vs 33
So, by at once, does that mean they left and walked through the night to get back to Jerusalem? Or that they left first thing in the morning? Night-time travel was excessively dangerous in the old world. Light sources were lanterns at best, and they made you stand out a mile away in the darkness - fodder for bandits. So if they'd done that, they took quite a risk to get the message back to the 11.
They found them too, still met together. So, does that mean the 11 were living in some sort of commune in Jerusalem, and these guys walked in in the middle of the night? Or does it mean they walked all night and found them meeting together the next day? Or Did they leave the next morning and get there the next day?
Depending on which map you look at in the New Bible Atlas, it could be anywhere from 7kms (a couple hours' walk, less at a brisk pace) to 50kms away (an all day trek). I'm thinking it was about 7-10kms away, because I trust a particular map. So after a meal time, they could have easily legged it back to Jerusalem and found the 11 still staying up late talking.
vs 34
Awww, they ran all that way in the dark, and they get there only to find that Jesus had appeared to Simon too.
vs 35
But they still told their story, which is a pretty amazing story. And it's a narrative culture, so they're allowed to swap stories without it being boring after the facts have been dealt with.
vs 36
Not to be outdone, though, Jesus makes the party really swing by appearing again! This time to all of them! Now none of them can boast, really.
vs 37
No time for boasting when you're scared, I guess. But why are they scared? Didn't they just say that Simon had seen Jesus risen from the dead? Their actions say to me that they were not 100% believing what was happening.
vs 38
Jesus always asks such good questions.
vs 39
Ok, here's a curly one - I've got to say that the translation of the TNIV (NIV not working for some reason) saying 'ghost' is a little inadequate here. Ghost means something pretty specific in our culture - the floating spirit of the dearly departed back from the grave. KJV and NASB both use 'spirit', which is much more nebulous. It's a small thing, really - the word, pneuma, means so many different things, including "a human soul that has left the body". I'm not sure what Judea's belief in ghosts was, or even ancient Israel's (but remember Samuel's return via the witch of Endor). Sufficed to say that I am hoping it was somewhat different from our modern superstitious view.
Unfortunately, though, with the disciples' reaction (first thing that pops into their mind upon seeing Jesus and having heard that he's raised from the dead is "it's a ghost") I think they might have had a very similar superstitious culture about disembodied spirits being something other than just spiritual foul play. It might not sound like a big deal, but there are people out there who say "So, do Christians believe in ghosts?" and it's nice to have answers about that sort of thing.
vs 40
And, again, they have to see it to believe it. Not very different from our culture at all. Which leads to another, more common, curly question. "If God really loves me and would do anything for me, why won't he appear to me so that I can believe and be saved?" Do you answer "Well, God's not a cosmic candy machine, he doesn't just do whatever anyone wants", or "God does love you and wants you to be saved. And he does appear to you. So if he hasn't appeared to you, then perhaps you have to ask the question, 'do I really need to see Jesus to believe in him, or is something else holding me back?'"
vs 41
This verse makes the "I don't believe it" sound a lot more idiomatic. Less scepticism and doubt, more amazement and joy. Meanwhile, Jesus is hungry.
vs 42
Wow, that deserved a verse on its own.
vs 43
This is important, because it's one more proof that he was physically there.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Luke chapter 24
vs 22
Wow, amazing! Oh, wait, there's more. I wonder if these two guys realised how convoluted this story sounds when they tell it all out.
vs 23
..."and yet we didn't put the whole story together, instead we just stood perplexed and wondered what was going on."
vs 24
So when they sent some trustworthy men to go and check the womens' story, they saw the same thing, although it seems sans angels.
vs 25
Yeah, go Jesus! What a great thing to say! It's either said in shock, mock, or jest. Any of those is fine with me. Although it must have been strange for a stranger to be saying these things to the disciples. How would you feel, being a disciple of Jesus for years, and then having a stranger tell you what you should already know?
vs 26
Sounds like something Jesus would say. In fact, I bet Jesus did say it. But it's easy to forget something you don't understand, or don't really want to hear.
vs 27
Best. Walk. Ever. I don't think there's ever been a Christian who wishes they weren't on the Emmaus road that day. And yet we get all of one verse concerning it.
vs 28
I don't know if we should be surprised at this sort of deception. It happens all too frequently in the OT, and yet is never really spoken against. But like I always say about fate - you might know something is meant to happen, but it won't happen till it gets done.
vs 29
So the disciples could not invite this stranger to stay with them without actually doing it, is my point. And of course they do want him to stay, because he's opened their eyes so much.
vs 30
A picture we have seen many times before of Jesus.
vs 31
So why did it happen this way? I can't say. But it is this idea of familiarity that leads some people to think that they didn't recognise Jesus because of their grief. It's possible, I guess.
vs 32
This is perhaps one of the most interesting verses of the passage. This guy, walking along the road with them, seemed to know so much about the scriptures, about the messiah. But for that, they did not recognise Jesus. This verse also makes it sound like they were listening to him, but they only really take in his words and believe them because of it being Jesus. So the person who says the words is important too. If God had just sent a stranger to say this stuff along the road, it would have been a different story.
Wow, amazing! Oh, wait, there's more. I wonder if these two guys realised how convoluted this story sounds when they tell it all out.
vs 23
..."and yet we didn't put the whole story together, instead we just stood perplexed and wondered what was going on."
vs 24
So when they sent some trustworthy men to go and check the womens' story, they saw the same thing, although it seems sans angels.
vs 25
Yeah, go Jesus! What a great thing to say! It's either said in shock, mock, or jest. Any of those is fine with me. Although it must have been strange for a stranger to be saying these things to the disciples. How would you feel, being a disciple of Jesus for years, and then having a stranger tell you what you should already know?
vs 26
Sounds like something Jesus would say. In fact, I bet Jesus did say it. But it's easy to forget something you don't understand, or don't really want to hear.
vs 27
Best. Walk. Ever. I don't think there's ever been a Christian who wishes they weren't on the Emmaus road that day. And yet we get all of one verse concerning it.
vs 28
I don't know if we should be surprised at this sort of deception. It happens all too frequently in the OT, and yet is never really spoken against. But like I always say about fate - you might know something is meant to happen, but it won't happen till it gets done.
vs 29
So the disciples could not invite this stranger to stay with them without actually doing it, is my point. And of course they do want him to stay, because he's opened their eyes so much.
vs 30
A picture we have seen many times before of Jesus.
vs 31
So why did it happen this way? I can't say. But it is this idea of familiarity that leads some people to think that they didn't recognise Jesus because of their grief. It's possible, I guess.
vs 32
This is perhaps one of the most interesting verses of the passage. This guy, walking along the road with them, seemed to know so much about the scriptures, about the messiah. But for that, they did not recognise Jesus. This verse also makes it sound like they were listening to him, but they only really take in his words and believe them because of it being Jesus. So the person who says the words is important too. If God had just sent a stranger to say this stuff along the road, it would have been a different story.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Luke chapter 24
vs 11
And because, well, you know... they were women!
vs 12
Peter thinks that even if there's a chance that the women can be trusted, it's worth checking out. It's interesting how different this report is from John's report. Just little differences, but still interesting. At the end of this verse, Peter is still wondering what has happened.
vs 13
Why were they doing that? I guess because they have lives outside of being disciples, visiting family or something. Either that or they thought it wasn't safe in Jerusalem.
vs 14
Which would seem a reasonable topic of conversation for such a trip. Just imagine, for a moment, how long it takes to walk 7 miles, and the conversation you could have over that distance. I like taking little trips down "this-is-how-the-culture-was-different" lane.
vs 15
What an interesting place for Jesus to turn up - on the road from Jerusalem to Emmaus, approaching two of the disciples who aren't with the rest.
vs 16
This is such a mystery, but for the moment we can just assume it's God powers doing the preventing. It doesn't really matter how it works. It's what happened.
vs 17
This is such a God question - I mean, there's never really a point to God asking a question, because he knows all the answers. I'm pretty certain post-resurrection Jesus knew what they were talking about. Especially because they looked sad.
vs 18
Who is Cleopas? Some well known disciple we assume, who can't believe that anyone in Jerusalem wouldn't have heard about the whole Jesus ordeal.
vs 19
Jesus keeps playing along, and Cleopas talks about Jesus in pretty glowing terms. But I don't think Jesus is asking the questions for the sake of flattery.
vs 20
Which is of course why they are so bummed.
vs 21
Actually, the whole redemption of Israel not happening is probably a bummer too. This comment just goes to show how they have not even remotely tied it all in together.
And it's the third day since this happened (enough time for visitors to not know what's going on in Jerusalem I guess), which has significance for the next thing that has happened!
And because, well, you know... they were women!
vs 12
Peter thinks that even if there's a chance that the women can be trusted, it's worth checking out. It's interesting how different this report is from John's report. Just little differences, but still interesting. At the end of this verse, Peter is still wondering what has happened.
vs 13
Why were they doing that? I guess because they have lives outside of being disciples, visiting family or something. Either that or they thought it wasn't safe in Jerusalem.
vs 14
Which would seem a reasonable topic of conversation for such a trip. Just imagine, for a moment, how long it takes to walk 7 miles, and the conversation you could have over that distance. I like taking little trips down "this-is-how-the-culture-was-different" lane.
vs 15
What an interesting place for Jesus to turn up - on the road from Jerusalem to Emmaus, approaching two of the disciples who aren't with the rest.
vs 16
This is such a mystery, but for the moment we can just assume it's God powers doing the preventing. It doesn't really matter how it works. It's what happened.
vs 17
This is such a God question - I mean, there's never really a point to God asking a question, because he knows all the answers. I'm pretty certain post-resurrection Jesus knew what they were talking about. Especially because they looked sad.
vs 18
Who is Cleopas? Some well known disciple we assume, who can't believe that anyone in Jerusalem wouldn't have heard about the whole Jesus ordeal.
vs 19
Jesus keeps playing along, and Cleopas talks about Jesus in pretty glowing terms. But I don't think Jesus is asking the questions for the sake of flattery.
vs 20
Which is of course why they are so bummed.
vs 21
Actually, the whole redemption of Israel not happening is probably a bummer too. This comment just goes to show how they have not even remotely tied it all in together.
And it's the third day since this happened (enough time for visitors to not know what's going on in Jerusalem I guess), which has significance for the next thing that has happened!
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Luke chapter 24
vs 1
Not prepared on the Sabbath, of course. previously to that.
vs 2
This is the first mention we have of a stone. Which says to me that the rolling of a stone in front of a tomb was an expected thing. The unexpected thing is to find it rolled away.
The problem is, then, why did the women go to the tomb? Did they think they would be able to roll it away somehow?
vs 3
Not finding the body would obviously be another shock. By now they might be thinking they came to the wrong tomb.
vs 4
Eep! Men! Bright shiny men!
vs 5
Angels are scary. Very rarely does an angel appear and people aren't afraid. But these ones get straight into business. They talk about the living, which is of course not who you expect to find in a tomb.
vs 6
The person they seek, Jesus, is not in a tomb. He has risen from the dead! And apparently, if they'd listened, he said as much.
vs 7
It seems so plain when you read it on this side of the resurrection! But when he said it in Galilee, who was really thinking it was going to happen like this?
vs 8
So now they remember his words. And it starts to click.
vs 9
As if you wouldn't want to go and tell the disciples what had just happened! It was really early in the morning, so these girls were easily the first people there.
