Family Worship
Andy Beard
Luke 5:1-11 Family Worship Ideas

Bible Study notes on Luke 10:38-42

I really do wish I had the proverbial fiver for every time I’ve preached this passage only to have someone come up afterwards to say that it’s all well and good, but the Church needs Marthas too!  The implication is that there another way of being a disciple that is equally valid: that of action, of active serving.  Sometimes I’ve even wondered if what I’m being told is that it’s OK not to be like Mary.  We are so programmed to think of effectiveness in terms of what is being done, what is being achieved, that we can’t let go of the idea, even when Jesus explicitly rebukes us for it!

Well, yes, but someone still had to prepare the meal!  Did they?

We live hurried and harried lives.  We see busy-ness as a virtue.  It legitimizes our existence.  How are you?  Busy.  I know how busy you are...  our schedules are loaded and over-loaded.  We often joke in a knowing way about how busy even Church life is.  I seem to remember everyone saying after lockdown, that we really shouldn’t get back to being as busy as we were pre-Covid.

And yet here we are.  Overstretched to the point of having to shut down outreach because we can’t staff them in the midst of busy lives.  At present we can’t even sustain an evening service. 

And yet the issue isn’t that there is an irreconcilable divide between contemplative and active Christianity.  Still less that one is better than the other.  The point is that in a healthy discipleship there is both in their proper place.  A key word in the narrative is ‘distracted’.  Martha’s mistake is in being distracted.  Mary was listening, Martha was distracted.  She is worried, and upset.  She has allowed a false sense of what must be done to get in the road of the amazing opportunity to sit and hear Jesus in her own home. 

There is, as a wise man once said, a time for everything and a season for every activity under the heavens.  There is a time to prepare a meal. There is a time to sit and listen to Jesus, and wisdom knows the difference.

When we divide ourselves into Marthas and Marys, and seek to legitimize our version of Christianity over against the other, we are dangerously missing the point.  Jesus has no problem with us preparing a meal… unless of course it a time when we should be listening to Him.   Then it is a problem. 

Questions

What does it mean to ‘open our homes’?  Is that something you do? 

How often have you been invited to a meal in someone’s home from MIE?  How many people from MIE have you had in your home for a meal?

How can we cultivate this kind of hospitality as part of our discipleship?  …and how can we stop becoming distracted when we do?

Someone once said: Entertaining is about the host, but hospitality is about the guest.  What do you make of that?  What difference would it make to your thinking if you could grasp this distinction?

Why is hospitality such a key aspect of Church life?  What do we lose when it isn’t a feature of our life together at MIE? 

What other passages speak positively about hospitality in the Bible?  How do you let those passages shape your vision of what it means to be a Christian?

What do you think Martha expected Jesus to say after v.40? 

Do you ever feel exasperated when others don’t seem to pull their weight in Church or home life?  What does that say about us?

When do you find ‘busy-ness’ distracting you from the opportunity to hear Jesus?  Are you ever too busy, too distracted by the things that worry and upset us’ to hear from Jesus?

How can we hear from Jesus today?

When should we be more Mary-like..?  And when more Martha-like?

Bible Study notes on Luke 10:25-37

It’s one of Jesus’ most popular parables, to such an extent that being a ‘good samaritan’ has entered common parlance and can often be used to describe anyone – Christian or not – who does a kind act or a good turn from someone else. That in itself should be enough to warn us how careful we need to be as we approach this well-known story.

The conversation begins with an expert in the Law wanting to know from Jesus how they can inherit eternal life. It’s perhaps a strange question for an ‘expert in the Law’ to ask. And it isn’t insignificant that, rather than giving a straight answer, or simply pronouncing the forgiveness of sins, as He does elsewhere, Jesus turns the question back on the ‘expert’. It’s an entirely valid question to ask an ‘expert’. ‘What is written in the Laws … How do you read it?’. The answer betrays the expert’s assumption. In spite of his rhetoric, he believes eternal life is something he can merit through his own performance. The tell-tale verse in v.29: ‘But he wanted to justify himself…’ not in terms of wanting it to look like he was asking an appropriate question, but in terms of being justified before God (see also Luke 18:14). It has always been the case that ‘a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law’ (Rom.3:28). Jesus deftly exposes his faulty assumptions.

But locked in those faulty assumptions, the expert latches on to the issue of loving neighbor. Who is my neighbour? Where do the limits of love lie?

Strangely the Parable of the Good Samaritan is often used – usually outside the Church, but I’ve heart it get pretty close inside the Church too – for exactly the opposite purpose for which Jesus designed it. ‘Go and do likewise’ (v.37) does sound like Jesus is telling us to be good people, to follow the moral example of the ‘good Samaritan’.

