Partakers Christian Podcasts

Luke Looks Back 28

Study 28-Luke 22: 47 – 23: 25

The arrest and trials of Jesus.

The story now moves steadily towards the death of Jesus. It is told with remarkable economy and simplicity in all four gospels. Not even the failure of the leading apostle and founder of the early church is left out. Read Luke 22: 47 – 53. Question 1: Would you be thinking more or less of the eleven now if they had NOT tried to defend Jesus with their two swords (22: 38, 49 ) probably against an overwhelming force? Why? Their reaction to the approach of the crowd, which Mark describes as ‘armed with swords and clubs’, is an entirely natural one. It shows that they were not cowards. It also shows that they had not taken all of Jesus’ message really into their hearts and minds. Few of us have. Presumably the clash of one or two swords could easily have led to a more general skirmish in which Jesus could have been killed. But in the purposes of God his Son had to be tried, falsely accused, condemned and judicially killed. Without the legal decision of “guilty” Jesus would not have been dying for our sins. The universal responsibility of everybody for his death, symbolised by those directly involved, would not have been incurred. A great many prophecies, such as hanging on a tree (Deut 21: 23), would not have been fulfilled. Read Luke 22:54–62. Question 2: Peter lied - and lived to do much good work for his Lord. Was he justified in doing so? Should we do the same under certain circumstances? What circumstances? Is a life more important than the truth? When, and when not? In a way it is impossible to answer this question. We do not know, and neither did Peter, what would have happened if he had not lied. A life is more important in many ways than telling the truth yet the truth or the lie will define the life for ever. In the history of the church many, many people have refused to deny Christ and died. Let’s hope we never have to answer this question for real. Hebrews 6: 4 – 6 could be taken as a comment on what Judas did. Question 3: In the light of those verses what was the essential difference between the actions of Judas and Peter? What warning should we take from this? And what encouragement? The action of Judas was taken completely deliberately; Peter stumbled unwillingly into his denials. So many of our sins occur when we too stumble unwillingly into error. It is a great relief for us that Peter was not cast away from his position but lived to do so much good and die for his Lord in due course, about 30 years later, in Rome. Read Luke 22:63–23:25. There seem to have been many meetings that night in the effort to find grounds to condemn Jesus. Luke only records a ‘trial’ at daybreak (22: 66); Mark records one in the early part of the night; Matthew and John add further details. Luke was writing to Theophilus, a senior Roman citizen, and that probably affected which episodes he was most interested in. Question 4: In that case what things in the trials is he most likely to have wanted to concentrate on? It was important to him to try and show the Romans in as good a light as possible. Pilate had a very bad reputation in the Roman world anyway so he was not concerned with putting him in a good light. But he did want to show that there was a fair trial and that Jesus was condemned partly as a result of Jewish agitation and partly for Roman political reasons. His main concern was to establish who Jesus really was. So we have 3 titles in these verses: Messiah (or Christ, or Expected and Anointed One) (22: 67; 23: 2), Son of Man (22: 68) and Son of God (22: 70) Question 5: When Peter looked back at these events he was convinced that Jesus was the Messiah (Acts 2: 22 – 36). What made him so sure? If the council had accepted that Jesus was the Messiah what would that have meant for them? What actions would it have committed them to take? Peter remembered the resurrection above all. That was the ultimate proof that Jesus was who he said he was. If the council had recognised Jesus as the sort of Messiah they expected they would have been in immediate revolt against Rome. They thought they would have had to take up arms and tackle the Roman army, which no one could do successfully. Read Daniel 7:7, 13, 14, 17 – 28 again. How would the council have understood what Jesus said in 22: 69? How would the Roman authorities have understood his claim if they had known the background? A previous Caesar, Augustus, was the (adopted) son of Julius Caesar. After Julius was killed he was venerated as a god, which made Augustus a “son of god”! What would the idea that Jesus was the Son of God have meant to the council? What implications would it have had for the Roman authorities? The crowd of 23: 13 must, in part at least, have been the same one we read about in 19: 37, 39. How can you account for such a major turn around? What should this caution us against? Who was most responsible for the condemnation of Jesus: the crowd, the Jewish leaders, the Roman authorities, or Jesus (Jn 10: 17, 18!)? Were we also responsible as those needing redemption? Another obvious question we can ask ourselves, but never really answer until it happens, is: the trial exposed the forces, commitments and loyalties of all those involved: the council members, Pilate, the crowd and Jesus. Faced with similarly difficult choices how will we react? Will we cling to our securities and dreams and avoid moving out of our comfort zones, or will we ‘take up our cross’ and follow him? It would have mattered a great deal as without the legal decision of “guilty” Jesus would not have been dying for our sins. The universal responsibility of everybody for his death, symbolised by those directly involved, would not have been incurred. A great many prophecies, such as hanging on a tree (Deut 21: 23), would not have been fulfilled. Of course, it could never have happened that way anyway (Jn 7: 30). 5) The action of Judas was taken completely deliberately; Peter stumbled unwillingly into his denials. 7) The Resurrection. 9) Angels, Israel as a people, and the king of Israel (Ps 89: 26, 27) are called sons of God in the OT. The last of these is the meaning implied here. The council would have understood him to be saying that he was the King of Israel (see 23: 2). The Romans would have thought him to be claiming to be one of the many gods of those days and probably would not have been too concerned by that. 10) As Messiah he was the representative Israelite and is now the representative Christian (Rom 5: 15 – 17). We are in Christ (the Messiah). As Son of Man he is a human being standing in our place (Heb 2: 17 – 18). As Son of God he is the Saviour who, being God, is able to die for us all (Heb 1: 3; 2: 9). 12) This has been much argued about through the centuries. The best answer is probably all of them, and us.