Eleven now, of course. Judas wasn't invited.
vs 10
So we get the names of three reliable eye witnesses who are obviously well known to the church. And the others don't get names, but there were more.
Not prepared on the Sabbath, of course. previously to that.
vs 2
This is the first mention we have of a stone. Which says to me that the rolling of a stone in front of a tomb was an expected thing. The unexpected thing is to find it rolled away.
The problem is, then, why did the women go to the tomb? Did they think they would be able to roll it away somehow?
vs 3
Not finding the body would obviously be another shock. By now they might be thinking they came to the wrong tomb.
vs 4
Eep! Men! Bright shiny men!
vs 5
Angels are scary. Very rarely does an angel appear and people aren't afraid. But these ones get straight into business. They talk about the living, which is of course not who you expect to find in a tomb.
vs 6
The person they seek, Jesus, is not in a tomb. He has risen from the dead! And apparently, if they'd listened, he said as much.
vs 7
It seems so plain when you read it on this side of the resurrection! But when he said it in Galilee, who was really thinking it was going to happen like this?
vs 8
So now they remember his words. And it starts to click.
vs 9
As if you wouldn't want to go and tell the disciples what had just happened! It was really early in the morning, so these girls were easily the first people there.
Eleven now, of course. Judas wasn't invited.
vs 10
So we get the names of three reliable eye witnesses who are obviously well known to the church. And the others don't get names, but there were more.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Luke chapter 23
vs 45
Two important things in the one verse! Do you get the idea that Luke is trying to fit as many things that he found out happened that day into the story, and he just piles them up on top of each other?
The sky was darkened, and because someone translated the times in the TNIV, you can tell that it's unnatural! Also, the curtain in the temple tore from top to bottom. Now, if you're a gentile, this is going to confuse you somewhat when you're reading Luke's book, so he obviously assumes some knowledge. Unless pagan temples had some similar design.
vs 46
The last words of Jesus, according to Luke. Jesus had a lot of last words. I think these are the least interesting. Which may well make them his actual last last words. I don't really think the order in which he said his last sentences is important. It's less important when you die on a cross I think. He's been up there for hours.
vs 47
I'm guessing "seeing what had happened" is the whole story of the day, not just the death. The death in itself wasn't all that righteous. The darkness and everything will have helped.
vs 48
Cultural thing I'm guessing. And I'm not actually sure what it means. I think it's a mourning thing.
vs 49
So those that knew him stayed around, watching everything. Especially the women. That gives us a good idea about where the witness accounts came from for this part of Luke's writing.
vs 50
A new character emerges on the scene.
vs 51
Luke certainly makes him sound righteous. I wonder if the suggestion "waiting for the Kingdom of God" means that the other members of the council weren't necessarily?
vs 52
I don't know what happened to bodies that weren't claimed. Knowing the time, though, they were thrown in the nearest ditch.
vs 53
Was it his? Well, after reading about how righteous he was, I am assuming it was either his family tomb, or he bought it off someone. You wouldn't steal someone else's tomb if you were a righteous man.
vs 54
I think this verse exists to remind us what day it was, but also why more extensive body preparations weren't taken.
vs 55
The NASB says "low his body was laid", which makes me think they saw it was laid without lots of preparation, rather than just seeing where it was laid.
vs 56
Because they are holy women! Pardon me for thinking it, but I imagine Luke sitting there, listening to a gaggle of old Jewish women tell the story in pepperpot voices. "Ooh! You must put in a verse about us being obedient to the sabbath, dearie! We don't want people to think we was mixin' spices on the Sabbath!"
Two important things in the one verse! Do you get the idea that Luke is trying to fit as many things that he found out happened that day into the story, and he just piles them up on top of each other?
The sky was darkened, and because someone translated the times in the TNIV, you can tell that it's unnatural! Also, the curtain in the temple tore from top to bottom. Now, if you're a gentile, this is going to confuse you somewhat when you're reading Luke's book, so he obviously assumes some knowledge. Unless pagan temples had some similar design.
vs 46
The last words of Jesus, according to Luke. Jesus had a lot of last words. I think these are the least interesting. Which may well make them his actual last last words. I don't really think the order in which he said his last sentences is important. It's less important when you die on a cross I think. He's been up there for hours.
vs 47
I'm guessing "seeing what had happened" is the whole story of the day, not just the death. The death in itself wasn't all that righteous. The darkness and everything will have helped.
vs 48
Cultural thing I'm guessing. And I'm not actually sure what it means. I think it's a mourning thing.
vs 49
So those that knew him stayed around, watching everything. Especially the women. That gives us a good idea about where the witness accounts came from for this part of Luke's writing.
vs 50
A new character emerges on the scene.
vs 51
Luke certainly makes him sound righteous. I wonder if the suggestion "waiting for the Kingdom of God" means that the other members of the council weren't necessarily?
vs 52
I don't know what happened to bodies that weren't claimed. Knowing the time, though, they were thrown in the nearest ditch.
vs 53
Was it his? Well, after reading about how righteous he was, I am assuming it was either his family tomb, or he bought it off someone. You wouldn't steal someone else's tomb if you were a righteous man.
vs 54
I think this verse exists to remind us what day it was, but also why more extensive body preparations weren't taken.
vs 55
The NASB says "low his body was laid", which makes me think they saw it was laid without lots of preparation, rather than just seeing where it was laid.
vs 56
Because they are holy women! Pardon me for thinking it, but I imagine Luke sitting there, listening to a gaggle of old Jewish women tell the story in pepperpot voices. "Ooh! You must put in a verse about us being obedient to the sabbath, dearie! We don't want people to think we was mixin' spices on the Sabbath!"
Monday, September 24, 2007
Luke chapter 23
vs 34
Apparently early manuscripts don't have the words of Jesus, but they are repeated elsewhere, so I don't think we have to worry about that. The second part is also contained elsewhere, but is expressed as a fulfilment of scripture, instead of just being a cold fact.
vs 35
Most of the people just watched - probably expecting a miracle. It was the religious leaders who sneered. They had won, or so they thought. Must have never read Isaiah and Zechariah about the suffering servant.
They are trawling for insults here. Or perhaps Luke just didn't want to publish the rude ones.
vs 36
At least the soldiers were being paid to mock him. Again - if Pilate didn't want him mocked, he would have put out an edict not to mock him. Luke doesn't describe whether Jesus took the wine vinegar or not. He just states that they offered it to him.
vs 37
Either the roman soldiers knew a fair bit about jewish religion (which is possible I guess), or they were just taking their queues from the jewish leaders' insults. Otherwise, why would a king be able to save himself from crucifixion any more than any other person?
vs 38
Interestingly, in the KJV it says "in Greek, Latin and Hebrew" but doesn't make any mention of that in the NIV or the NASB.
vs 39
You know you're pretty low when you're being mocked by other people who are being crucified.
vs 40-41
Apparently, this second criminal doesn't have any problem with being crucified - he thinks it's a fair cop for him and the other criminal. I've never noticed that before.
I think the comment he makes about fearing God and being under the same sentence is basically pointing out to the guy that he is also being crucified, and he's obviously going to have his own stuff to answer for, because he's some sort of criminal. Is he really wanting to combat that by swearing at Jesus in his last breaths?
vs 42
The second guy wants to try a different tac completely. He believes that this can't be the end for the messiah, and so instead requests that Jesus remember him when everything is fulfilled. What had he done to deserve being remembered? He had stood up for Jesus in the face of accusation from a crucified man. But really, that's enough. And he had hope. Even if he thought that Jesus being the messiah was a last ditch attempt, well, he was pretty much at the last ditch.
vs 43
Jesus gives him some extra hope, too, with this promise. Now, the guy has to show some real faith, and believe Jesus' words.
vs 44
All I can say about this verse is woo to the TNIV! Someone finally translated this into normal times. Good stuff! I know there are problems about whether it's Jewish timing or Roman timing or something, but how is your average pew sitter meant to make that decision? I'd rather a group of highly qualified translators and scholars made it for me.
What it does show is that Jesus has been tried, sent around Jerusalem to Herod, back to Pilate, tried some more, Pilate has summonsed the people, has talked to them, and Jesus has finally been led up to the Skull place, and it's only midday. What a day!
Apparently early manuscripts don't have the words of Jesus, but they are repeated elsewhere, so I don't think we have to worry about that. The second part is also contained elsewhere, but is expressed as a fulfilment of scripture, instead of just being a cold fact.
vs 35
Most of the people just watched - probably expecting a miracle. It was the religious leaders who sneered. They had won, or so they thought. Must have never read Isaiah and Zechariah about the suffering servant.
They are trawling for insults here. Or perhaps Luke just didn't want to publish the rude ones.
vs 36
At least the soldiers were being paid to mock him. Again - if Pilate didn't want him mocked, he would have put out an edict not to mock him. Luke doesn't describe whether Jesus took the wine vinegar or not. He just states that they offered it to him.
vs 37
Either the roman soldiers knew a fair bit about jewish religion (which is possible I guess), or they were just taking their queues from the jewish leaders' insults. Otherwise, why would a king be able to save himself from crucifixion any more than any other person?
vs 38
Interestingly, in the KJV it says "in Greek, Latin and Hebrew" but doesn't make any mention of that in the NIV or the NASB.
vs 39
You know you're pretty low when you're being mocked by other people who are being crucified.
vs 40-41
Apparently, this second criminal doesn't have any problem with being crucified - he thinks it's a fair cop for him and the other criminal. I've never noticed that before.
I think the comment he makes about fearing God and being under the same sentence is basically pointing out to the guy that he is also being crucified, and he's obviously going to have his own stuff to answer for, because he's some sort of criminal. Is he really wanting to combat that by swearing at Jesus in his last breaths?
vs 42
The second guy wants to try a different tac completely. He believes that this can't be the end for the messiah, and so instead requests that Jesus remember him when everything is fulfilled. What had he done to deserve being remembered? He had stood up for Jesus in the face of accusation from a crucified man. But really, that's enough. And he had hope. Even if he thought that Jesus being the messiah was a last ditch attempt, well, he was pretty much at the last ditch.
vs 43
Jesus gives him some extra hope, too, with this promise. Now, the guy has to show some real faith, and believe Jesus' words.
vs 44
All I can say about this verse is woo to the TNIV! Someone finally translated this into normal times. Good stuff! I know there are problems about whether it's Jewish timing or Roman timing or something, but how is your average pew sitter meant to make that decision? I'd rather a group of highly qualified translators and scholars made it for me.
What it does show is that Jesus has been tried, sent around Jerusalem to Herod, back to Pilate, tried some more, Pilate has summonsed the people, has talked to them, and Jesus has finally been led up to the Skull place, and it's only midday. What a day!