Except of course, a Samaritan was not a good person, and was certainly not an example to be followed. The parable would have turned the expert’s world upside down. Here was one of the most religious of religious leaders being told he had to be like a Samaritan – the very person he would have rejected. Eternal life isn’t about heritage, or religiosity. It isn’t about obeying the Law.

If the expert wants to be justified, he’s going to have to let go of everything he thinks is giving him a right to eternal life. In fact, when we read the story carefully, we aren’t meant to be thinking about being the Samaritan at all. Who is the neighbour who needs to be loved? The man who is beaten by the robbers, left for dead. Does the Law (the Priest or the Levite) help those who are left for dead?

No. But the one who is rejected does, and he pays for it all. The expert asks who is the neighbour he must love. Jesus responds by telling him he is the neighbour who needs to be loved. Only when he is healed will he begin to learn to love as he has been loved. Only then will have the eternal life he longs for.

Questions:

Why does the expert in the Law talk about inheriting eternal life? Does the question make sense? Do you have to do anything in order to inherit something? What is the ‘expert’ driving at?

Do you think Jesus really believes that if the expert does fulfil the two great commandments from Deut.6:5, he ‘will live’ (v.28)?

Why does Jesus tell him he has answered correctly when he has in fact given the answer of legalism that is the very opposite of the Gospel, and that leads to a curse (Gal.1:6-9)?

Why is Jesus so willing to let the first commandment drop out of sight, and to allow the expert to focus on the second commandment that is like it?

What does it mean to be ‘justified (before God)’? How were people in the Old Testament ‘justified’?

Can you think of any passages in the Old Testament that actually answer the question of what we must do to inherit eternal life?

How is the Parable of the Samaritan designed to lift the ‘expert’ out of his legalistic mindset?

Based on this parable, who is my neighbour?

What would you say to someone who said they were like the Good Samaritan?

If a denarius is a day’s wage (Matt.20:2), when will the Samaritan return?

Bible Study notes on Luke 10:1-24

Luke 10:1-24

The disciples have learnt a lot (and are still learning) since Jesus sent them out on their first training mission in 9:1-6.  And now it is time to send them out again.  In some ways it is repeat of their first mission, though others are now invited to join them.  Early Christian scholars tell us that many of those mentioned in the early chapters of Acts, such as those appointed deacons and involved in evangelism (including Stephen and Philip) were include in this larger mission team.   Another difference is that the region into which they are sent now includes areas they are less familiar with.  At least some of their exposure now seems to include Samaritan towns and regions.  Their earlier experience and their learning since, has equipped them for a more challenging call. 

But much of Jesus’ initial instruction sounds reminiscent of 9:1-6, and you may find it helpful to revisit the Bible Study we did a few weeks ago on that passage.  There are however, significant and ominous additions.  Whereas their earlier mission was relatively straightforward, characterized by acceptance and ‘success’, this one would be a more mixed experience, bearing the marks of rejection that increasingly reflects Jesus’ own experience as He heads towards Jerusalem.  Now they are being sent out ‘like lambs among wolves’; and lambs getting eaten and torn apart by wolves.  And the eternal significance of their impending rejection is underlined in more graphic terms (vv.13-15).

And yet, in spite of their mixed reception, Satan is thrown down when the disciples proclaim the Gospel of the Kingdom of God.  There is a deep connection between our willingness to suffer as lambs amongst wolves in order to be faithful in evangelism, and the cosmic defeat of Satan (see also Rev.12:9-11).  And He roots their joy not in their victory / authority over Satan, so much as in their deliverance from him (v.20).  And having been delivered from Satan, the Church is now commissioned to rescue others from the power of evil.  Their simple, child-like faithfulness in doing so is so profound that it ignites the Son’s worship of the Father through the Holy Spirit (v.21).  I wonder if we have ever understood our evangelism in terms of its impact in the life of the Trinity?  And what might be our impact when we refuse to speak of the Gospel?

 

Questions:

Why do you think Jesus sends His disciples out as ‘lambs among wolves’ (v.3)?   What is this image seeking to convey?  Do you think that is still the experience of Christians today?  Does that resonate with your experience as a Christian?

In 10:12-15 Jesus talks about judgment being more bearable for certain towns than others.  Do you think Ipswich will be judged as a town, as well as people who live in Ipswich being judged as individuals?  Do you think there are different gradations to people’s experience of judgment?  …on what basis?

Read 10:13 again carefully.  If Jesus knows what would have produced repentance in Tyre and Sidon, why didn’t He do that? 

What do you think their being given authority means (v.19)?  What does the exercise of that authority look like and achieve?  Do you think the Church still has this authority?

In light of their own experience in Acts, and indeed that of the persecuted Church throughout the ages, how do we make sense of Jesus’ declaration that nothing will harm them in v.19?

What is it that the Father has hidden (v.21)?  …and why is the Father pleased to hide them?  Can they be revealed again?  How?

