ but is used almost as a title in Dan 7: 13 of a person who seems to represent the people of God (Dan 7: 22, 27). Jesus may have used it as a clean sheet of paper on which he was able to write a meaning himself.

The question ‘who is this’ receives a further answer in what we call the transfiguration, that is the event when the whole appearance of Jesus was radically changed.

Read verses 28 – 36.

Question 5 - We must try to think of what this would have meant to the 3 disciples who witnessed what happened. What will their first reaction have been to the presence of the 3 figures? What will the brightness of Jesus’ clothes have meant to them? And then what will they have thought when they heard the voice from heaven?

There are really 3 questions there. Seeing the 3 figures they will have thought Jesus was of the same importance as Moses and Elijah. Then seeing how changed he was in appearance they will have decided he was the most important of the three. Finally the voice will have said to them that he was fundamentally different and important in a completely different way than Moses and Elijah, who represented the Law and the Prophets and therefore the whole of the OT and Judaism. The voice that told them to ‘listen to him’ also tells us ‘to listen to him’.

Finally we read verses 36 – 50. We will stop there and not at the end of the chapter because the next verse says ‘Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem’ and there are many statements that he was ‘on his way’ in the next 11 chapters. Luke has written a journey documentary in those chapters. This is the end of his ministry in Galilee, the northern province of that area, and the furthest from Jerusalem.

These 2 episodes both remind us that the Christian way is not one of human strength and power. Not only are the disciples unable to heal the boy with the evil spirit and required to start acting in a more childlike and less assertive way but Jesus is going to be betrayed and killed as we read further back in the chapter. This has been well summarized in the phrase ‘the way up is down’.

Question 6 - when we kneel before Jesus and confess our sins we say we are down. He will then lift us up. That is the Christian way. Have you set out on that way for yourself? Only yourself and the Lord know the answer to that question. I hope it is the right one! May the Lord be with you.

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

Click on the appropriate link below to subscribe to this website

Subscribe via iTunes