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Luke chapter 23
vs 23
Their shouts prevailed. This is probably one of the worst moments in Israel's history. The only person defending Jesus was a gentile governor.
vs 24
Not a great time for the justice of the roman empire, either.
vs 25
This verse just brings startling clarity to the last two verses. And that's what this section of the gospel (and all the gospels) is about - clarity about this final portion of Jesus' life. So we will get a lot more information about it than about most things that happened which are recorded in the gospel.
vs 26
Now why would they do that, if Jesus had only been mocked and beaten a little with open hands? How interesting to be known for the rest of the history of the world as "the guy who was walking past when Jesus was being crucified.
vs 27
Just because the crowd was calling for his crucifixion, doesn't mean the disciples of Jesus weren't still around. However, it is the women mainly who get mentioned during the passion narrative. Perhaps it was harder to persecute them? Or perhaps they were just bolder than the men, who had all scarpered.
vs 28
Oh dear. That can't be good.
vs 29-30
That sounds prophetically bad. And it is, it's from Hosea. But what does Jesus mean by it exactly? Obviously, he means something bad is coming, but what is it that's coming?
vs 31
I think this verse explains he means - that if such an evil thing can happen while the Christ is in Jerusalem, and directly to him, then what sort of evil is going to happen once the Christ has been killed, and is no longer around?
And that's fair enough, too. I mean, I know that God doesn't simply punish people for a single sin in some sort of instant-reciprocal way, but I think he does punish Israel for large feats of rebellion. Killing the messiah fits in there I think.
vs 32
Just the three of them. Slow day. Actually, I honestly don't know how many people were crucified on a weekly basis in Israel during Roman occupation. But by modern standards, the state doesn't usually have multiple death sentences cumulating on a single day.
vs 33
This would be Golgotha. Luke doesn't feel the need to explain every blow of the nail, or every cry of pain. His readers know what crucifixion is like. I'm thankful that I don't.
Their shouts prevailed. This is probably one of the worst moments in Israel's history. The only person defending Jesus was a gentile governor.
vs 24
Not a great time for the justice of the roman empire, either.
vs 25
This verse just brings startling clarity to the last two verses. And that's what this section of the gospel (and all the gospels) is about - clarity about this final portion of Jesus' life. So we will get a lot more information about it than about most things that happened which are recorded in the gospel.
vs 26
Now why would they do that, if Jesus had only been mocked and beaten a little with open hands? How interesting to be known for the rest of the history of the world as "the guy who was walking past when Jesus was being crucified.
vs 27
Just because the crowd was calling for his crucifixion, doesn't mean the disciples of Jesus weren't still around. However, it is the women mainly who get mentioned during the passion narrative. Perhaps it was harder to persecute them? Or perhaps they were just bolder than the men, who had all scarpered.
vs 28
Oh dear. That can't be good.
vs 29-30
That sounds prophetically bad. And it is, it's from Hosea. But what does Jesus mean by it exactly? Obviously, he means something bad is coming, but what is it that's coming?
vs 31
I think this verse explains he means - that if such an evil thing can happen while the Christ is in Jerusalem, and directly to him, then what sort of evil is going to happen once the Christ has been killed, and is no longer around?
And that's fair enough, too. I mean, I know that God doesn't simply punish people for a single sin in some sort of instant-reciprocal way, but I think he does punish Israel for large feats of rebellion. Killing the messiah fits in there I think.
vs 32
Just the three of them. Slow day. Actually, I honestly don't know how many people were crucified on a weekly basis in Israel during Roman occupation. But by modern standards, the state doesn't usually have multiple death sentences cumulating on a single day.
vs 33
This would be Golgotha. Luke doesn't feel the need to explain every blow of the nail, or every cry of pain. His readers know what crucifixion is like. I'm thankful that I don't.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Luke chapter 23
vs 12
It's nice that there's a happy ending for these two. They become friends through mocking the son of God. Well done to them. I'm sure the rest of their lives will go past without anything bad happening.
vs 13
Ok, that's a pretty big gathering.
vs 14
And he announces that Jesus is not guilty. Again. And this time, he does it publicly. That's shrewd politics. The jewish leaders brought Jesus to Pilate early in the morning, obviously before too many people were around. Pilate now wants to see if they'll stick to their guns in front of all the people.
vs 15
Pilate also states an independent source - that Herod has found nothing against this man either.
vs 16
Like I said, Pilate doesn't want to get used by the jewish leaders, but he also wants to keep them stable and non-rebellious. He's not trying to protect Jesus - he's trying to protect himself. So he offers to flog Jesus a bit, rough him up. Surely that will make them happy.
(vs 17 apparently doesn't exist in the most trustworthy manuscripts)
vs 18
It would seem that the jewish leaders had been at work. Remember, they wanted to arrest Jesus by night, so that the people wouldn't see. In the space of one day, they have turned the people against him. Who knows how - Lies? I can tell you stories about how in Pakistan, one person tells a lie about another person regarding blasphemy, and that person gets beaten and sometimes even killed. People get really passionate about this sort of thing.
vs 19
How they convinced them to want Barabbas, I can't say. Unless of course, by murder, they mean he murdered a roman soldier or something. That kind of person would be a bit of a hero to some.
vs 20
Pilate is a little worried now. Having everyone shouting against his will is a bad thing. Luke says he wants to release Jesus. But that doesn't mean that he wants to for the sake of justice, or for the sake of Jesus. More likely, as I say, for the sake of being the one in power.
vs 21
Nasty. This sort of thing just doesn't happen anymore. We don't have protests where the entire population comes out, and they didn't have crowd control that didn't involve swords and spears. No one wants to order a massacre. It's not that Pilate would never do it (there are at least two recorded in Josephus, and even Jesus talks about one). But you don't want to if you don't have to.
vs 22
Pilate seeks to put his foot down here. He states bluntly that Jesus is not guilty of anything, and he does not suggest, he commands that he will have him punished and then released. But by now, I think even he knows that he's losing this battle.
It's nice that there's a happy ending for these two. They become friends through mocking the son of God. Well done to them. I'm sure the rest of their lives will go past without anything bad happening.
vs 13
Ok, that's a pretty big gathering.
vs 14
And he announces that Jesus is not guilty. Again. And this time, he does it publicly. That's shrewd politics. The jewish leaders brought Jesus to Pilate early in the morning, obviously before too many people were around. Pilate now wants to see if they'll stick to their guns in front of all the people.
vs 15
Pilate also states an independent source - that Herod has found nothing against this man either.
vs 16
Like I said, Pilate doesn't want to get used by the jewish leaders, but he also wants to keep them stable and non-rebellious. He's not trying to protect Jesus - he's trying to protect himself. So he offers to flog Jesus a bit, rough him up. Surely that will make them happy.
(vs 17 apparently doesn't exist in the most trustworthy manuscripts)
vs 18
It would seem that the jewish leaders had been at work. Remember, they wanted to arrest Jesus by night, so that the people wouldn't see. In the space of one day, they have turned the people against him. Who knows how - Lies? I can tell you stories about how in Pakistan, one person tells a lie about another person regarding blasphemy, and that person gets beaten and sometimes even killed. People get really passionate about this sort of thing.
vs 19
How they convinced them to want Barabbas, I can't say. Unless of course, by murder, they mean he murdered a roman soldier or something. That kind of person would be a bit of a hero to some.
vs 20
Pilate is a little worried now. Having everyone shouting against his will is a bad thing. Luke says he wants to release Jesus. But that doesn't mean that he wants to for the sake of justice, or for the sake of Jesus. More likely, as I say, for the sake of being the one in power.
vs 21
Nasty. This sort of thing just doesn't happen anymore. We don't have protests where the entire population comes out, and they didn't have crowd control that didn't involve swords and spears. No one wants to order a massacre. It's not that Pilate would never do it (there are at least two recorded in Josephus, and even Jesus talks about one). But you don't want to if you don't have to.
vs 22
Pilate seeks to put his foot down here. He states bluntly that Jesus is not guilty of anything, and he does not suggest, he commands that he will have him punished and then released. But by now, I think even he knows that he's losing this battle.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Luke chapter 23
How bummed am I that I get up too early on Thursdays to reliably be able to do this :(
vs 1
Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor. Luke, do you really expect us to know who that is without explaining it? Pilate has been mentioned twice before this. So Luke actually expects you to remember him from chapter 3, where he explains more fully who this is. Remember that, when reading scripture - the writers are happy to refer glibly and briefly to things that have happened many pages ago.
vs 2
These guys are so low. Jesus never denied paying taxes. So that's just a blatant lie. And while he may have claimed (or at least accepted other people's claims) that he is the messiah, he certainly never sought to be crowned as an earthly king, even dodging it a few times!
vs 3
What else is he meant to do? Pilate asks Jesus, to see what happens. Jesus replies in the affirmative. But claiming to be king, without any army or call for the dispossession of the governor or Caesar, is hardly a crime. It could make you somewhat loony, but being a loony isn't against the law either.
vs 4
It's hard for Pilate. You have to assume that he realises the Jews are trying to use him for their own petty squabbles, and he doesn't want to be used. But, he also knows he governs a very hot-spot type of people, who will rebel over any silly thing, and he doesn't want rebellion.
vs 5
Pilate gave the answer they don't want to hear, so they try again, talking about his teaching ministry. Now, it is true that he has travelled around a bit. But travelling doesn't make you a rebel.
vs 6-7
Pilate's ears prick up, because Jesus being a Galilean spells this being "not my problem", because Herod is in town. So Pilate shoos him away, hoping that this will be the end of it.
vs 8
Herod is not as apathetic as Pilate - he is actually keen to meet this Jesus bloke who he's heard of as a miracle maker. It might seem a little odd at first to have a prophet brought before you in chains, but surely he'll just work a miracle, and then you can let him go, right? I mean, no man of God wants to be imprisoned!
vs 9
Jesus, however, is not playing games. He doesn't answer useless questions. Herod isn't interested in justice - he wants a show. Jesus told the Pharisees when they asked for a show that they would only get the sign of Jonah.
vs 10
Those that would talk, though, are the Pharisees. They wouldn't shut up. Now, when one person is silent, and another is talking non-stop, it's hard to listen to the silent person. But silence doesn't mean guilt, and it was Herod's job to work out who was guilty here.
vs 11
So Herod grows bored, and decides to make his own fun. He turns Jesus into a laughing-stock, mocks him by dressing him in regal finery, and sends him back to Pilate.
vs 1
Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor. Luke, do you really expect us to know who that is without explaining it? Pilate has been mentioned twice before this. So Luke actually expects you to remember him from chapter 3, where he explains more fully who this is. Remember that, when reading scripture - the writers are happy to refer glibly and briefly to things that have happened many pages ago.
vs 2
These guys are so low. Jesus never denied paying taxes. So that's just a blatant lie. And while he may have claimed (or at least accepted other people's claims) that he is the messiah, he certainly never sought to be crowned as an earthly king, even dodging it a few times!
vs 3
What else is he meant to do? Pilate asks Jesus, to see what happens. Jesus replies in the affirmative. But claiming to be king, without any army or call for the dispossession of the governor or Caesar, is hardly a crime. It could make you somewhat loony, but being a loony isn't against the law either.
vs 4
It's hard for Pilate. You have to assume that he realises the Jews are trying to use him for their own petty squabbles, and he doesn't want to be used. But, he also knows he governs a very hot-spot type of people, who will rebel over any silly thing, and he doesn't want rebellion.
vs 5
Pilate gave the answer they don't want to hear, so they try again, talking about his teaching ministry. Now, it is true that he has travelled around a bit. But travelling doesn't make you a rebel.