How comfortable are you with Jesus’ use of the language of ‘chosen’ in 10:22?  Who does Jesus choose to reveal the Father to?  How does He do that?

Bible Study notes on Luke 9:51-62

Jesus has taught again and again that – in spite of His popularity – His destiny is to walk the road of rejection.  Luke again makes the point in Lk.9:51.  And He won’t walk it alone.  His disciples must learn to walk it with Him.  Until we have learned to handle rejection, our progress as disciples will be limited.  He has taught them, but as is their (our) way, they are slow to learn, and when a Samaritan village rejects Jesus the aptly named ‘Sons of Thunder’ (Mark 3:17) call for Divine retribution. 

The response of the Samaritans is hardly unique (see Lk.8:37), but neither is it representative of all Samaritans (e.g. Lk.17:11-19).  Whether James and John’s reaction is driven by spiritual pride, genuine concern for Jesus’ honour, or cultural prejudice and hostility is unclear.  Perhaps it was their recent encounter with Elijah that put the idea in their heads (II Kings 1:10).  Either way, the lesson the disciples need to learn here is that they (and we) are preachers of the Gospel.  It is not their prerogative to call down fire on those who reject Jesus, and by implication them.  They can warn of judgment (so Lk.9:5 & 10:11), but that is different from calling it down.  The Apostles are tasked with proclaiming how to avoid judgment, not with hurrying people into it. 

The Gospel does return to the area only a few years later, and with markedly more encouraging results (Acts 8:4-25).  That in itself is sufficient explanation of why the Church doesn’t call for immediate retribution.  Peter explains: [H]e is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance (II Peter 3:9).  That’s why judgment is held back.  It’s why it’s held back here in Luke 9, but also why it’s held back in history. 

We may desire the return of Jesus.  The world is so fallen, and s scarred with evil and suffering.  Our deepest longing can be for the New Creation.  We can feel frustrated, and confused about why the Last Day has not yet dawned.  Jesus’ rebuke gives us pause for thought.  Judgment and destruction will achieve many things.  It will also close the door on our opportunity to respond to the Gospel.  If James and John had their way, many would have been lost to eternity who later ‘accepted the Word of the Lord’ under Philip’s ministry (Acts 8:12-14). 

 

Questions:

In light of Jesus’ rebuke of James and John, why then does Paul enact judgment in Acts 13:9-11?

Why does Luke link the Samaritan’s rejection of Jesus with his going to Jerusalem (9:53)?  Is this just a Jew/Samaritan thing, or does Luke think something deeper is going on here?

Why – in the face of rejection, or even just failure – might we be tempted to lower the bar in terms of the commitment required to follow Jesus?  Where does the Church capitulate to this temptation today?  What do you think is the consequence of that capitulation?

What is the point Luke is making in moving straight from the Samaritans’ rejection of Jesus, to these conversation in vv.57-62?

Do you think Jesus is being ‘harsh’ with these three potential disciples?  What are the issues that He is addressing in each, and what are the point(s) He is making in His dealing with each of them?

How have you responded to those issues over your life following Jesus?

Do you think we should treat people in the same kind of way if they are showing interest in Jesus?

From what you know of John in, for example, his later epistles, what would you say he learned over the years?  How did he make that kind of spiritual progress? 

Bible Study notes on Luke 9:37-50

How quickly reality can hit. After the legendary ‘mountain-top’ experience of the Transfiguration, we are confronted with the disciples’ failure to do precisely that which Christ has authorized them to do. He had given them power and authority to drive out all demons and to cure diseases (9:1), and yet the testimony of the ‘man in the crowd’ is that they Church has failed to do what Jesus commands them to do. The straightforward contrast between Jesus and the disciples is stark in its simplicity. He succeeds where they fail. It is Christianity in a nutshell. He does what we can’t.

The passage finishes with an almost ironic twist. In light of their own failure, John’s self-righteousness is almost comical: ‘we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us’ (v.49). At least it would be comical if it weren’t so tragic.

And in the midst of it all Jesus gives a model lesson in not believing your own publicity. Whilst the crowds are marvelling at all He did, Jesus remains focused on the cross. He knows He will be delivered into the hands of men. The disciples can’t quite see past the adulation of the people. Basking in the reflected glory of their association with Jesus, they continue an ongoing debate about who is the greatest. Interestingly, Jesus doesn’t rebuke their desire to be the greatest in the kingdom. He does however radically redefine their vision of greatness. It isn’t so much to do with being welcomed by the crowds, as it is in welcoming. And it isn’t so much about welcoming the important and high profile, as it is about welcoming those with no social capital.

