A Confusing Ending

This is the Bible study page for the Thursday Night Bible Study Group meeting (hopefully) January 26 to study Luke 21:5-38 (the end of the chapter).  This passage mostly parallels Matthew 24 and Mark 13, but the elements are similar not exactly alike.  It would be good to read those other two chapters along with Luke.

I recommend trying to break down this passage into individual events; as small as possible.  For instance verses 8 and 9 are about those coming falsely in His name.  That would be one small event, and there are other references like that all through out.  Once you have that breakdown, you can better compare with Matthew and Mark.  Make notes and jot down questions as you go through the process.  Here again, various translations will help.

Once you have your own notes and questions, then go through a commentary or two.  For this passage, there may not be enough to use in a study Bible or one-volume commentary.  I recommend something you can find on Blue Letter Bible or some other multi-volume commentary.  Adjust your notes and questions accordingly.  Once through your own study, go back through with the questions below:

• In Matthew and Mark the quality of the temple on which the disciple(s) comment seems to be the buildings, Mark has the "stones", but in Luke it's the "beautiful stones" and "gifts".  What sort of "source" do you think might have been used by the three writers?  Why a difference here?
• Jesus' response in each Gospel is almost exactly the same.  In Jesus' comment, the stones are the material used to build.  If the question is slightly different, but the answer is the same, what does this tell you about the "source" for all three Gospels?
• To whom is Jesus talking, Matthew and Luke have "the disciples" but Mark says, "Peter, James, John, and Andrew privately".  Consider that Mark's source is thought to be Peter, why do you think there would be a difference here?
• The disciples ask Jesus "when these things will happen" in one way or another.  What "things" do you think they are asking about?
• Jesus' intro in each account begins with "See that no one mislead you".  What does this tell you about a consistent theme of the "end-times"?  How often has this happened already?
• Many are misled/deceived by those claiming to be the Messiah.  Why do you think that would be?  What do you think would have to be true for that to happen to "many"?
• So false-messiahs and wars and news reels of war are not the end.  So why do you think Jesus leads with this statement?
• Nation rising against nation, earthquakes, and famines all make up the next part.  Luke adds "terrors and signs from heaven", but does not have the reference to "birth pangs".  Why do you think he would make that change?  What do you think is Luke's point?
• At this point the three Gospel accounts start to differ greatly and it gets somewhat confusing to try and connect them.  Luke and Mark seem to be closest, but still have differences.  In essence there may have been "editorial choices" about the order and element of Jesus' statements.  But even it wasn't the issue, what do these differences tell you about this section of the Gospels?
• The next section in Luke is the legal persecution (v.12-19), but there are even smaller elements to be seen in this one.  By looking at the other gospels, how many sections to do you divide this one into?
• Notice that much of the sayings in this section are actually distributed around Matthew (10:17-22), it's not just Luke who did that.  So it's possible some of this material doesn't belong to this discourse at this time on the Mount of Olives.  Why do you think that might be?  Why do you think the gospel writers would have any such liberty with the material?
• Common features are the persecution is an opportunity for witness, the Holy Spirit will give the right words, family will betray family members, and endurance saves.  What do these common factors tell you about the church and persecution?
• The destruction of Jerusalem is foretold in verses 20 to 24.  The parallels in Matthew and Mark are Matt 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20.  Luke's description differs in key points from Matthew and Mark.  Matthew and Mark speak of a "great tribulation" in those days and Luke leaves that particular description out.  He still refers to a persecution but it more on Jews than on the world at large.  From Matthew and Mark what do you surmise about the timing of the destruction of Jerusalem?  How is the timing different from Luke? Or is it?
• In Luke 25 through 28, Jesus describes His return.  The parallels in Matthew and Mark are Matt 24:29 to 31 and Mark 13:24 to 27.  Luke's description is less detailed, and has only one Scripture reference ("the Son of Man coming in a cloud" Dan. 7:13).  What do you consider the point and timing of Matthew and Mark as opposed to Luke?  What significant differences do you see?
• The next section I see (you may see more or less) is in verses 29 to 33.  The parallels are in Matthew 24:32 to 36 and Mark 13:28 to 32.  In all three Jesus says to watch for signs.  Considering the vast and terrifying array of signs He's mentioned, to which of them do you think He refers right here?
• Read this small section carefully.  Consider all that has gone before, and then the specific wording in all three Gospels.  What do you think Jesus means by "...all these things..." that will take place before the generation passes?  Just consider the plain surface meaning.
• Matthew and Mark both have this immediately following statement that 'no one knows the day or hour' which is missing in Luke.  Why do you think, if they are to watch for signs, would Jesus then say no one knows the day or hour? 
• This section is probably the single most problematic for commentators.  What sorts of explanations were you able to find, and which explanation best fits the facts for you?  How clear were those explanations from the text?  Were they the "plain sense" or was there some grammatical/literary gymnastics necessary?
• The last section (for me) of this discourse in Luke is in verses 34 to 36.  The parallels are Matthew 24:43 to 51 (includes a long parable of readiness) and Mark 13:33 to 37 (includes a short parable of readiness).  Luke's description is simple and direct.  Matthew and Mark are more involved with the parable and so on.  How do you see the tone in Luke similar and yet different from Matthew and Mark?  What does that tell you about how each writer was able to use the material slightly differently?
• Luke wraps up with a simple declaration of Jesus' week in Jerusalem.  The other Gospels (including John) have a lot more detail on that week.  Luke is heading to the crucifixion and doesn't waste a lot of time on the week.  Why do you think that Luke is different here?  What does that tell you about Luke's point of his Gospel and audience?