vs 6-7
Pilate's ears prick up, because Jesus being a Galilean spells this being "not my problem", because Herod is in town. So Pilate shoos him away, hoping that this will be the end of it.
vs 8
Herod is not as apathetic as Pilate - he is actually keen to meet this Jesus bloke who he's heard of as a miracle maker. It might seem a little odd at first to have a prophet brought before you in chains, but surely he'll just work a miracle, and then you can let him go, right? I mean, no man of God wants to be imprisoned!
vs 9
Jesus, however, is not playing games. He doesn't answer useless questions. Herod isn't interested in justice - he wants a show. Jesus told the Pharisees when they asked for a show that they would only get the sign of Jonah.
vs 10
Those that would talk, though, are the Pharisees. They wouldn't shut up. Now, when one person is silent, and another is talking non-stop, it's hard to listen to the silent person. But silence doesn't mean guilt, and it was Herod's job to work out who was guilty here.
vs 11
So Herod grows bored, and decides to make his own fun. He turns Jesus into a laughing-stock, mocks him by dressing him in regal finery, and sends him back to Pilate.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Luke chapter 22
vs 61
Ouch. We sort of forget that Jesus was there the whole time. But once that cock crowed, Peter was made incredibly aware of his rejection of Jesus.
vs 62
That's not necessarily repentant. It's just sad. It could be repentant. But it is sad.
vs 63
And Peter, of course, now rushed to his Lord's aid, or at least said "Don't to that!"... oh, wait, no, he's outside crying. We might well say that's harsh, and that we would do the same as Peter if we were there. I don't know. John was also there, and it's not recorded what he did.
vs 64
I've always thought that is is odd to mock someone for being special or extra good at something. That's what this is like. The fact is that Jesus has already prophesied many things. I'm sure he could have told the guards not only who hit him, but all sorts of things about them.
Anyway, although such tall-poppy syndrome is a part of Aussie culture, I wonder how much it was part of jewish culture back then. I don't know - whenever I've read this stuff about them beating Jesus, it's always had an air of fakeness to it - not that they weren't beating him, but that they weren't altogether spiteful. After all, guards don't beat prisoners without the implicit sanction of their masters. The teachers of the law had a real beef with Jesus - the temple guards are just big guys with swords.
vs 65
Which don't need to be recorded.
vs 66
So after being caught that night, and beaten and tortured, Jesus is now led before his enemies, who are the 'impartial judges' before which he will be tried for his lack of crimes.
vs 67
The way it's written, on its own, it might sound almost reasonable. As if they are pleading with him to tell them the truth. But it's all too easy to forget the kidnapping, the accosting, the night-long beating, and the led-before-them-bound-like-a-criminal... ing. So it's fair to imagine just a little bit of venom in their questions.
Jesus' answer, part 1: He points out that he's already been considered guilty before he's been tried - hence the beating and the being tied up. This is the classic problem with lynch-mobs.
vs 68
Jesus' answer, part 2: He mocks them a little himself, with their inability to answer the question about whether John the Baptist was from heaven or not. Basically, he is saying "If I asked you if I were the Christ, you wouldn't be able to answer. Not that you'd just say "no". You guys really don't have an answer. You're the elder priests and teachers of the law, and you couldn't even tell me if John the Baptist's message was from God or not! And now you expect me to tell you if I'm the Messiah?"
vs 69
But it doesn't matter what the chief priests do, because God is going to do the right thing, and glorify his Son. So regardless of the actions you take from this point on, I win.
vs 70
Jesus doesn't just say that he's the Son of God. He is more saying "Yes, your accusation is true. You are accusing me of being the Son of God, as if it were a criminal charge. Why don't you think about that for a second?"
vs 71
Actually, they heard it from their own lips. But you can't really expect some sort of fair judgement from this court.
Ouch. We sort of forget that Jesus was there the whole time. But once that cock crowed, Peter was made incredibly aware of his rejection of Jesus.
vs 62
That's not necessarily repentant. It's just sad. It could be repentant. But it is sad.
vs 63
And Peter, of course, now rushed to his Lord's aid, or at least said "Don't to that!"... oh, wait, no, he's outside crying. We might well say that's harsh, and that we would do the same as Peter if we were there. I don't know. John was also there, and it's not recorded what he did.
vs 64
I've always thought that is is odd to mock someone for being special or extra good at something. That's what this is like. The fact is that Jesus has already prophesied many things. I'm sure he could have told the guards not only who hit him, but all sorts of things about them.
Anyway, although such tall-poppy syndrome is a part of Aussie culture, I wonder how much it was part of jewish culture back then. I don't know - whenever I've read this stuff about them beating Jesus, it's always had an air of fakeness to it - not that they weren't beating him, but that they weren't altogether spiteful. After all, guards don't beat prisoners without the implicit sanction of their masters. The teachers of the law had a real beef with Jesus - the temple guards are just big guys with swords.
vs 65
Which don't need to be recorded.
vs 66
So after being caught that night, and beaten and tortured, Jesus is now led before his enemies, who are the 'impartial judges' before which he will be tried for his lack of crimes.
vs 67
The way it's written, on its own, it might sound almost reasonable. As if they are pleading with him to tell them the truth. But it's all too easy to forget the kidnapping, the accosting, the night-long beating, and the led-before-them-bound-like-a-criminal... ing. So it's fair to imagine just a little bit of venom in their questions.
Jesus' answer, part 1: He points out that he's already been considered guilty before he's been tried - hence the beating and the being tied up. This is the classic problem with lynch-mobs.
vs 68
Jesus' answer, part 2: He mocks them a little himself, with their inability to answer the question about whether John the Baptist was from heaven or not. Basically, he is saying "If I asked you if I were the Christ, you wouldn't be able to answer. Not that you'd just say "no". You guys really don't have an answer. You're the elder priests and teachers of the law, and you couldn't even tell me if John the Baptist's message was from God or not! And now you expect me to tell you if I'm the Messiah?"
vs 69
But it doesn't matter what the chief priests do, because God is going to do the right thing, and glorify his Son. So regardless of the actions you take from this point on, I win.
vs 70
Jesus doesn't just say that he's the Son of God. He is more saying "Yes, your accusation is true. You are accusing me of being the Son of God, as if it were a criminal charge. Why don't you think about that for a second?"
vs 71
Actually, they heard it from their own lips. But you can't really expect some sort of fair judgement from this court.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Luke Chapter 22
vs 51
Jesus pre-empts the oncoming rumble by taking charge and healing the hurts. Like some sort of ministry of reconciliation.
vs 52
So this verse gives us a fair idea of who the crowd is made up of. As you can see, it's not a friendly crowd. But Jesus questions their small army as to its effectiveness. Why bring such a force to arrest a blasphemer?
vs 53
He points out his availability every day in front of the crowds, but what is done in secret is usually done against God (I guess praying and giving are exceptions).
Of course, it's probably literally dark, but it's also symbolically dark - the light of the world (not that Luke uses that term) is being caught by the forces of darkness.
vs 54
John followed too, but that doesn't get recorded, because Peter is the man of the hour here. They didn't take him to court, because I guess it starts off as a religious matter. Also, it's the middle of the night.
vs 55
Weird to think of Peter sitting in the courtyard of his Lord's captors, around a fire with them. You'd sort of expect him to stand outside the door or something.
vs 56
Well, it was dark, so I guess it's possible that she wouldn't recognise him immediately. Of course, we assume a servant girl wasn't with the crowd of clubs and pitchforks, so she probably saw him with Jesus in the temple.
vs 57
If you don't know him, then why are you here and not at home in a comfy bed?
vs 58
Again someone recognises him. You can get away with contradicting a servant girl, but another male is something differrent. Yet Peter defends his ground, and even manages to sound a little tetchy.
vs 59
I'm not sure what tells a Galilean apart from a Jerusalemite, but I would assume that it would be voice or dialect, rather than looks or fashion. And this means that Peter was sitting there talking with them, sitting conversing with his teacher's captors. While there's nothing wrong with that per se, I'm assuming he wasn't defending Jesus' cause or trying to build relationships with them.
vs 60
Uh-oh. And I bet Peter didn't even think he'd get the chance to do much of anything before the rooster crowed, especially after boozing it up at the last supper. So this would have been a major shock to him.
Jesus pre-empts the oncoming rumble by taking charge and healing the hurts. Like some sort of ministry of reconciliation.
vs 52
So this verse gives us a fair idea of who the crowd is made up of. As you can see, it's not a friendly crowd. But Jesus questions their small army as to its effectiveness. Why bring such a force to arrest a blasphemer?
vs 53
He points out his availability every day in front of the crowds, but what is done in secret is usually done against God (I guess praying and giving are exceptions).
Of course, it's probably literally dark, but it's also symbolically dark - the light of the world (not that Luke uses that term) is being caught by the forces of darkness.
vs 54
John followed too, but that doesn't get recorded, because Peter is the man of the hour here. They didn't take him to court, because I guess it starts off as a religious matter. Also, it's the middle of the night.
vs 55
Weird to think of Peter sitting in the courtyard of his Lord's captors, around a fire with them. You'd sort of expect him to stand outside the door or something.
vs 56
Well, it was dark, so I guess it's possible that she wouldn't recognise him immediately. Of course, we assume a servant girl wasn't with the crowd of clubs and pitchforks, so she probably saw him with Jesus in the temple.
vs 57
If you don't know him, then why are you here and not at home in a comfy bed?
vs 58
Again someone recognises him. You can get away with contradicting a servant girl, but another male is something differrent. Yet Peter defends his ground, and even manages to sound a little tetchy.
vs 59
I'm not sure what tells a Galilean apart from a Jerusalemite, but I would assume that it would be voice or dialect, rather than looks or fashion. And this means that Peter was sitting there talking with them, sitting conversing with his teacher's captors. While there's nothing wrong with that per se, I'm assuming he wasn't defending Jesus' cause or trying to build relationships with them.
vs 60
Uh-oh. And I bet Peter didn't even think he'd get the chance to do much of anything before the rooster crowed, especially after boozing it up at the last supper. So this would have been a major shock to him.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Luke chapter 22
vs 41
I'm guessing a stone's throw is a unit of measurement and not an idiom back then.
Jesus too is praying, which we can assume he did regularly on the Mount of Olives I think.
vs 42
Who recorded the words of Jesus' prayer, if everyone was a stone's throw away? I guess Jesus could have told them what he said afterward, or perhaps his prayer was so loud they could hear him. Prayer has been different through the ages - it is possible that he was praying loudly.