But in a classic reversal Jesus teaches us to see past the value-systems of our world. He wants us to understand that things are rarely what they seem. Society’s way of valuing, rating and appraising is rarely true to reality. When we welcome anyone in His name, something profound happens. We welcome Christ Himself. That in itself is a staggering proposition. But Jesus isn’t finished. The chain of transaction extends one link further. In welcoming Jesus, we are welcoming the One who sent Him.

Questions:

How would you respond to someone who suggested that attributing the boy’s condition to demon-possession was just a first-century (mis-) understanding of what we today would call, for example, epilepsy?

Why are the disciples unable to do what Christ had given them authority to do (9:1 & 40)?

Do you think there is still such a thing as demonic possession happening today? If you do, how would you recognize it? Would it (always) look like the experience of the boy in this passage?

Do you think the Church’s experience and ministry should include exorcism?

Why does everyone marvelling at all that Jesus did provoke Jesus to teach His disciples about His own deliverance into the hands of men (9:44)? Why does Jesus talk about the cross with this phrase?

Why is the meaning of Jesus’ words hidden from them (9:45)? Do you think God would still hide the significance of Jesus from people?

Why are the disciples afraid to ask Him about it (9:45)? What were they afraid of? Should we have a similar kind of fear… or was it a problem they were afraid?

What prompts the re-emergence of the disciple’s argument about who is the greatest (9:46)?

How can Christians today get embroiled in a similar way of thinking and of relating to each other?

What does Jesus teach about what it means to be greatest in the kingdom of heaven? Does it surprise you that He doesn’t rebuke the disciples, or say that their argument is wrong in principle?

Do you strive to be great in the kingdom of heaven? What would it look like for us today to aim to be the greatest (9:48)?

What does vv.49-50 have to say about unity amongst Christians?

What do you think John is thinking that makes him behave the way he does?

Bible Study notes on Luke 9:28-36

It is one of the most spectacular scenes in the entire history of creation.  As the veil of Christ’s humanity is lifted just a fraction, something of the glorious splendor of His divine nature blazes across the mountain top.  Luke links the incident with Jesus’ previous prediction of His own death and resurrection (9:22).  It’s a brilliant juxtaposition of the glory of Christ and His suffering.   And it inverts all our assumptions about power and glory (see Paul’s exploration of this same inversion in I Cor.1:18-31).

Moses and Elijah are temporarily recalled from the ‘realm of the dead’ for this immense conversation.  What would be a discussion worthy of being conducted in the presence of the glory of the Lord?  ‘They spoke about His [Exodus]’ (9:31, see footnote for strict translation of the Greek Luke uses).   This is just one of the overt ways Luke portrays Jesus here as the fulfilment of Moses.  Moses was the shadow of Jesus’ reality.  The glory of the Lord revealed, the reference to the Exodus, the Lord speaking to Moses atop a mountain, the cloud from which the Father speaks…  possibly even Peter’s blurting out about tents – it’s all meant to evoke the memory of the ancient Church’s deliverance from Egypt, from the land of slavery to sin, of death, of the tyranny of Satan.  And in collating these two moments, Luke is helping us to understand the significance of what Jesus is doing as He comes down from the mountain, and  ‘resolutely set out for Jerusalem’ (Lk.9:51). 

His is not coming to abolish the Law (Moses) and the Prophets (Elijah).  He is fulfilling them.  It is a moment witnessed and testified to by the Father Himself.  As He speaks from the cloud of glory, He gives His answer to the question that has lurked throughout the last couple of chapters: ‘Who do you say I am?’  We’ve heard the crowds, Herod, demons and even Peter offer an answer to this question.  But this is the answer given by the Father: ‘This is my Son whom I have chosen…’ (Lk.9:35).  It’s a deep declaration, reminding us of what the Lord has already said about the Messiah.  ‘Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations’ (see Is.42:1-7 cf. Matt.12:18-21).  Layer upon layer of significance is built up over the scene.

Having been confronted with the majesty and grandeur of who Christ is, the Father is clear about our response.  ‘Listen to Him’.  Peter’s confused outburst aside, this is the only posture we can realistically adopt before the Christ. 

 

Questions:

Why does Jesus take only Peter, James and John with him (9:28)?  Does it trouble you that Jesus had an ‘inner circle’ (see also 8:51)?  How do you think the other disciples felt about this arrangement?

Why do you think the disciples kept this to themselves (9:36)?   Wouldn’t that kind of behaviour simply exacerbate the division between these three and the rest?

Would it be appropriate for Church leaders today to follow Jesus’ example?  Why / Why not?

Why do you think it is Moses and Elijah who appear and speak with Jesus?  Why not Daniel… or Ezekiel… or Abraham… or David? 

What can we surmise about our experience of life after death from what we see of Moses and Elijah in this passage?

Listen to Him.  One of the earliest pieces of homework on DTP is to list (from memory) everything we know of Jesus’ teaching.  Why not try this as a Home Group?  What percentage of the speaking of Christ have we listened to so attentively that we have internalized it?