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 27

Study 27-Luke 22:1-46

Joys and Sorrows

In this chapter Jesus is a source of great strength and joy to his disciples as they gather to eat the Passover together. At the same time betrayal, misunderstanding and desertion surround him. Read Luke 22:1–6. Question 1: If ‘Satan entered Judas’ how responsible was Judas for what he did? When is it permissible for us to say ‘Satan entered somebody? To answer the second part of the question first:it is very doubtful whether we should ever say this. Judas was fully responsible as he eventually recognised; Matt 27:3, 4 says ‘When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. I have sinned, he said, for I have betrayed innocent blood. What is that to us? They replied. That's your responsibility. There is an interesting and important parallel in Isaiah 10 where we read:“Woe to the Assyrian, the rod of my (the Lord’s) anger, in whose hand is the club of my wrath! I send him against a godless nation (that is Israel), I dispatch him against a people who anger me, to seize loot and snatch plunder, and to trample them down like mud in the streets.” But this is not what he (Assyria) intends, this is not what he has in mind; his purpose is to destroy, to put an end to many nations. When the Lord has finished all his work against Mount Zion and Jerusalem, he will say, I will punish the king of Assyria for the wilful pride of his heart and the haughty look in his eyes. For he says:'By the strength of my hand I have done this, and by my wisdom, because I have understanding.’ So we see in that passage it is true both that the Lord in his sovereign power used Assyria to punish Israel and the Assyrians were completely responsible for what they did. Here Judas was completely responsible for what he did even if in so doing he fulfilled the greater purposes of the Lord. That may not agree with our logic but that kind of both God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility at the same time is the common teaching of the word of God. As with the arrangements for the triumphal entry it seems likely that Jesus had pre-arranged the hire or loan of the room. We read Luke 22:7–23. Question 2: Luke is not interested in the detailed arrangements for the meal, which must have included things like the sacrifice of a lamb in the temple. What is he interested in? Can you think of any reason for that? He is only interested in the human aspects of the story, the depth of fellowship it showed and the inauguration of the Lord’s Supper. He draws attention to the way this celebration was repeated in the very early church in his account in Acts. He expected the church to follow the main points of what Jesus did down through the centuries. Question 3: What is the intended symbolism of the bread and the cup? What are the intended symbolisms in the way the elements must have been handled? How many of these symbolisms are lost the way your fellowship do it? Bread was the common essential of life in those days. It was nothing special that Jesus used. The loaf had to be forcibly broken, as was the body of Jesus to be. The cup was poured out but none was spilt as the blood of Jesus was. It represented blood and therefore (life-giving) death. In addition this was a Passover meal so it also carried the symbolisms of Exodus 12, particularly perhaps the redemption under the covering blood and the sense of a meal to be eaten in haste, prepared to go on a great journey of faith. It is up to you to think through how that relates to what your fellowship do when they celebrate this meal. Question 4: Sadly the communion service/breaking of bread/eucharist/ mass has become the chief symbol of division in Christendom when it should have been the great symbol of unity. Why do you think this has happened? Unfortunately men have sort power by claiming they, by reason of some office they hold, and they alone, have the right to dispense the elements and control the procedure. Very sad. There is surely no justification for any church or group of churches preventing Christians who are not of their fellowship from participating at the Lord’s Table. Jesus called it the feast of the ‘new covenant’. Gen 17:3–8 is the original covenant with Abraham. Deut 5:1–4 records the covenant with Moses and the Israelites at Siana. Jer 31:31–34 promises a new covenant which this is. Many churches never really talk about covenants, new or old. They lose by not doing so. Read Luke 22:24–38. The dispute of v24 must have filled Jesus with dismay as it contradicted all that he had tried so hard to teach his disciples. Question 5: In what ways are we most likely to contradict all that the communion service is meant to achieve in us even before we leave it? What should we learn from the words of Jesus responding to that dispute (v25–30)? The tendency of men and women to want to feel superior to other people is always present where people gather together. Jesus reiterates his teaching that we are not to seek that superiority for ourselves remembering that such things will be reversed in the Kingdom anyway. Question 6: The instruction to buy a sword (v 36) is very strange. There is no evidence that the early church ever did this. Should they have? How can we understand these verses? Read Luke 22:39–46. Luke’s account of Jesus praying on the Mount of Olives (v 39–46) is considerably shorter than Matthew’s (26:36–46) and Mark’s (14:32–42) accounts. What does Doctor Luke tell us to emphasise the importance of the event? What can we learn about prayer from this account? And so the scene is set for the final hours of Jesus and the beginning of new possibilities in human life. That will be in our next study.