This whole prayer is drafted in words that speak expressly to God's will first. Jesus wants only to do God's will. But this prayer also raises some interesting questions - if Jesus is God, then how can his will be different from God's will? "Not my will" indicates that Jesus has a will, and "but yours" indicates that it's different from God's will. I've heard some explainations. I don't think it matters - I don't think Luke is trying to raise a trinitarian conundrum, but instead to show that Jesus was freaking out, but that he still wanted to do God's will.
vs 43
God helps out. He certainly doesn't do that for everyone, sending an angel I mean.
vs 44
How much did the angel actually achieve, if this is still happening? Was it really blood? Sure, why not. There have been many other documented times when someone faced with death has sweat blood. But I don't think it's got some secret hidden meaning. He was just really anguished. Anxious. You know what I mean. Just imagine what he'd have been like without the angel strenghening him.
vs 45
Not that it's not just that they're tired and lazy. They are sorrowful. Especially if they had heard the words of Jesus, his pleading, his crying out to God, his desire not to die. It's been a sombre, morose evening for them, and now Jesus is crying and weeping and calling to God in anguish. These guys are wracked with sorrow for their teacher. So much so that they basically pass out from exhaustion.
vs 46
I think we can assume Jesus knows why they are sleeping, but perhaps figures that if they pray, they can get strength from God to stay awake. Again he talks about temptation. Is it the temptation to sleep? To flee when the time comes? Just temptation generally? I assume it was clearer to them at the time, but Luke's obviously put this here for a reason.
vs 47
No one had noticed that Judas was gone, or else it was normal for one or more of the twelve to disappear for some reason or another. Perhaps he'd said he had gone to the bathroom.
This is not some sort of homo-erotic porno kiss, as revisionist historians seem to want to make out. It's just a middle eastern kiss, and if you go there you'll get plenty of them still today.
vs 48
Jesus knows what's happening though. Those words must have stung Judas pretty bad.
vs 49
Remember, it's not just a few people with Judas - it's a crowd. Not a crowd of normal city-dwellers either, because they liked Jesus, and the whole point of Judas' betrayal was so they could find him at a time where he wouldn't be surrounded by the populace.
So obviously a couple of the disciples (most people guess Peter and John) are militating for a melee, and keen to whip out their swords and cause some carnage.
vs 50
One of them doesn't wait for Jesus' reply, and launches in! Someone's ear comes off in the fray. And surprisingly, whoever let the blow fly doesn't get mobbed and killed by the crowd, so we can assume I think that they weren't expecting a fight.
I'm guessing a stone's throw is a unit of measurement and not an idiom back then.
Jesus too is praying, which we can assume he did regularly on the Mount of Olives I think.
vs 42
Who recorded the words of Jesus' prayer, if everyone was a stone's throw away? I guess Jesus could have told them what he said afterward, or perhaps his prayer was so loud they could hear him. Prayer has been different through the ages - it is possible that he was praying loudly.
This whole prayer is drafted in words that speak expressly to God's will first. Jesus wants only to do God's will. But this prayer also raises some interesting questions - if Jesus is God, then how can his will be different from God's will? "Not my will" indicates that Jesus has a will, and "but yours" indicates that it's different from God's will. I've heard some explainations. I don't think it matters - I don't think Luke is trying to raise a trinitarian conundrum, but instead to show that Jesus was freaking out, but that he still wanted to do God's will.
vs 43
God helps out. He certainly doesn't do that for everyone, sending an angel I mean.
vs 44
How much did the angel actually achieve, if this is still happening? Was it really blood? Sure, why not. There have been many other documented times when someone faced with death has sweat blood. But I don't think it's got some secret hidden meaning. He was just really anguished. Anxious. You know what I mean. Just imagine what he'd have been like without the angel strenghening him.
vs 45
Not that it's not just that they're tired and lazy. They are sorrowful. Especially if they had heard the words of Jesus, his pleading, his crying out to God, his desire not to die. It's been a sombre, morose evening for them, and now Jesus is crying and weeping and calling to God in anguish. These guys are wracked with sorrow for their teacher. So much so that they basically pass out from exhaustion.
vs 46
I think we can assume Jesus knows why they are sleeping, but perhaps figures that if they pray, they can get strength from God to stay awake. Again he talks about temptation. Is it the temptation to sleep? To flee when the time comes? Just temptation generally? I assume it was clearer to them at the time, but Luke's obviously put this here for a reason.
vs 47
No one had noticed that Judas was gone, or else it was normal for one or more of the twelve to disappear for some reason or another. Perhaps he'd said he had gone to the bathroom.
This is not some sort of homo-erotic porno kiss, as revisionist historians seem to want to make out. It's just a middle eastern kiss, and if you go there you'll get plenty of them still today.
vs 48
Jesus knows what's happening though. Those words must have stung Judas pretty bad.
vs 49
Remember, it's not just a few people with Judas - it's a crowd. Not a crowd of normal city-dwellers either, because they liked Jesus, and the whole point of Judas' betrayal was so they could find him at a time where he wouldn't be surrounded by the populace.
So obviously a couple of the disciples (most people guess Peter and John) are militating for a melee, and keen to whip out their swords and cause some carnage.
vs 50
One of them doesn't wait for Jesus' reply, and launches in! Someone's ear comes off in the fray. And surprisingly, whoever let the blow fly doesn't get mobbed and killed by the crowd, so we can assume I think that they weren't expecting a fight.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Luke chapter 22
vs 31
The TNIV includes the word 'all' here to show that the you is plural. That's nice. Which means apparently that Satan has all of the twelve targetted. Why then does Jesus point his comments directly at Simon Peter?
vs 32
Because Jesus is going to use Simon's three-times denial as an example. Poor Peter, remembered forever as the disciple who denied Christ three times. The fact that the rest more or less scattered is not nearly so well remembered.
Anyway, Jesus also sees Peter as a bit of a leader. Even though he is going to fail by denying Christ, Jesus already is talking about his redemption, and once it comes, it will be Simon Peter, the one who denied Christ, who will be looked to by his brothers for strength. Because adversity and struggles with faith make us closer to God. People who just coast through their Christian life and never go through any crises of faith are just that, really - coasters.
vs 33
Oh, how untrue that was.
vs 34
Ever since Jesus set foot in Jerusalem (or Bethany, to be more precise?) he has been going overtime with the prophetic knowledge. I wonder if all prophets were like this - I mean, most of the writing prophets we only have their written sermons, not transcripts of their everyday lives. And I hate to admit that I'm not familiar enough with those that do have such narrative to know whether they are like this all the time. Woe is me.
vs 35
We now see the value of the little short-term mission trip that Jesus sent them on. I might point out that it wasn't really cross-cultural (one kinda was, to Samaria), but that it instead was to people whose language they already spoke and culture they already understood (and I might add, to a people who were expecting a Messiah - we seem to forget that a lot).
Anyway, Jesus sent them on without extra stuff, and yet they never wanted for anything.
vs 36
Different message now, isn't it? Now Jesus wants them to be prepared. He wants them to be ready, to think ahead, to expect the unexpected. They still don't expect it, though.
vs 37
I don't think they need swords so that they are the transgressors he is numbered with. He'll be numbered with transgressors the moment he gets arrested. Of course, that's not the only bit of Scripture that is going to be fulfilled. Jesus knows that he's going to suffer, and die, but also come back, and restore mankind to himself. And it's rushing towards him.
vs 38
So what are the swords for? Sure, one guy gets an ear cut off, and Jesus can then say "No, it's not going to happen that way". But did Jesus want them to have swords just for that to happen? I don't think so. I think he was using swords as an illustration of readiness. If he really wanted them to have swords, why are 2 enough? Jesus I think just isn't going to bother explaining what he meant just now - there are more important things to happen.
vs 39
This was his regular routine, and that is how he gets caught. Judas sells him out on his nightly walk.
vs 40
It's a strange request. What exactly are they to pray for? What temptation will there be?
The TNIV includes the word 'all' here to show that the you is plural. That's nice. Which means apparently that Satan has all of the twelve targetted. Why then does Jesus point his comments directly at Simon Peter?
vs 32
Because Jesus is going to use Simon's three-times denial as an example. Poor Peter, remembered forever as the disciple who denied Christ three times. The fact that the rest more or less scattered is not nearly so well remembered.
Anyway, Jesus also sees Peter as a bit of a leader. Even though he is going to fail by denying Christ, Jesus already is talking about his redemption, and once it comes, it will be Simon Peter, the one who denied Christ, who will be looked to by his brothers for strength. Because adversity and struggles with faith make us closer to God. People who just coast through their Christian life and never go through any crises of faith are just that, really - coasters.
vs 33
Oh, how untrue that was.
vs 34
Ever since Jesus set foot in Jerusalem (or Bethany, to be more precise?) he has been going overtime with the prophetic knowledge. I wonder if all prophets were like this - I mean, most of the writing prophets we only have their written sermons, not transcripts of their everyday lives. And I hate to admit that I'm not familiar enough with those that do have such narrative to know whether they are like this all the time. Woe is me.
vs 35
We now see the value of the little short-term mission trip that Jesus sent them on. I might point out that it wasn't really cross-cultural (one kinda was, to Samaria), but that it instead was to people whose language they already spoke and culture they already understood (and I might add, to a people who were expecting a Messiah - we seem to forget that a lot).
Anyway, Jesus sent them on without extra stuff, and yet they never wanted for anything.
vs 36
Different message now, isn't it? Now Jesus wants them to be prepared. He wants them to be ready, to think ahead, to expect the unexpected. They still don't expect it, though.
vs 37
I don't think they need swords so that they are the transgressors he is numbered with. He'll be numbered with transgressors the moment he gets arrested. Of course, that's not the only bit of Scripture that is going to be fulfilled. Jesus knows that he's going to suffer, and die, but also come back, and restore mankind to himself. And it's rushing towards him.
vs 38
So what are the swords for? Sure, one guy gets an ear cut off, and Jesus can then say "No, it's not going to happen that way". But did Jesus want them to have swords just for that to happen? I don't think so. I think he was using swords as an illustration of readiness. If he really wanted them to have swords, why are 2 enough? Jesus I think just isn't going to bother explaining what he meant just now - there are more important things to happen.
vs 39
This was his regular routine, and that is how he gets caught. Judas sells him out on his nightly walk.
vs 40
It's a strange request. What exactly are they to pray for? What temptation will there be?
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Luke chapter 22
vs 21
How could Jesus know this? Because he's super awesome, that's why. It would suck to be the person trying to betray someone who has such wide knowledge.
vs 22
Oooh, and that doesn't sound very nice either, does it. And yet, this verse exemplifies the whole attitude of God and Jesus towards the sinful nature of humanity. They know it's going to happen, and so they go along with it, their plans are in fact set around it. That doesn't make human sinfulness any less tragic or wrong or in need of punishment though.
vs 23
So the disciples all start having a conversation about who is the best candidate for "Most Likely to Betray the Messiah AD 33". Perhaps they did it in secret, or in whispers, or perhaps they did it out loud in front of Jesus and it's just a different culture. Because to me it sounds rude to do that.
vs 24
So while they're doing "Most Likely to Betray the Messiah AD 33", they also decide to take votes on "Most Likely to be Spiritually Successful AD 33". Which isn't much better of a conversation topic, really. The answer is simple - Jesus is the greatest.But then we always want to know where we are ranked so we say, "Yeah yeah, I know that, but who's the next greatest?"
vs 25
The idea being that even the kings themselves know that they benefit from their lordship, from their great position. At least, that's what I think he's saying. Lots of impersonal pronouns in this verse.
vs 26
Can I point out the age-critical culture here? What this verse really means is "the greatest should be like the least worthy", and the idiomatic way of saying that in the ancient culture was youngest. Now tell me what faith like a child means.
vs 27
Jesus points out both the normal position of the greatest person (as one who is served by many) but then shows that he is great, and yet is not in that position, but is instead in a position of service. So he is the ultimate example of greatness here.
vs 28
They ain't seen nothing yet.
vs 29-30
Woah! How often do we talk about this? I know we protestants don't like having saints and all that, fair enough. But the apostles were special. They had a kingdom conferred to them, they have twelve thrones conferred to them. They are not normal 21st century Christians. These guys were special.