That should more than consume our time together.  You can see we have plenty of stuff to discuss.  Be sure to use more detailed commentaries this time as study Bible notes simply won't be detailed enough but more general.

Two final questions: 1) when was the last time you heard a sermon or lesson on readiness for Jesus' return?  2) How ready are you for Him to return?

What Changed?

This is the Bible study page for the Thursday Night Group Meeting January 8 to study 2 Samuel 4 (possibly 5).  Chapter 4 is another link in the story of David's kingdom being established.  In this chapter events are aligned which remove the remaining obstacles between David and the rest of Israel's tribes; at least the obvious ones.  The passage of time between the accounts is never reconciled, and doesn't seem to be important to the writer/editor.

Read through chapter 4 and 5 together.  We may start 5, but they belong together even if we do them separately.  Really chapters 1 through 5 belong together, and are referred to as the 'succession narrative'.  There's another 'succession narrative' with Solomon, but after that, they're either short or non-existent.  A 'succession narrative' shows the various hurdles overcome to establish a king on a throne.  This had to happen every time a king came to power, even in Judah, but we only have the details of David and Solomon.

Remember to take notes, jot down questions, and see what you can find to reconcile problems you find.  There are plenty of places where the text seems to show what happens, but doesn't explain inconsistencies.  They drive us crazy, but didn't seem to bother the initial audience, or detract from the point of the author/editor.

After reading through a few times on your own, and with your own questions/notes taken, read through again with the questions below:

Chapter 4

• Why do you think, if Ish-Bosheth was afraid of Abner, he 'looses courage' when Abner dies?  Why do you think he wasn't 'comforted'?
• All Israel is 'disturbed' when Abner dies.  What do you imagine might have been their greatest concerns or fears?
• Regardless of where "Beeroth" fell in the tribal regions of Israel, the point of the author/editor is that they are Benjamites.  Why do you think that would be important here?
• Why do you think Mephibosheth is mentioned here?  Different commentators have different ideas about it, but what do you think?
• In almost every translation, the deed of killing Ish-Bosheth is repeated.  If you have a New Living Translation, look at their wording for it.  The reason for the difference is that the NLT used the Greek text instead of the Hebrew at this point.  Keep in mind that the available Greek text is older than the Hebrew.  Which do you think is easier to explain as an 'editorial change', a duplication or a consistent story?
• The two brothers go to David as quickly as possible.  Yet David seems to know the details of Ish-Bosheth's death already.  So how do you think that happened?  What are some explanations you came up with or found in commentaries? (there aren't wrong answers here)
• David refers to the death of the Amalekite who announces Saul's death to him in Ziklag.  Do you think, considering how people in this story seem to know so much, these guys hadn't heard that particular one?
• Again David has someone kill the 'bearers of "good news"' in a way.  Why do you think he didn't do this with Joab when he killed Abner?  For some context here, read 1 Kings 2:5 and 6.  What do you think it is about Joab that 'protects' him from David?