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 26

Study 26 - Luke 21:5-38

The fall of Jerusalem and the End of the Age

First: some introduction. A quick google shows 9 occasions in which there was a major siege and capture of Jerusalem, from that by the Babylonians in 586 BC to one by the British in AD 1917. This chapter is very similar to Mk 13 and Matt 24 (many think Mark’ gospel was a major source of Luke’s information). Matt 24, in particular, is worth reading to note the additional information it contains. These chapters are concerned with Jesus’ prophecies of the important siege and sack of Jerusalem in AD 70. This was carried out by the Romans in reaction to a rebellion of the Jews within the Roman Empire about 40 years after the death of Jesus (probably about the time Luke wrote his gospel). But these are notoriously difficult chapters to understand, mainly because the prophecies of the fall of Jerusalem act in part as a foreshadowing and illustration of what is still to happen at the end of the age. The fall of Jerusalem was immediately catastrophic for the Jews but even more important for the Christians who understood it to be the final act of the OT approach to God, completely clearing the way for the Kingdom Age introduced by Jesus. Even the phrase ‘end of the age’ is difficult. Some argue that from the perspective of a Jew in AD 60 that would mean no more than the end of their life, society and culture, which did indeed occur in AD 70, landing them into a totally different age. However it seems to have at least some reference to the Day of the Lord, which is still in front of us nearly 2000 years later. Question 1: Which of the following verses is about the Fall of Jerusalem, which is about the end of the age, and which cannot be clearly assigned solely to either of these? v6–9; v24b; v25 & 27; v34b-35 The fall of Jerusalem was horrendous by any standards. According to Josephus, a Jewish historian working for the Romans, about 1.1 million people (he is known to exaggerate!) were killed, many because different factions of the Jews fought each other within the walls while the Romans watched in amazement from outside. The temple was then totally destroyed by the Romans but the city did continue for a further 65 years until AD 135 when a further revolt so infuriated Hadrian, the Emperor at that time, that he had it completely razed to the ground and rebuilt as a Roman city called Aelia Capitolina. Question 2: Is there any reason to think that the problems of v 9, 10, 25 and 26 were any worse in the 1st century than previously? Or are any worse in the 21st century? A matter of opinion – but I don’t think there is much difference. With the vast improvement in communication technology we know far more about what is happening on the other side of the world than they used to do. Read Daniel 7:1–3, 7–14, 19–22, 27. The hearers of Jesus will have known this prophecy of Daniel well. Question 3: What then will they have understood him to mean by the reference to the Son of Man in Luke 21: 27? In particular what encouragement will they have got from what he said? They will have been encouraged not only by the promise that Jesus will return in great power and glory but that the figure in Daniel is representative of the people of God. They will have taken this to mean that their position would improve greatly in the age to come. Question 4: What encouragement should persecuted Christians in one of the difficult countries of the world get from what Jesus said? Question 5: If, on the other hand, we are in one of the easier countries in the world to be a Christian what encouragement should we get from this chapter? It is strange that Luke does not use what Mark records in Mk 13:32–36. Question 6: What are the motives of those who ignore those verses and make confident but erroneous predictions? How should we react to such things?

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 25

Study 25 - Luke 20:1-21: 4

Jesus challenges his hearers 7 times.

The first 4 of these challenges are quite substantial with definite contexts; the others less so.