I'm not saying we worship them or venerate them or anything. What I am saying is that we need to acknowlege that they lived at a special time, and had some unique experiences, and were treated uniquely too. So we need to think about then uniquely.
How could Jesus know this? Because he's super awesome, that's why. It would suck to be the person trying to betray someone who has such wide knowledge.
vs 22
Oooh, and that doesn't sound very nice either, does it. And yet, this verse exemplifies the whole attitude of God and Jesus towards the sinful nature of humanity. They know it's going to happen, and so they go along with it, their plans are in fact set around it. That doesn't make human sinfulness any less tragic or wrong or in need of punishment though.
vs 23
So the disciples all start having a conversation about who is the best candidate for "Most Likely to Betray the Messiah AD 33". Perhaps they did it in secret, or in whispers, or perhaps they did it out loud in front of Jesus and it's just a different culture. Because to me it sounds rude to do that.
vs 24
So while they're doing "Most Likely to Betray the Messiah AD 33", they also decide to take votes on "Most Likely to be Spiritually Successful AD 33". Which isn't much better of a conversation topic, really. The answer is simple - Jesus is the greatest.But then we always want to know where we are ranked so we say, "Yeah yeah, I know that, but who's the next greatest?"
vs 25
The idea being that even the kings themselves know that they benefit from their lordship, from their great position. At least, that's what I think he's saying. Lots of impersonal pronouns in this verse.
vs 26
Can I point out the age-critical culture here? What this verse really means is "the greatest should be like the least worthy", and the idiomatic way of saying that in the ancient culture was youngest. Now tell me what faith like a child means.
vs 27
Jesus points out both the normal position of the greatest person (as one who is served by many) but then shows that he is great, and yet is not in that position, but is instead in a position of service. So he is the ultimate example of greatness here.
vs 28
They ain't seen nothing yet.
vs 29-30
Woah! How often do we talk about this? I know we protestants don't like having saints and all that, fair enough. But the apostles were special. They had a kingdom conferred to them, they have twelve thrones conferred to them. They are not normal 21st century Christians. These guys were special.
I'm not saying we worship them or venerate them or anything. What I am saying is that we need to acknowlege that they lived at a special time, and had some unique experiences, and were treated uniquely too. So we need to think about then uniquely.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Luke chapter 22
(today's study is done with the TNIV, the NASB, and the KJV - the NIV doesn't want to work this morning)
vs 11
The idea of these guys going up to a stranger out of the blue and asking this is kinda weird. But it wasn't the first time they'd had to do it. It was the second.
vs 12
How nice of him. And where better to celebrate the passover. Except perhaps with your family or something. I don't know. I don't really know the best way to celebrate passover, to be honest.
vs 13
"Preparing the passover" I assume means getting enough wine and a lamb and unleavened bread, and cleaning everything ceremonially and all that stuff.
vs 14
Well, that was a little zoomy bit - we go straight from preparations to Jesus and his buddies reclining at what we assume would be the standard triclinium table.
vs 15
I'm sure that brought a bit of a downer to the whole party. I'm not sure what the typical jewish tradition was to doing the passover - how much partying vs how much cultus, but there's a difference between solemn and sombre. And Jesus is heading for latter.
But I should give him some slack, he is about to die.
vs 16
Does this mean we'll eat the passover in Heaven? I mean, Jesus didn't hang around for a year, so he didn't eat another passover on earth. Or is he just being symbolic, and saying he will "eat it" in heaven, meaning it will be fulfilled.
vs 17
It's a little harder to divide wine than it is bread, so he had to stipulate what was going on here. Otherwise the first one might have drank it all!
vs 18
Now it is interesting here, that Luke does not record Jesus as giving this wine some sort of symbolic significance (certainly not the one we're used to). Instead, he wants them to see this wine as a final drink, never more to be enjoyed until the final coming of the kingdom. He does do it later, don't get me wrong, but this is an extra drink of wine divided amongst everyone that we seem to forget. It is so played down against the other two parts of this passover meal, that we don't even remember it.
vs 19
Now we're in familiar territory. It would have been a pretty solemn occasion - I mean, you don't interrupt a party to do this sort of thing. Does that mean we have to be solemn when we do it? I guess it doesn't hurt to remember the feelings that were floating around at the time, but I think our feelings are allowed to be different. We can be joyful too.
vs 20
Just notice those two small words, 'after supper' (the NASB says "after they had eaten", which makes it ambiguous about whether it was after they had eaten the bread or the whole meal - the greek word here is deipneo - which is a verb meaning 'to sup' which is good enough for me to think they did more than eat a little square of bread). There's a whole meal in between the bread and the wine. That's how you do it in church, right?
vs 11
The idea of these guys going up to a stranger out of the blue and asking this is kinda weird. But it wasn't the first time they'd had to do it. It was the second.
vs 12
How nice of him. And where better to celebrate the passover. Except perhaps with your family or something. I don't know. I don't really know the best way to celebrate passover, to be honest.
vs 13
"Preparing the passover" I assume means getting enough wine and a lamb and unleavened bread, and cleaning everything ceremonially and all that stuff.
vs 14
Well, that was a little zoomy bit - we go straight from preparations to Jesus and his buddies reclining at what we assume would be the standard triclinium table.
vs 15
I'm sure that brought a bit of a downer to the whole party. I'm not sure what the typical jewish tradition was to doing the passover - how much partying vs how much cultus, but there's a difference between solemn and sombre. And Jesus is heading for latter.
But I should give him some slack, he is about to die.
vs 16
Does this mean we'll eat the passover in Heaven? I mean, Jesus didn't hang around for a year, so he didn't eat another passover on earth. Or is he just being symbolic, and saying he will "eat it" in heaven, meaning it will be fulfilled.
vs 17
It's a little harder to divide wine than it is bread, so he had to stipulate what was going on here. Otherwise the first one might have drank it all!
vs 18
Now it is interesting here, that Luke does not record Jesus as giving this wine some sort of symbolic significance (certainly not the one we're used to). Instead, he wants them to see this wine as a final drink, never more to be enjoyed until the final coming of the kingdom. He does do it later, don't get me wrong, but this is an extra drink of wine divided amongst everyone that we seem to forget. It is so played down against the other two parts of this passover meal, that we don't even remember it.
vs 19
Now we're in familiar territory. It would have been a pretty solemn occasion - I mean, you don't interrupt a party to do this sort of thing. Does that mean we have to be solemn when we do it? I guess it doesn't hurt to remember the feelings that were floating around at the time, but I think our feelings are allowed to be different. We can be joyful too.
vs 20
Just notice those two small words, 'after supper' (the NASB says "after they had eaten", which makes it ambiguous about whether it was after they had eaten the bread or the whole meal - the greek word here is deipneo - which is a verb meaning 'to sup' which is good enough for me to think they did more than eat a little square of bread). There's a whole meal in between the bread and the wine. That's how you do it in church, right?
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Luke Chapter 22
(today's exposition is being done with a reading across the usual [NIV, NASB, KJV] but with a new addition, the TNIV - many thanks to biblegateway.com)
vs 1
Just a little snippet into Luke's background here, that he gives us two names for the passover, and says it is 'called' the passover. Gives us a bit of an idea as to who he thought would be reading his gospel too.
vs 2
So Luke is making a couple of points here - that the chief priests and law teachers want Jesus dead, that they were afraid of the people (because they liked Jesus) so they're obviously looking for a clandestine way they can get him, and also that all this is happening as the passover approaches.
vs 3
Here comes the bad guy. All those people who say that Judas was just following a cultural norm of accepting money for passing on a message, read Luke's editorial - Satan entered him. Satan doesn't enter people just so they take part in some otherwise harmless mercantile activity. Luke also introduces him as one of the Twelve, so he's a real traitor.
vs 4
It is a story of betrayal. He goes to them, he approaches them, and gets involved in the conversation. We aren't really given a motive for him, apart from Satan's involvement.
vs 5
Greed could have been part of it. That certainly is one element which has been picked up over history.
vs 6
So no we see Judas' role in the plot - he was to look out for a time when no crowd was present, and the chief priests could apprehend Jesus without the prying eyes of the crowd making judgement.
vs 7
Luke reminds us gentiles about what actually happens on the passover. He doesn't go too deep into details though - perhaps it was for gentiles that new their OT that Luke wrote his gospel.
vs 8
Jesus had every intention of celebrating the passover as normal. Well, more or less normal. At the moment, it seems normal enough.
vs 9
This means, I assume, that none of them owned property in Jerusalem, otherwise you'd assume they would just have it at their house.
vs 10
Once again, Jesus is pulling a rabbit out of a hat. Or, well, a donkey out of a town. Well, this time, it's a guest room out of a stranger. What does this prove? That Jesus is Messiah? Possibly. I mean, predicting that the person will be "the one carrying water" is pretty neat. But I think it also shows that Jesus has supporters beyond his Twelve, and his disciples. Jesus was popular enough, and there were people who might not have followed him around full time, but who supported him enough to give their house to him on passover - I mean, that's the most important festival of the season, and Jesus is asking quite a bit to use the guest room during that time. And if you really believe that these people were just press-ganged into giving up donkeys and guest rooms, well, that might be so. But I think it more likely that they gave it willingly, knowing exactly who was asking and for what purpose. (Well, the donkey thing might have been a bit out of left field.)
vs 1
Just a little snippet into Luke's background here, that he gives us two names for the passover, and says it is 'called' the passover. Gives us a bit of an idea as to who he thought would be reading his gospel too.
vs 2
So Luke is making a couple of points here - that the chief priests and law teachers want Jesus dead, that they were afraid of the people (because they liked Jesus) so they're obviously looking for a clandestine way they can get him, and also that all this is happening as the passover approaches.
vs 3
Here comes the bad guy. All those people who say that Judas was just following a cultural norm of accepting money for passing on a message, read Luke's editorial - Satan entered him. Satan doesn't enter people just so they take part in some otherwise harmless mercantile activity. Luke also introduces him as one of the Twelve, so he's a real traitor.
vs 4
It is a story of betrayal. He goes to them, he approaches them, and gets involved in the conversation. We aren't really given a motive for him, apart from Satan's involvement.
vs 5
Greed could have been part of it. That certainly is one element which has been picked up over history.
vs 6
So no we see Judas' role in the plot - he was to look out for a time when no crowd was present, and the chief priests could apprehend Jesus without the prying eyes of the crowd making judgement.
vs 7
Luke reminds us gentiles about what actually happens on the passover. He doesn't go too deep into details though - perhaps it was for gentiles that new their OT that Luke wrote his gospel.
vs 8
Jesus had every intention of celebrating the passover as normal. Well, more or less normal. At the moment, it seems normal enough.
vs 9
This means, I assume, that none of them owned property in Jerusalem, otherwise you'd assume they would just have it at their house.
vs 10
Once again, Jesus is pulling a rabbit out of a hat. Or, well, a donkey out of a town. Well, this time, it's a guest room out of a stranger. What does this prove? That Jesus is Messiah? Possibly. I mean, predicting that the person will be "the one carrying water" is pretty neat. But I think it also shows that Jesus has supporters beyond his Twelve, and his disciples. Jesus was popular enough, and there were people who might not have followed him around full time, but who supported him enough to give their house to him on passover - I mean, that's the most important festival of the season, and Jesus is asking quite a bit to use the guest room during that time. And if you really believe that these people were just press-ganged into giving up donkeys and guest rooms, well, that might be so. But I think it more likely that they gave it willingly, knowing exactly who was asking and for what purpose. (Well, the donkey thing might have been a bit out of left field.)