What do you think the Father means when He tells us to listen?  What does that entail?  How can we better listen to Christ at MIE?

 

Is Luke misquoting the Father (see Matt.17:5; Mark 9:7; II Pet.1:17)?   

Bible Study notes on Luke 9:18-27

The most intriguing word in this passage is ‘must’.   There is something essential and necessary, something non-negotiable about the suffering and death of Christ.  The One who has demonstrated His absolute authority over sin and storms, over disease, the demonic and even death itself is confronted with His own ‘must’.  The One who brings freedom, and who alone is free, is constrained by His own ‘must’.  He ‘must’ suffer; He ‘must’ be rejected’ and He ‘must’ be killed.   

It is the nature of who He is.  It is the purpose of creation.   One of the first things we learn in DTP is that the cross comes first in the heart and mind of God.  Then creation.  This is what Peter has to learn.  His vision of the Messiah has no room for suffering (see Mark 8:32).  He has learnt it by the time he writes his first epistle: …Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.  He was chosen before the creation of the world… (1:19-20).   He was chosen as the Passover Lamb before the creation of the world.  Creation is what it is so that it can provide the arena for the cross.  Creation depends on His offering Himself up as a sacrifice.   It only makes sense if He does…

The other use of the word is equally arresting.  ‘Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves, and take up their cross daily and follow me’ (v.23). That’s not how we tend to understand the Gospel.  But Jesus is unequivocal.  Same absolute imperative that Jesus uses to describe the non-negotiable certainty that he must die, is the same absolute imperative He uses to describe what it means to be a Christian.  He then goes on to underline this with three other, equally dogmatic, assertions, each of which conflicts with our assumptions about what it means to follow Him.  This isn’t Jesus explaining how to become an ‘elite’ Christian; nor is it Him painting an optional extra level of spiritual seriousness.  This is the basic requirement for anyone who wants to follow Jesus. 

It's worth reflecting on why we are so fearful of Jesus’ vision of what it means to follow Him.  This is the same Jesus who centuries earlier has assured the Church: ‘“I am the Lord your God, who teaches you what is best for you…’ (Is.48:17).  It’s the kind of thing that sounds easy to believe, until He teaches us to take up our cross.  Is that really what is best for us?  Is this death to sinful self, is this denial of the world; is this losing of our lives for Him really what is best for us? 

 

Questions:

How would you answer the question of what it means to begin to follow Jesus?  Do you think He is exaggerating here for effect?

In what sense do we have to deny ourselves in order to follow Jesus (v.23)?  How has that worked out in your experience of discipleship?

What does this image of ‘take up your cross daily’ actually mean (v.23)?   

In what sense do we have to lose our lives for Christ (v.24)?  What does that look like in 21st Century Ipswich?

What does it mean to lose or to forfeit our very self (v.25)?

In what ways can we be ashamed of Christ and His words?  What would it mean for Christ to be ashamed of us ‘when He comes in His glory’ (v.26)?

How can MIE better equip us for this kind of Christianity?  Do you think this is the only option available for being a Christian? 

How can Jesus say that some will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God (v.27)?  Hasn’t that been proved patently false?

Bible Study notes on Luke 9:10-17

Isn’t it interesting how we can get bored of bits of the Bible?  I wonder how many of us rolled our eyes (at least internally) when we saw the reading was the ‘feeding of the 5,000’ – again.  It the only miracle recorded in all four Gospels, and it is a standard ‘go-to’ passage for All Age Services, Sunday Groups and School Assemblies / Collective Worship.  It is a passage that has been ridiculed and trivialized by scholars (and the preachers who read them and should really know better!).  The nonsense that has been preached on this miracle beggars belief: from the idea that the ‘miracle’ is in people learning to share previously hidden packed lunches (probably the most popular and the most inane), to the even more implausible idea that Jesus had a secret stash of bread and fish hidden in a nearby cave!

If you’ve been tracking with us in evening services, you’ll be tired of hearing me complain about how much damage we do to passages when we take them and turn them into children’s stories.  We lose so much, it’s hardly surprising that they become ‘boring’ to us.  When we put the Gospel accounts next to each other something far more disturbing and troubling emerges.  John’s account of Jesus’ teaching associated with this miracle and the chilling conclusion that ‘From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him’, should be enough to give us pause for thought!

It’s an incredibly profound and dynamic miracle in which Jesus is achieving multiple ends with a single means.  Luke focuses our attention not on Jesus’ challenge to the religious leaders, nor on the reaction of the crowds, or even the disciples.  He focusses tightly on Jesus’ ongoing training of the apostles for their mission.  It is clear that they have much to learn before they can be entrusted with proclaiming the Gospel of the Kingdom throughout the nations of the world!  And the fact that this miracle features in all the Gospels should alert us to how central it is in preparing the Church for their global mission.