Challenge 1 – Luke 20: 1 – 8

The question of authority is of great importance. There is no answer here so we need to go to John 5: 31 – 45 to find one. Question 1: Where does Jesus say his authority comes from or is testified to in these verses, which I am just about to read. Listen carefully and count the different sources you can hear. You should get six different ones. Where does the authority of what we say or do come from? You should have got as sources of authority: John the Baptist, his works, his Father, the Scriptures, Moses, his own words. Our main authority should be the Word of the Scriptures. All other authorities are secondary to them.

Challenge 2 – Luke 20: 9 – 19

It is based on Isaiah 5: 1 – 7. This story of the Tenants, or rather of the Vineyard Owner, is one of the most significant of all the parables with the clearest foreshadowing of the future of Jesus. Question 2: What is the expected answer to Vineyard owner’s question “What shall I do?” after the first 3 servants have been beaten and sent back empty handed? What, therefore, is the significance of the given answer ‘I will send my son’? The expected answer is that he will declare war on the tenants and have them beaten or killed to restore his honour which has been so shamed. Instead the Owner (God) makes himself vulnerable to the behaviour of the tenants (the Temple leadership). Thus a new way of humility, love and grace is displayed before the watching world. That vulnerability is displayed in the Owner sending his son. The son is killed and only then is it said that the Owner ‘will kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.’ Question 3: What is the significance of that for the original hearers? And for us? This suggests that the Incarnation of Jesus constituted a last chance for the leadership of Israel. They failed the test. Jesus is the first and last chance for us. Jesus comment on the parable is a quotation from the Psalms (118: 22) ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone’ and one from Isaiah (8: 13 – 15) ‘The LORD Almighty will be a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall; they will fall and be broken, they will be snared and captured.’ “Son” in Hebrew is “ben”; “stone” is “eben”. This is probably a deliberate word play. Question 4: What should we, the second tenants, learn from this story? God is infinitely gracious in what he has done for us; but we must not presume on his loving kindness if we despise his Son and his graciousness.

Challenge 3 – Luke 20: 20 – 26.

This is about the relationship between church and state. Should we: a) resist - have nothing to do with politics? b) accept - have a modest involvement only? c) challenge - be politically active for the betterment of society? Since hearers and readers of this will come from so many different countries with so many different situations I will have to leave you without an answer so it will be best if I do not ask the question! There is a deeper meaning, often missed. Question 5: If we compare v 24b ‘Whose portrait and inscription are on it?’ with Gen 1: 26. ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness,’ What does this imply? If the denarius belongs to Caesar we, not just our coins, belong to God.

Challenge 4 – Luke 20: 27 – 40

People often assume that we shall be united with our loved ones in heaven although this is not clearly stated in Scripture. Jesus’ answer to the 7 husbands teaser probably has no implications for that assumption, since it is an impossible situation anyway. The following 3 much smaller challenges all have very little given context.

Challenge 5 – Luke 20: 41 – 44

It is not easy to see what Jesus meant when he said this. Luke probably records it because it was very meaningful for the early church about 40 years later when they must have been quite puzzled to know who exactly Jesus was. They were worshipping him. Did that make him God? We know now that it did, and he was, but they must have been unsure about that for many years. These verses are a part answer to their questions. What Jesus said equates the Messiah with the Son of David. That is not literally true. It is a useful reminder that ‘son of God’ is not to be taken as grossly literal either as some people try to do.

Challenge 6 – Luke 20: 45 – 47.

Question 6: Jesus did not actually condemn the privileges given to the scribes. What did he condemn? What are the present day equivalents of these? In particular, in what ways can we err in the way we participate in a prayer meeting?

What Jesus condemned were wrong attitudes to those privileges. They were to be things treasured and used for the benefit of other people not for private vanity. A minister should not dress differently from other people unless it is for a purpose such as recognition as he visits a hospital. We need to be careful when we take part in a prayer meeting that we are not taking part because we like other people to hear our voice.

Challenge 7 – Luke 21: 1 – 4.

Question 7: Is this realistic advice? Is ‘all she had to live on’ wise giving? If we do that we will end up in court for non-payment of utility bills or have to rely on other members of our family to give us food! So what can we take from this passage? Yet again this is all about motives and attitudes. A very few Christians can imitate this situation. But they have to be a very few or we would all starve! Perhaps this is another of Jesus’ overstatements for effect.

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 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 to save/download this as a MP3 audio file

Click on the appropriate link to subscribe to this website

Luke Looks Back 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.

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 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.

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

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 to save/download this as a MP3 audio file

Click on the appropriate link below to subscribe to this website

Click on the appropriate link to subscribe to this website

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