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Luke Chapter 21
vs 31
I can't tell if it's summer or winter without a calendar, and even then I have to count the months! But hopefully I am more spiritually aware than seasonally aware, and I will see the kingdom of God coming. That's what the signs are for, after all.
vs 32
Ok, now this is a hard verse. Because obviously there was more than one generation since Jesus said those words. 60-80 generations, you might say depending on how you calculate it. And yet the Son of Man has yet to return with power and great glory. The thing is, though, that the term 'generation' was used fairly loosely in the old days. It didn't simply mean one father to the next son. You look at the genealogies of Jesus - both are missing people that we know about from the OT. What about the OT genealogies? They're missing people too. They are usually put into a numbering system for some meaning.
So I guess it's possible that Jesus mean the generation of Christianity? That there would still be Christians around before this great thing happens? I mean, the movement was pretty small at this stage, remember. A few hundred, perhaps. Even after Pentecost, with a few thousand, that's not really a world-rocking religion. You could be forgiven for thinking it would die out in a couple of hundred years. But it's still here. That in itself is a miracle. But it doesn't help that Jesus said that "this generation" won't pass away. The plain reading is just ot obviously wrong, but any other reading is going to be somewhat of an assumption.
vs 33
Now that one is a much more comforting verse. Both heaven and earth will pass away - and a new heaven and a new earth will be made. But the words of Jesus will always remain - they will cross the gap between the old and new. They are eternal - starting 2000 years ago, still now, and forever more.
vs 34
Dissipation? You mean that the disciples are going to slowly spread out like a gas until they take up the entire area they are in? What a bloody terrible word to use. The NIV and NASB both use it. The KJV uses the even more archaic word 'surfeiting'. But at least I'm not going to get surfeiting (whatever it means) mixed up with dissipate, meaning 'to scatter'. Apparently dissipate used to be used to mean "to indulge in extravagant pleasure". Anyway, the greek word is kraipale, which means "the giddiness and headache caused from drinking excess wine" and it's the only time it's used in the NT. "Hangover", while not perfectly correct (because a hangover comes the day after) is good enough for me. Otherwise, what's the difference between that and methe (drunk)?
Drunkenness? I mean, I didn't imagine the disciples as a bunch of boozers. But there you go. Apparently they're going to be suffering from drunkenness and hangovers! Crazy bunch they were. Makes it sound like, if Jesus hadn't told them not to drink, they wouldn't even be able to walk a straight line.
And yes, the end of days would sneak up on them no worries if they're all sloshed.
vs 35
All at once? It doesn't really say. I guess we just assume that.
vs 36
That's 'stand tall' as it were, although you could be forgiven for thinking that the disciples might have trouble standing up after all their boozing. By 'escape', you could even think that Jesus is saying "pray that you get killed in persecution, so you don't have to be around when the apocalypse hits the fan".
vs 37-38
We have one day of that recorded, basically. But Jesus was doing it every day. Was he saying the same thing? saying all kinds of different things? We don't know. Even in this vital last few days of Christ, you see how much of a hole we have in our history. We got the important stuff, thankfully.
I can't tell if it's summer or winter without a calendar, and even then I have to count the months! But hopefully I am more spiritually aware than seasonally aware, and I will see the kingdom of God coming. That's what the signs are for, after all.
vs 32
Ok, now this is a hard verse. Because obviously there was more than one generation since Jesus said those words. 60-80 generations, you might say depending on how you calculate it. And yet the Son of Man has yet to return with power and great glory. The thing is, though, that the term 'generation' was used fairly loosely in the old days. It didn't simply mean one father to the next son. You look at the genealogies of Jesus - both are missing people that we know about from the OT. What about the OT genealogies? They're missing people too. They are usually put into a numbering system for some meaning.
So I guess it's possible that Jesus mean the generation of Christianity? That there would still be Christians around before this great thing happens? I mean, the movement was pretty small at this stage, remember. A few hundred, perhaps. Even after Pentecost, with a few thousand, that's not really a world-rocking religion. You could be forgiven for thinking it would die out in a couple of hundred years. But it's still here. That in itself is a miracle. But it doesn't help that Jesus said that "this generation" won't pass away. The plain reading is just ot obviously wrong, but any other reading is going to be somewhat of an assumption.
vs 33
Now that one is a much more comforting verse. Both heaven and earth will pass away - and a new heaven and a new earth will be made. But the words of Jesus will always remain - they will cross the gap between the old and new. They are eternal - starting 2000 years ago, still now, and forever more.
vs 34
Dissipation? You mean that the disciples are going to slowly spread out like a gas until they take up the entire area they are in? What a bloody terrible word to use. The NIV and NASB both use it. The KJV uses the even more archaic word 'surfeiting'. But at least I'm not going to get surfeiting (whatever it means) mixed up with dissipate, meaning 'to scatter'. Apparently dissipate used to be used to mean "to indulge in extravagant pleasure". Anyway, the greek word is kraipale, which means "the giddiness and headache caused from drinking excess wine" and it's the only time it's used in the NT. "Hangover", while not perfectly correct (because a hangover comes the day after) is good enough for me. Otherwise, what's the difference between that and methe (drunk)?
Drunkenness? I mean, I didn't imagine the disciples as a bunch of boozers. But there you go. Apparently they're going to be suffering from drunkenness and hangovers! Crazy bunch they were. Makes it sound like, if Jesus hadn't told them not to drink, they wouldn't even be able to walk a straight line.
And yes, the end of days would sneak up on them no worries if they're all sloshed.
vs 35
All at once? It doesn't really say. I guess we just assume that.
vs 36
That's 'stand tall' as it were, although you could be forgiven for thinking that the disciples might have trouble standing up after all their boozing. By 'escape', you could even think that Jesus is saying "pray that you get killed in persecution, so you don't have to be around when the apocalypse hits the fan".
vs 37-38
We have one day of that recorded, basically. But Jesus was doing it every day. Was he saying the same thing? saying all kinds of different things? We don't know. Even in this vital last few days of Christ, you see how much of a hole we have in our history. We got the important stuff, thankfully.
Monday, September 03, 2007
Luke chapter 21
vs 21
I'm given to thinking that this passage is of little relevance to us today, except as a historical witness to the prophetic powers of Jesus.
vs 22
Now here's a novel verse. I wonder what "written" exactly Jesus is speaking about here. I'm not aware of any prophecies requiring the levelling of Jerusalem post-exile. Perhaps the ones pre-exile were only partially fulfilled. Perhaps, on the coming of Christ, the temple had to be well and truly forever smashed, just to show that it doesn't work anymore.
vs 23
I don't think Jesus is calling down a specific curse on pregnant women and nursing mothers. It's not like he's got something particularly against them. What he's saying is that in such times of cursing, these people will be most vulnerable. All of 'this people' are going to be suffering the wrath, though.
vs 24
It really sounds like a second exile, doesn't it? So which one is he talking about, I wonder? I mean, after the destruction of the temple, I think there was a bit of a diaspora. My jewish history is a little shaky, but I think the Jews started spreading out more after that. Certainly they would have when Jerusalem fell to the Muslims. But that's another few hundred years away.
vs 25
Who's going to read these signs in the sun, moon and stars? Not Christians, I reckon - we don't like fortune tellers and horoscopes. I think it would be funny if the weekly horoscope girl in the Women's Weekly found out about the end times before Christians did. The roaring and tossing of the sea is meaningless to us, but to an ancient worldview, the sea is a nasty, brutish, chaotic thing. It is quite often used to portray chaos and destruction. That's why God is portrayed as conquering sea monsters like Leviathan and Rahab. Probably why there is 'no longer any sea' in Revelation when the new Jerusalem comes.
Just goes to show how much of a gap there is between us and the ancients sometimes.
vs 26
And what, exactly, will that do? Will the sun and moon shake in the sky? Or will bits fall off them and fall to earth as a result? Will it just be an earthquake so big that the sky will seem to shake?
vs 27
Who cares about the last verse - if the sun starts shaking, then you know Jesus is coming back. I'll try my best not to faint from terror then.
vs 28
Aye aye.
I say Yes Sir, but what things exactly is he talking about? Is he only talking about the signs of the sun, moon and stars? the NIV puts a paragraph division at the start of that, which sort of suggests it. Or is he going back to the armies surrounding Jerusalem? Surely not as far as the persecution. That's been going on for millenia.
If we do break it up to only the sun and stars and moons, that seems to make some sense. Because you've got 4 sections then: the "war and stuff but that's not a sign" bit, the "Christians get persecuted" bit, the "Jerusalem gets owned" bit (otherwise known as the "times of the Gentiles" bit), and then the "heavens shake and Jesus appears" bit.
vs 29
All the trees in the world? Or just the local fig tree and its surrounding trees? Or is this a metaphor?
vs 30
Must be a metaphor, unless it also happens that summer is coming near at this time. We could probably work out what time of year it is... a week before crucifixion is unlikely to be summer coming, methinks. Unless you can tell that summer is coming in a few months.
I'm given to thinking that this passage is of little relevance to us today, except as a historical witness to the prophetic powers of Jesus.
vs 22
Now here's a novel verse. I wonder what "written" exactly Jesus is speaking about here. I'm not aware of any prophecies requiring the levelling of Jerusalem post-exile. Perhaps the ones pre-exile were only partially fulfilled. Perhaps, on the coming of Christ, the temple had to be well and truly forever smashed, just to show that it doesn't work anymore.
vs 23
I don't think Jesus is calling down a specific curse on pregnant women and nursing mothers. It's not like he's got something particularly against them. What he's saying is that in such times of cursing, these people will be most vulnerable. All of 'this people' are going to be suffering the wrath, though.
vs 24
It really sounds like a second exile, doesn't it? So which one is he talking about, I wonder? I mean, after the destruction of the temple, I think there was a bit of a diaspora. My jewish history is a little shaky, but I think the Jews started spreading out more after that. Certainly they would have when Jerusalem fell to the Muslims. But that's another few hundred years away.
vs 25
Who's going to read these signs in the sun, moon and stars? Not Christians, I reckon - we don't like fortune tellers and horoscopes. I think it would be funny if the weekly horoscope girl in the Women's Weekly found out about the end times before Christians did. The roaring and tossing of the sea is meaningless to us, but to an ancient worldview, the sea is a nasty, brutish, chaotic thing. It is quite often used to portray chaos and destruction. That's why God is portrayed as conquering sea monsters like Leviathan and Rahab. Probably why there is 'no longer any sea' in Revelation when the new Jerusalem comes.