Chapter 5

•  The elders of the all the tribes come to David, finally.  Considering what they say to him, why do you think it has taken them so long to come to David?  Who's death do you think really cinched it for them, Abner or Ish-Bosheth?
• They site the prophecy that David will shepherd Israel.  Where do you think they heard that?  Was Abner the first or was it widely distributed around prior?  There is a historical saying that the 'victors get to write the history'.  How much of that do you think might be happening here?
• After the elders make their statement, they make a covenant with David, and anoint him king over all Israel.  What do you think made up the covenant?  Was it a 'Bill of Rights' sort of thing or do you think it was what they were willing to do?  There's no record of it, so it's all guess.
• The timing issue comes up again.  Seven years and six months over Judah in Hebron, does that mean only Judah?  The impression this gives is that as soon as he was anointed king, he takes Jerusalem.  So, how does Ish-Bosheth only reign 2 years over all Israel while David reigns seven over all Judah?
• It says 'The king and his men' came to Jerusalem.  Some think this just means the 600 who followed David before he became king.  Some think it just refers to the army in general.  Why do you think it would be important for David to take Jerusalem without the help of the other tribes?
• The Jebusites are Caananite hold-outs against Israel, but also against the Philistines.  They are very confident in their city defenses.  What does David seem to know that other attackers don't?
• Verses 1 through 5 seem to establish that David is anointed (accepted by the other tribes, finally). Six through ten are the establishment of Jerusalem as his capital.  Eleven through sixteen are the establishment of his 'dwelling' and life there.  Why do you think this progression is so important to his ascension to the throne of Israel?  Why all the detail about his wives, concubines, and sons for instance?  The writer did this for Hebron too, so what do you think is the point?
• Seventeen through the rest of the chapter, is the defeat of the Philistines.  What do you think might be significant about the 'place' where they fight (The Valley of Raphaim)?  
• What, if anything, might be significant about 'all the Philistines' going up to fight David?
• In the first defeat of the Philistines, David takes spoils of idols.  Why do you think that might be significant?
• In the second defeat of the Philistines, they pursue them to their cities.  Why do you think the difference might be important?
• In both instances David inquires of God.  Each time he gets a different answer.  So how do you imagine this happening?  What does David do to inquire?
• The response the second time has some interesting detail.  What does this detail mean for the method David used to inquire?  How does this detail influence how you imagine David inquiring of God?
• David has success, lots of it.  Yet his victories still are due to his inquiry of God.  What does that say about our lives?  Do you see the value of knowing how David inquired of God?  How can we also inquire of God?

We'll focus on chapter 4 and see if we make it into 5.  See you all Thursday!

Poetic Encouragement

This is the Bible study page for the Thursday Night Bible Study Group meeting January 9 to study Isaiah 40.  This is probably one of my favorite passages in Scripture.  It forms the opening of the second section of Isaiah, directed toward the Israelites in exile in Babylon/Persia. 

Some believe this section of Isaiah was written late, during the time of Daniel, others that it was written early, foreshadowing their eventual return.  I think it was written by a remnant of a 'school' of prophets first started/run by Isaiah during the exile.  I'm not sure if they would have been located in Jerusalem or in exile, but the romantic in me likes the thought of Jerusalem (the least likely option).  That would mean the writers wrote from the rubble of Jerusalem words of hope to the exiles in a pagan land. 

Anyway, read the chapter through several times.  This is poetry, not the usual narrative texts we have studied so far, so you can expect to find a LOT more peculiarities and variety in translations.  Translating poetry from one language to another is the most difficult sort of translation (that and humor probably tie).  The problem is the poetic 'license' and 'imagery' used are not to be understood literally.  This is usually handled well in most translations; but read it in several translations, and consider the differences and what they might mean.

After reading it through a few times, go back over it considering these questions:

• Consider the audience in the opening lines.  'Comfort' is an imperative (command), and it's plural.  Consider who is to be comforted.  What is the goal, at the outset, of the writer, and of God through the writer?
• In verse 3 through 5, do you think the audience has remained the exiles?
• Who winds up being the 'voice' referred to in verse 3?
• Who is the highway for?  So, 'who's coming to dinner' so to speak?  So, why do you think it would be difficult for modern Jews to deny so vehemently that the Messiah could be deity?
• Verses 6 through 8 (possibly through 11) there is a dialogue.  The content of the 'crying out' is two fold (if the dialog extends through verse 11), so how do you think the two pieces relate?  Why do you think they were combined here?
• There are at least two elements of God's character described between verse 12 and 17.  His holiness and his glory seem to be the main things in these verses.  Why do you think the audience needs to hear that?  How do these elements of God's character affect you hearing/reading them like this?
• In verses 18 through 26, the worship involving idols is really addressed well.  Why do you think this needs to be addressed, either with the exiles or with the people left in Judah?
• What do you see as the major contrast between idol worship and worship of God?
• Considering the 'resume' of God in verses 21 through 26, what problem do you think this addressing with the audience?  What are they supposed to have known 'from the foundations of the earth', and why do you think they might have forgotten it?
• Verses 27 through 31 are the most famous of this chapter, especially 31.  It begins with a 'quote' either from the exiles or the people in Jerusalem/Judah.  Considering that the way the poetry is structured the focus of the quote is on the 'justice' and 'pathway' of the one speaking, what is the danger of such a focus on our justice and our way of life?
• How do you think knowing that God is never tired and His understanding is unsearchable helps people in bad circumstances?
• The things the audience wants, power and strength, find their source somewhere other than youth.  Why do you think the people needed to know this?  Why might you?
• What does it mean to you or what would it look like for you to 'wait expectantly' for God?  Why would do that renew your strength?  How do you think that 'works' or is that even the right question to ask?

That should keep us busy for quite some time.  Be sure to bring notes and questions of your own. 

In Search of Facts

This is the study page for the Thursday Night Group meeting March 28, when we will be covering Acts 22.  This chapter continues the events of Chapter 21, and again leaves us with a "cliff hanger".

Again, there are plenty of elements to this chapter, like 21, that are rather peculiar.  It would be helpful to go back and read Paul's conversion in chapter 9.  Some of the details Paul relates seem different, some way more than others.

Read the chapter through several times.  Look for things that spark questions or seem to require some further explanation.  Jot them down as you go through.  Some of these may be answered as you go through the chapter, some won't, and there will be some for which we won't be able to find answers (get used to it, if you aren't already).

After reading through a few times, read through again considering the questions below:

• Through verse 5, it all sounds familiar.  At what point do things begin to sound different from Chapter 9?
• How many points of difference between Paul's account here and chapter 9 can you find?  (I found at least 8 depending on how some are combined)
• At what point do the Jews stop listening?  What does that tell you about what they think this is about?  How accurate is their assumption?
• What does the commander order done to Paul?  Why?
• What does Paul bring up at this point?  Luke set us up for this in chapter 16, but it was brought up differently there, why would that be?
• The conversation between the centurion, the commander, and then Paul is short, but what do we learn about the commander?  What sort of situation is he in?  What's the problem he faces?
• What does he decide to do?  What does it tell you about the Romans in Jerusalem that he can do that?  What do you think the council will be thinking and feeling as they arrive?

We're left, again, without Paul's defense which will be where we begin next week.  Be sure to bring your questions and notes!

Struck Down, But Not Destroyed

This is the study page for the Thursday Night Group meeting on March 21 to study Acts 21.  This is a very busy chapter with a "cliff-hanger" ending.  The ending is so abrupt it provides a good example of how arbitrary these chapter breaks can be.

Read through the chapter several times (if you haven't already, and I hope you have).  Jot down points of interest, and peculiarity.  Make notes and questions.  Look especially at things Luke mentions but does not explain, but still try to put yourself in the activity, observing.

Once you've been through a few times, go through again using the questions below:

• What is Paul being continually warned about?  What sort of literary device might Luke be using here?
• With whom do they stay in Caesarea?  Remember him?  What note about Philip does Luke include which is somewhat surprising/different?
• Where does the prophet come from?  What does he do with Paul's belt?  What does he say about this, who told him to say this?
• What does everyone do when they hear the prophecy?  What does Paul do?
• What was already arranged before they arrived?  In fact who goes with them to Jerusalem?
• What is the comment about their reception in Jerusalem?  Hang on to that for a sec.
• With whom does Paul and his company meet the next day?  Who is present?
• What does Paul relate to this "august" group?
• Look carefully at the response of the Jerusalem elders.  Look at what they say to Paul in a few translations. Where are these "thousands of Jews who have believed..." located, or at least now?
• What do you gather about the elders view of these Jewish believers?  For whom are they a problem?  What problem are the elders trying to solve?
• Considering this view, where these Jewish believers not from, or at least likely not from?
• What have these Jewish believers been told about Paul?  Who would have told them?  Again, where would this most likely have happened (considering the reception the elders gave Paul)?
• Think about the elders' solution, where had we heard of this before concerning Paul? (hint: Luke noted it in passing in a normal narrative, oh and Paul was in "Europe")
• What will this prove?  If this is such good proof, then what does that mean for Paul's previous experience with it?  So what is Paul's personal view/practice concerning the Law of Moses?
• What do you think of the repetition of their decree concerning the Gentile believers?  Why here?
• How long does Paul wait to follow their advice?  What does it tell you that he does follow their advice?
• How long is he in this process?  So for these days what could be surmised about his view of the Law of Moses by any observer?  Why then did these people miss what was supposed to be obvious?
• What do they claim Paul did (on top of everything else they claimed)?  And why would they claim such a thing?
• If Paul was with a Gentile in town during the week, how "pure" would he have been after the week?  How would the people know someone in town was a "Gentile" anyway?
• Where do think these Jews are from?  So, did Paul make it for Pentecost?
• How did the city respond?  How did the "city" know?
• As the mob gets going, who reacts?  Who does he bring with him?  Who is he anyway?
• How does the crowd respond to his arrival?
• What does this Roman commander do when he arrives at the mob center?
• What does the mob's information tell you about them?
• If they don't know why they are beating someone, why beat him?
• Where is Paul taken?  How is he taken?
• What does Paul tell the commander before he enters the barracks?  What does he want to do?
• If he was being beaten by a crowd, why is he so "cognizant" now?  What does that tell you about Paul, or about the beating?
• Who did the commander think Paul was?  What seems odd about that?  Who are these "assassins"? (look them up)
• How does Paul quiet the crowd?  What does that tell you about the crowd and where Paul is?

That should be plenty for this Thursday.  There's a lot of detail that Luke seems to have left out, but we will try to fill in some blanks, and see if we can complete a better backdrop to this events.  We also learn some things about Paul that were either assumed or hinted at in previous passages of Acts.  Bring your questions and notes to the meeting.

See you there!

Who Let You In Here?

This is the study page for the Thursday Night Small Group meeting on November 29.  The Scripture passage is Acts chapter 11.  This passage falls neatly into two sections, verses 1-18 regarding Peter being challenged about the acceptance of Gentiles, and verses 19-30 about the believers in Antioch.

As you read this chapter, catch the last 4 verses of chapter 10 just for context.  Read this chapter through several times (hopefully you already have been).  Look for things that "don't match", and what I mean by that is questions that don't match the setup of the problem, answers that don't match questions, or events and actions that don't match initial intent.  Things like that can indicate some element of the account that Luke assumed was understood without explanation. They can also indicate some sort of cultural idiom, custom, or etiquette.  Look for other pieces that are strange, out of place, or just hit you cross ways.  List them, look into them (you can use the Blue Letter Bible website), and share them with us on Thursday.

After you've done some poking around on your own, or if you haven't found anything as you did so, consider the questions below as you go through the chapter:

• What had the believers in Judea heard about the Gentiles?
• Who addressed Peter in Jerusalem?
• What did they ask?  What does that have to do with what was heard?
• Why would this be important? (we sort of discussed this in chapter 10 with the whole "heavenly sheet" thing)
• How does Peter respond?  What does verse 4 say in various translations?
• Look up the Greek word used to describe how Peter went through his explanation (G2517).  Why do it that way?  What's his intent?
• What two responses does Peter get to his explanation?
• What do Peter's inquisitors conclude from his account?  (hang onto that piece of info for later)
• Why are people spreading throughout the region?
• What might that mean for the timing of these events?
• Look up the three "regions" mentioned in verse 19 on a map (one included below).  What's the relationship between all three?  Which one is different?

 

•  What prompts the proclamation to the Gentiles?  Consider the timing again, why is this interesting?
• What do those in Jerusalem do in response?
• What does Barnabas do once he arrives? (At least four things)
• What doesn't he do that might be expected?
• If these events occurred before the preceding 18 verses, then how does that affect your understanding of the reception Peter received when he arrived in Jerusalem?
• What are the differences between what Peter does and what happens in Antioch?
• What do you suppose will happen once Barnabas and Saul reach Jerusalem?

That should get us going for a nice discussion Thursday!  Be sure to bring the other questions and things you found in your own study.  We need your perspective on this.

I look forward to Thursday's discussion.  Have a blessed week!