Put in this context, it is possible that there is more here to learn than we anticipated…  which shouldn’t surprise us really.

 

Questions:

What would have previously said was the main point of this passage?

What is the key mistake the disciple make and that Luke sets out in 9:10?    How will the ‘feeding of the 5,000’ directly speak into this fundamental error?

In our own experience of mission, how do we make the same mistake?  What do we need to learn from this passage about our own outreach at MIE?  How should that outreach change in the light of Luke 9:10-17?

 

Why is Jesus willing to give up his time with His disciples in order to welcome the crowd?  How did the disciples feel about that shift in priorities?  What do we learn from this?

Based on what we’ve already heard from Jesus in Luke’s Gospel, what do you think was He was teaching them about the Kingdom of God? 

 

What do you make of alternative explanations of this passage that try to suggest there is no actual miracle being performed here?  What do you think drives people to ignore what the passage says and to come up with their own ideas?

Many Bible students suspect that Luke is comparing Jesus’ miracle to Moses (Ex.16) and / or Elijah (II Kings 4:42-44).  Why would Luke do this?  How would the comparison work, and what would it teach us about Jesus?  What then would be the significance of Moses and Elijah appearing later in Chapter 9 during the Transfiguration (9:30)? 

 

Why does Luke make the point that there were twelve basketfuls left over (9:17)?  Why does Jesus make this amount too much?

Bible Study notes Luke 9:1-9

There can be quite a lot of confusion about the place of the miraculous in evangelism.  For a while there was a way of thinking that was called ‘power evangelism’.  The idea was that if people saw the Church doing miraculous works, they would pay a lot more attention when we proclaimed the Gospel.  It’s strange how popular the idea became, given that Jesus shows us both in His own example of doing miracles, and in His teaching, that there is nothing about miracles per se that encourages belief.  Sometimes quite the opposite.  Jesus was the miracle worker par excellence and yet this didn’t cause people to trust Him any more, or indeed, even to  listen more carefully to what He said.   Indeed, Jesus specifically warns us that miracles don’t compel belief:  ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ (Lk.16:31).

More than that, Jesus ties this use of miracles with false teachers and false messiahs against whom we should be on our guard. Mark 13:22, For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.

Still, there is a lingering suspicion in some corners of the Church that everyone should do the kind of miraculous things the Apostles are sent out to do.  It is rather hard to square this with the Bible’s teaching.  Passages such as Acts 2:43; 4:33; and Acts 5:12, are crystal clear that this was the experience of the apostles.  And in Acts 9:32-43, it is notable that the disciples are not themselves able to perform a miracle, but send for Peter – an apostle – who then raises Tabitha from the dead.

Paul later explains the role of miracles in the experience of the Apostles: I persevered in demonstrating among you the marks of a true apostle, including signs, wonders and miracles (II Cor.12:12).   

Which is not to say the Spirit doesn’t work miraculously today.  Both within Scripture and in our own experience we know that there are times when the Spirit works (sometimes in answer to prayer) in ways that transcend human understanding.  Contrary to some inflated claims, this does not mean that we have apostle-like power delegated to us.  It simply means that in His grace, the Lord achieves His purposes, whether through what we think of as ‘natural’ means, or ‘supernatural’ means. 

 

Questions:

Why is mission one of the first things Jesus teaches His disciples? 

Is proclaiming the Gospel in this way a priority for every Christian, or just for the Apostles?

If this is so important, how would you make sense of a Christian, or a Church, where proclaiming the Gospel wasn’t integral to everything they did?

Do you think all Christians are able to do the kind of miraculous works we see the Apostles do?  Are we all given ‘power and authority to drive out all demons and to cure diseases’ (Lk.9:1)?

In what sense are the apostles foundational to the mission of the Church?  Why do they need authenticating in this way?  What benefit is that authentication to the Church?

What is Jesus teaching His disciples by sending them out on mission with ‘no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra shirt’ (Lk.9:3)?  How can we learn the same lessons today?

What does it mean to ‘shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them’ (Lk.9:5)?  Is this something we should do when people refuse the Gospel?  What would it look like today?

What benefits might there have been if Jesus had granted an audience with Herod (Lk.9:9)?  Why does Jesus not let Herod see him even when Herod tried to?  Are there people like this we know today?  Should we treat them in the same way?

Bible Study notes Luke 8:40-56

Perhaps nothing is so fearful as disease and death.  We live under the shadow of our vulnerability and mortality.  A moment can change our whole experience of life.  We can feel so powerless before circumstances beyond our control.  Few chapters of the Gospel underline how different Jesus’ experience of life in this world can be from ours.  Luke 8 has taken us on a tour of the comprehensive authority Christ has over all the consequences of the fall, that precisely seem to have authority over us: the cursedness of creation; the demonic and the unclean; and now over physical sickness and death. 