Just goes to show how much of a gap there is between us and the ancients sometimes.
vs 26
And what, exactly, will that do? Will the sun and moon shake in the sky? Or will bits fall off them and fall to earth as a result? Will it just be an earthquake so big that the sky will seem to shake?
vs 27
Who cares about the last verse - if the sun starts shaking, then you know Jesus is coming back. I'll try my best not to faint from terror then.
vs 28
Aye aye.
I say Yes Sir, but what things exactly is he talking about? Is he only talking about the signs of the sun, moon and stars? the NIV puts a paragraph division at the start of that, which sort of suggests it. Or is he going back to the armies surrounding Jerusalem? Surely not as far as the persecution. That's been going on for millenia.
If we do break it up to only the sun and stars and moons, that seems to make some sense. Because you've got 4 sections then: the "war and stuff but that's not a sign" bit, the "Christians get persecuted" bit, the "Jerusalem gets owned" bit (otherwise known as the "times of the Gentiles" bit), and then the "heavens shake and Jesus appears" bit.
vs 29
All the trees in the world? Or just the local fig tree and its surrounding trees? Or is this a metaphor?
vs 30
Must be a metaphor, unless it also happens that summer is coming near at this time. We could probably work out what time of year it is... a week before crucifixion is unlikely to be summer coming, methinks. Unless you can tell that summer is coming in a few months.
Sunday, September 02, 2007
Luke chapter 21
vs 11
Earthquakes, famines and pestilences happen all the time, and happened before Jesus was even born. So don't think they're anything special. I mean, they might get worse, but we'll have to wait and see there. I don't think there's evidence that earthquakes are getting worse as the years go by.
Fearful events and great signs from heaven could be darn near anything. My (somewhat tired) point about verses like this these days is that when these things happen, they will be so obviously what they are that Christians will have no choice but to recognise them. Otherwise, what's the point of a "great sign from heaven" if we don't recognise it? And even then, we get these things wrong.
vs 12
This happened within months of Jesus' resurrection, so it's a little hard to judge this on the end-of-days timeline. All these nutter Christians who talk about the government building "sound barriers" on the motorways to prevent Christians from escaping the roads when they want to do their mass slaughters are honestly stupider than fried chicken. Christians are suffering this stuff now! Perhaps not in Australia, but then we've got to grow our minds to remember the entire Church, not just our backwater. And when it comes to church, Australia is a backwater.
Anyway, the persecution of Christians isn't going to point us any closer to the end times unless it becomes global (which it was in the 1st to 4th centuries, remember).
vs 13
Whether they listen or not is of course not up to us. But even in persecution or death, a Christian can be a witness.
vs 14
Ok, now this verse I think particularly is weird. Don't be concerned with your defence. I think the problem I have with this passage mostly is the english translation. The translation is fine - it's idiomatic english that's the problem! I think when I read this, I see the phrase "not to worry" and I think "she'll be right". But I don't think that's what it's saying. Or perhaps "don't worry about it", and I think "don't think about it". But I don't think it's saying that either.
I think it's fine to think about your defence. The idea here is not to worry about it, in the more proper sense of a troubled concern or desperation over it. So we are allowed to use our brains here.
vs 15
That's the gospel. It can't be contradicted, although many have tried.
vs 16
I suggest reading Deuteronomy 13:6-10 in comparison with this verse, and tell me that the Law itself did not condemn Christians.
vs 17
And if we really stuck our necks out for the gospel, this is how it would be. And I don't mean they'd hate us because we badger them with our views and it's annoying. It's not "all men will be annoyed at you because of me". It's because we confront them with a truth about their own sinfulness and the judgement to come, and their inability to fix it on their own. Everyone hates those two things about the gospel.
Remember that - men will hate you because of God (and his gospel and his actions), but shouldn't because of you and your actions.
vs 18
Now you've really got to wonder - this is surely an odd thing for Jesus to say. Of the 12 apostles, (not to mention the other disciples around), how many of them were martyred? So what does Jesus mean here? I hate to say it, but I think you've got to read this verse in context with the next verse...
vs 19
which means that lots of hairs are going to perish, along with the rest of your body if you're not careful (or even regardless of care). But this has to be held against the life you will gain from standing firm. In the long run, our eternal hair will not be harmed. I said I don't like that reading, and that's because it's not a simple reading, it's a complex reading. But I don't think you can read it another way.
vs 20
But only its desolation. Jerusalem has been surrounded by armies at least 5 major times in history - I don't think Jesus came back after any of those, so I'd say it's probably not a good sign on its own. We've got to remember our history, people! Far too often we jump from 1st century to 21st century. It's unhealthy. Stretches the pants.
Earthquakes, famines and pestilences happen all the time, and happened before Jesus was even born. So don't think they're anything special. I mean, they might get worse, but we'll have to wait and see there. I don't think there's evidence that earthquakes are getting worse as the years go by.
Fearful events and great signs from heaven could be darn near anything. My (somewhat tired) point about verses like this these days is that when these things happen, they will be so obviously what they are that Christians will have no choice but to recognise them. Otherwise, what's the point of a "great sign from heaven" if we don't recognise it? And even then, we get these things wrong.
vs 12
This happened within months of Jesus' resurrection, so it's a little hard to judge this on the end-of-days timeline. All these nutter Christians who talk about the government building "sound barriers" on the motorways to prevent Christians from escaping the roads when they want to do their mass slaughters are honestly stupider than fried chicken. Christians are suffering this stuff now! Perhaps not in Australia, but then we've got to grow our minds to remember the entire Church, not just our backwater. And when it comes to church, Australia is a backwater.
Anyway, the persecution of Christians isn't going to point us any closer to the end times unless it becomes global (which it was in the 1st to 4th centuries, remember).
vs 13
Whether they listen or not is of course not up to us. But even in persecution or death, a Christian can be a witness.
vs 14
Ok, now this verse I think particularly is weird. Don't be concerned with your defence. I think the problem I have with this passage mostly is the english translation. The translation is fine - it's idiomatic english that's the problem! I think when I read this, I see the phrase "not to worry" and I think "she'll be right". But I don't think that's what it's saying. Or perhaps "don't worry about it", and I think "don't think about it". But I don't think it's saying that either.
I think it's fine to think about your defence. The idea here is not to worry about it, in the more proper sense of a troubled concern or desperation over it. So we are allowed to use our brains here.
vs 15
That's the gospel. It can't be contradicted, although many have tried.
vs 16
I suggest reading Deuteronomy 13:6-10 in comparison with this verse, and tell me that the Law itself did not condemn Christians.
vs 17
And if we really stuck our necks out for the gospel, this is how it would be. And I don't mean they'd hate us because we badger them with our views and it's annoying. It's not "all men will be annoyed at you because of me". It's because we confront them with a truth about their own sinfulness and the judgement to come, and their inability to fix it on their own. Everyone hates those two things about the gospel.
Remember that - men will hate you because of God (and his gospel and his actions), but shouldn't because of you and your actions.
vs 18
Now you've really got to wonder - this is surely an odd thing for Jesus to say. Of the 12 apostles, (not to mention the other disciples around), how many of them were martyred? So what does Jesus mean here? I hate to say it, but I think you've got to read this verse in context with the next verse...
vs 19
which means that lots of hairs are going to perish, along with the rest of your body if you're not careful (or even regardless of care). But this has to be held against the life you will gain from standing firm. In the long run, our eternal hair will not be harmed. I said I don't like that reading, and that's because it's not a simple reading, it's a complex reading. But I don't think you can read it another way.
vs 20
But only its desolation. Jerusalem has been surrounded by armies at least 5 major times in history - I don't think Jesus came back after any of those, so I'd say it's probably not a good sign on its own. We've got to remember our history, people! Far too often we jump from 1st century to 21st century. It's unhealthy. Stretches the pants.
Saturday, September 01, 2007
Luke chapter 21
vs 1
Probably hard not to see their donations. I assume that it was not a pass-the-bag type of thing like we do in churches, but rather than you just went up and gave it to a person, or put it in a box or something similar.
vs 2
And so the comparison between the giving of the rich and the poor is made. But Jesus makes it a different way.
vs 3-4
We often read this story and think about the sacrificial giving of the widow. But to be honest, I think it's irresponsible to put all your money in the church bag. Some people think that's faith. I think God gave you the money in the first place, to look after your family.
I think we read this story out of context with the story before it. The Teachers of the law have just been charged with devouring the houses of the widow. There it was in action.
vs 5
I'm sure it was a beautiful building. And it was a talking point of the city, I'll bet.
vs 6
In about, what, 40 years from when Jesus said this, it would happen. And from then on, the temple would never ever be rebuilt. The temple, in every part of Israel's history, was the bad part about their religion, methinks. Some of the best jewish reformation happened when they didn't have a temple - during the exile.
vs 7
This seems to me a reasonable question. I mean, especially when you're a disciple, you're hoping for the skinny on these sorts of things.
vs 8
I wonder when the first person claiming he was Jesus appeared? Considering that there's a common mental disorder where you claim to be God (or Jesus), that would have happened within a few hundred years - once Christianity had become more culturally acceptable. But someone like the Waco cult thing - probably happened within 30 years or so, knowing humanity.
vs 9
Remember that wars and rumours of wars will not signal the end of the world! They just happen! And remember that they don't just happen, they must happen! That doesn't mean we have to like it - only that God's got a plan.
vs 10
I think every generation has seen that. We seem to think that only WW1 and WW2 count, and that before that there was only the Crusades or something. War is a human constant. It doesn't signify anything short of we suck at being friends.
Probably hard not to see their donations. I assume that it was not a pass-the-bag type of thing like we do in churches, but rather than you just went up and gave it to a person, or put it in a box or something similar.
vs 2
And so the comparison between the giving of the rich and the poor is made. But Jesus makes it a different way.
vs 3-4
We often read this story and think about the sacrificial giving of the widow. But to be honest, I think it's irresponsible to put all your money in the church bag. Some people think that's faith. I think God gave you the money in the first place, to look after your family.
I think we read this story out of context with the story before it. The Teachers of the law have just been charged with devouring the houses of the widow. There it was in action.
vs 5
I'm sure it was a beautiful building. And it was a talking point of the city, I'll bet.
vs 6
In about, what, 40 years from when Jesus said this, it would happen. And from then on, the temple would never ever be rebuilt. The temple, in every part of Israel's history, was the bad part about their religion, methinks. Some of the best jewish reformation happened when they didn't have a temple - during the exile.
vs 7
This seems to me a reasonable question. I mean, especially when you're a disciple, you're hoping for the skinny on these sorts of things.
vs 8
I wonder when the first person claiming he was Jesus appeared? Considering that there's a common mental disorder where you claim to be God (or Jesus), that would have happened within a few hundred years - once Christianity had become more culturally acceptable. But someone like the Waco cult thing - probably happened within 30 years or so, knowing humanity.
vs 9
Remember that wars and rumours of wars will not signal the end of the world! They just happen! And remember that they don't just happen, they must happen! That doesn't mean we have to like it - only that God's got a plan.
vs 10
I think every generation has seen that. We seem to think that only WW1 and WW2 count, and that before that there was only the Crusades or something. War is a human constant. It doesn't signify anything short of we suck at being friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)