FOLLOW UP TO SESSION 8: Lamb of God / Cross

I always find it interesting that the Gospel of John calls Jesus the "Lamb of God." Interestingly, unlike Matthew, Mark, & Luke, John has Jesus crucified at the same time the Passover Lambs are being slaughtered. Then, for many years, we have made the "leap" that Jesus was a lamb sacrificed for the atonement of our sins.

Yet, let's consider the Passover. What was it about? It was not about "sin." It was about being released from the bondage of slavery in Egypt; it was about liberation.

If that is the case (and it is), why was the Passover lamb slaughtered? It was food for the journey - food to help the Israelites along the way! Thus, when the Jewish people remember the Passover every year, the lamb continues to be food for the journey of faith - food to help them along the way.

What new insights does this give you into what Jesus was all about?

++++++++++++++++++++

I find it interesting that we often hear, "Jesus died on the cross so I would not have to." Yet, put yourself in the 1st Century, in the time of Jesus. What was the only meaning of the cross? The answer is crucifixion. How, then, can the statement above be aligned with this passage of Scripture (emphasis added):

Mark 8: 34 Jesus called the crowd with his disciples, and said to them, "If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 35 For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it." (NRSV)

Maybe it is just me, but it seems like Jesus is not saying he is going to do it for us but is inviting us, as disciples, to join him! How are we to respond to that?

What other thoughts or insights have you gained from the study of Session 8?

FOLLOW UP 2 TO SESSION 7: Son of God

We often talk about Jesus as being God's "only" Son. However, the video and our discussion on Sunday reminded us of something; even our own Bible mentions other "sons" of God:

• 2 Samuel 7:12-15 God is quoted as calling David his "son;"
• Job 38:7 has God say that the "sons of God" (literally, some translations will soften it to heavenly beings) shouted for joy;
• Psalm 2 was a Psalm used at the coronation of Jewish kings. Vs. 7 talks of the king being "begotten" as a son by God at the coronation;
• Hosea 11:1 says that God calls the nation Israel God's "son;"
• Galatians 3:25-28; Galatians 4:4-7; Romans 8:14-21; Romans 9:25-26 (and other New Testament passages) call US (yes, you and me) literally "sons" of God (many translations will change it to children, but literally it is the same Greek word used for Jesus).

Many scholars say that the term in John 3:16 that calls Jesus God's "only" Son is better translated as "unique."

The video also reminded us that in the first century Roman emperors were often called "son of god" on coins and inscriptions. In fact, Caesar Augustus was called "son of god" long before Jesus was.

What new insights does all of this insight give you into what the New Testament might really be meaning by calling Jesus AND us "sons of God?"

FOLLOW UP 1 TO SESSION 7 - Second Coming?

The reading materials for Session 7 had us considering the "Second Coming" of Christ. Let's take a look at the parable of the sheep and the goats from Matthew 25:31-46:

31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33 and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. 34 Then the king will say to those at his right hand, "Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.' 37 Then the righteous will answer him, "Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? 38 And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? 39 And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?' 40 And the king will answer them, "Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.' (NRSV)

We often consider that Jesus will come back sometime in the future and make everything right. However, when I read this parable, I get the impression that Jesus is saying he comes back all the time - in those who are in need. Here are some important questions to consider:

• Do we realize that Jesus is in "the least of these?"
• Do we even want to see Jesus in "the least of these?"

Here is another important question: Could Jesus be saying that he isn't coming back to fix everything for us, but that maybe he is wanting us to fix it along the way?

FOLLOW UP TO SESSION 6 - Parables as Lures

We had really fruitful discussion this past Sunday as we considered Jesus' use of parables. The idea behind the lesson is that Jesus likely did not just tell parables to teach one particular lesson through the parable, but to get the hearers to begin COLLABORATING through discussion about what the parable could mean. As an example, consider this parable taken from the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas:

• The kingdom of God is like a woman who was carrying a jar full of meal. While she was walking along a distant road, the handle of the jar broke and the meal spilled behind her along the road. She didn't know it; she hadn't noticed the problem. When she reached her house, she put the jar down and discovered that it was empty. (Gospel of Thomas 97)

What might this parable mean? Could there be more than one meaning? Without a particular context, which the canonical gospels always give us, we discovered in discussion that there are many ways to look at it. Compare the parable of the lost sheep in Matthew 18:7-14 and Luke 15:1-10. Notice that each gospel has a slightly different meaning for the same parable. What if we take other parables out of the context of the gospels; what other possible meanings might we find. Could Jesus have intended more than one meaning - or no particular meaning?

In discussion yesterday, we talked about what Scripture is and is not. In response to that discussion, I want to share some quotes from the book, The Dream of God: A Call to Return by Verna J. Dozier, which is helping to guide our Lenten Study:

• In response to Isaiah 55:11, Dozier writes, "The word of God is an image for the action of God, and that verse, very freely paraphrased, says, God will accomplish what God has set out to do. I think the story the Bible tells is about the activity of God to accomplish God's purposes." (pg. 7)
• " The Bible contains history, but it is also much, much more than history." (pg. 12, emphasis mine)
• "The Bible contains literature, bu the Bible is more, much more, than literature." (pg 12)
• "For me the Bible is primarily a theological record. Theology is making meaning, making sense out of our live in terms of what we believe to be the nature of ultimate reality." (pgs. 12-13)
• "We, too [as the biblical writers did], look at the world and ask what God is doing, which is another way of asking the question of meaning, the theological question. That is the only question to apply to the Bible, I believe, because it is in answer to that question that the Bible came into being. Is there a God? Is God for us? How can we know God?" (pgs. 13-14)
• "Biblical faith posits a God it cannot understand completely." (pg 15) - see Isaiah 55:8-9
• "Because the Bible is a theological book, it is a book of wrestlings, not a book of answers. In each age, the people have to struggle to hear the word of the Lord for their time, and sometimes their hearing is keener than at other times." (pg. 18)
• "What we have in the Bible is the record of hundreds of years in which two communities of faith looked at the experiences of their lives and asked what these experiences meant. The communities have left a record of what it meant to them in that collection of books we call the Bible, and that record can only be really understood from within the continuing life of their spiritual heirs. The question we must put to the records they have left behind is not "Which is right?" but questions like "What does it mean?" and "What did it mean for them?" and "What does it mean for us." (pg. 19)

Do these quotes give you different way of looking at Scripture? Do you agree with what Dozier says? Why or why not? What other insights would you add about Scripture?