We are utterly helpless as we face death, even when we have significant social, financial, cultural or even religious status.  Death is the great leveler.  Jairus is a man of high standing.  Yet he falls at the feet of Jesus in a humility born of desperation.  It is likely that he had done all he could, and now in despair he clings to one last hope.  It is hard to imagine how difficult this is for a Synagogue Ruler.  John 9:22 tells us that ‘the Jewish leaders … had decided that anyone who acknowledged Jesus to be the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue’. 

And it is hard to imagine the frustration he must have felt, having sacrificed everything, his last hope is delayed because of someone else who needed healing.  Jesus’ journey is interrupted by a nameless woman.  She seems to be presented as the very opposite of Jairus.  She has nothing.  It is not only her health and money that has been taken from her, but the flow of blood would have rendered her unclean and so she has also lost her status and belonging in the Jewish community.  But she and Jairus have this in common, they both fall before Jesus.  It turns out He too is a great leveler!

Jairus’ frustration and anger must have been all too evident as – seemingly as a result of this delay – ‘someone’ comes from his house to tell him it is too late.  And Jesus speaks directly to it.  Without apology or explanation, He simply tells Jairus not to jump to conclusions: Don’t be afraid.  Just believe.  She will be healed (8:50).  Jesus has options open to Him that we could never anticipate.  For us death is inevitable and irrevocable.  But for Jesus, even death is not the end it appears to be.

 

Questions:

How do you account for the differences in the way Jesus is treated on either side of the lake (8:37 & 40).  How sincere, and how well informed is this ‘welcome’? 

What is the difference between the way the ‘crowd’ were touching Jesus, and the way the ‘woman’ touched his?  What is it that alerts Jesus and provokes His response (v.45)?

Why does it matter that this healing is made a public matter?  Wouldn’t it have been better for Jesus to protect her anonymity? 

 

Is Jesus teaching us that if we have faith we will be healed (v.40)?  What is the connection between this woman’s faith and her healing?

How do you think Jairus felt when Jesus spoke to him in v.50?  What did he think?  What was he expecting?

Why doesn’t Jesus let anyone come in with Him except Peter, James and John (v.51)?  What is different that Jesus wants privacy for this miracle, when he had demanded a public dealing with the woman?

Some people conclude from v.52 that when we die we enter a ‘sleep-state’ that renders us unconscious until the Day of Resurrection.  Do you think this is what Jesus is teaching?  Why does He say she is asleep?  In what sense is she not dead?

What do you think v.55 means?

Do you think it is a coincidence that the woman has been bleeding for 12 years (v.43) and that the girl who dies is also ‘about twelve’ (v.42)?  What does the proximity of these two miracles teach us?

Why is Luke working so hard throughout Chapter 8 to establish Jesus’ absolute authority? 

Bible Study notes Luke 8:26-39

You might remember from our previous excursions in Luke’s Gospel that he enjoys presenting Jesus as the fulfilment of the role of priest.  What the Levitical priests did in shadow / drama from, Jesus does for real.  This week’s passage is ‘Jesus-as-Priest’ par excellence!

Leviticus is a lived-in drama.  Under Moses, God has put the ancient Church into a kind of school.  It’s a period of training to help the Church through all ages to understand and believe the Gospel.  It’s a brilliant multi-sense, immersive vision of every aspect of life that teaches us how to live that life in light of the Gospel.  Lev.11-15 deals with the question of unclean – clean – holy.  This can be a difficult concept for Christians today to grasp.  It isn’t about whether someone is a Christian or not (Christians can be ‘unclean’ and non-Christians can be ‘clean’).  It’s about how to live in a fallen world.  There is a powerful picture of the way what is unclean (death, decay, and the curse) keeps trying to break into the ‘clean’ life of the Church and to reclaim it.  It is the job of the Levitical Priest to keep what is ‘unclean’ out of the ‘clean’ arena of life provided by the Church.  And when it does break in, the priest is to put it back out again.

In a world interpreted through a Leviticus-lens, the situation confronting Jesus is one of compounded uncleanness.  This is a man inhabited by not just one demon, but a legion of them (the ESV helpfully translates them as ‘unclean’ where NIV has ‘impure’ in 8:29).  And the man’s internal condition is matched by his external surroundings.  He lives amongst death.  Mark tells us he cuts himself (Mk.5:5, with loss of blood symbolizing loss of life, and therefore a tending toward death); he is likely in a ‘Gentile’ area, suggested by the presence of so large a herd of pigs (likely a town-wide economy; and pigs being ‘unclean’ because they eat corpses, i.e. feed on death).   And the situation has continued for a long time (8:27). 

But Jesus is the Priest, charged with driving back the darkness of death and curse.  He alone can make someone clean.  And He does.  This section of Luke’s Gospel is often presented as demonstrating the authority of Jesus over all of creation: Seen (8:22-25) and unseen (8:26f.).  And it does.  But it does more: it shows us what Jesus uses that authority to achieve!

 

Questions:

What do you believe about demons?  DO such beings exist?

 What would you say to someone who suggested that this whole passage is simply a first-century way of describing a phenomenon that we would now understand in medical or psychological terms?

What does it mean to talk about someone being ‘possessed’ by a demon / impure spirit in this way?  Do you think demons still oppress or possess people today?  What would that look like?  How should the Church respond?

Why do you think the [legion of] demons are afraid Jesus would ‘torture’ them (v.28).  Is that the sort of thing Jesus does? …or will do?

What (and where) is ‘the Abyss’ (v.31)?  Why are the demons so fearful of being sent there?

How can we justify Jesus’ permitting the demons to enter and destroy a herd of pigs in this way?  Why is Jesus willing to act in a way that results in the death of so many animals?

Why are the people afraid of Jesus (v.37)?  Is this the same ‘fear’ that the disciples felt in 8:25?  Should ‘fear’ be part of our response to Jesus?  …and why is Jesus so willing to consent to their rejection of Him (v.37)?

Why is Jesus willing to grant every request made of Him in this passage, except that of the man who has just become a disciple?

How does Jesus’ authority over the demonic affect our experience of discipleship?  What does it mean when we commit Christians in our baptism liturgy to ‘fight against…the devil’?

Bible Study Notes Luke 8:22-25

As we jump back into Luke’s Gospel we find ourselves on (overly?) familiar territory.  There is a danger that we are so used to the story of Jesus calming the storm that we simply reflex into what we assume it means…  Jesus calms storms.  I doubt that at MIE anyone would apply this by asking what storms are there in your life, because Jesus can calm them too??  I hope that isn’t where we end up!  If for no other reason than the simple observation that it was Jesus who sent them into the storm in the first place.

There are a lot of good things to take away from the passage.  We began to look at the question of faith in our service on Sunday.  But as with any story in a Gospel, there is always more going on.   We’ll look at a number of different elements in this study, but let’s focus on Jesus as we introduce our time together.  The question we are invited to ask is: Who is this?  He commands even the winds and the water and they obey Him (v.25).

Sigmund Freud got many things wrong!  Among them is his theory of religion.  He posited that the growth our religiosity was an evolutionary response to a primal fear of nature.  Realizing that the world was a frightening place to live, humanity began to hope that there might be someone or something that could protect them from the elements, from earthquakes, from volcanoes, from … well, storms.  And thus was born the idea of God.  Like I said, he got many things wrong – at least in terms of Christianity! 

Do you look at the disciples at the end of this passage and think that here are people who are comforted by the idea that Jesus might be God?  Not so much.  If anything, they are more afraid of Jesus than they were of the storm.

It does raise interesting questions about our sense of who Jesus is.  Are we, as Freud imagined, simply those who come to Jesus for comfort, for some sense that someone is watching over us, protecting us, shielding us for a brutal and painful world?  Is it wrong to expect that from Christ?  Or are we those who have been gripped by a sense of Him as Creator and Sustainer of all that is?  And are we amazed and fearful at such a One?

 

Questions:

Do you think Jesus knew there would be such a furious storm when He told the disciples to set sail to the other side of the lake? 

Why is Jesus content to sleep while the disciples are in ‘great danger’?  What does His capacity to sleep through a storm reveal about Jesus and His mindset?

Why does Jesus rebuke the disciples?  Come to think of it, why does He ‘rebuke’ the storm (v.24)?

What is it about their behavior that demonstrates their lack of faith?   What would the presence of faith have looked like? 

What mistakes did the disciples make in this incident?  What is Jesus seeking to teach them?  How could we learn this lesson today? 

Is MIE a place where your faith grows?  How would you measure that?

Stormy seas are consistently used as an image of the nations in turmoil as they rail against the Lord (see e.g. Is.17:12-13; Is.57:20; Rev.17:15).  Do you think this imagery lies behind the story of Jesus calming the ‘raging waters’?  How would that affect how you read the account?

Is it a good thing that they are ‘in fear’ of Jesus?  …and that they are ‘amazed’ at Him?  Should fear and amazement characterize our response to Jesus today?  Does it?

Have a look at Heb.1:2-3, and 1:10-11.  What is the relationship between Jesus and Creation?  How should that affect your attitude to Jesus? …and to Creation? 

Given what we are taught about Jesus’ relationship with Creation here, how should Christians engage with the ‘environmentalism’? Where can we agree with environmentalism, and where must we disagree? What is distincitvely Christian about our views?