Search Results

Matthew does not support the idea that a sinner’s prayer is a simple ticket to heaven. In his Gospel, Jesus calls us to much more than that. Previous Christian Faith Next Faith Versus Works: What Does the Gospel of Matthew Say Matthew does not support the idea that a sinner’s prayer is a simple ticket to heaven. In his Gospel, Jesus calls us to much more than that. Image by Brett Jordan, provided by Unsplash via Wix. Tom Faletti September 5, 2025 I have been studying the Gospel of Matthew for 3 years, and I have discovered that the Gospel of Matthew does not support a popular version of “Christianity” that requires only “faith” and not “works” to go to heaven. I would like to unpack these misunderstood words. Jesus doesn’t talk much about “going to heaven,” but he talks a lot about what it means to be part of the kingdom of God. His gospel is much more challenging than just a simple call to faith. It's a call to action – to works. According to the Gospel of Matthew, what does God expect of those who want to enter the kingdom of heaven? There is nothing in the entire Gospel of Matthew that would support the idea that all you need to do to “go to heaven” is to say a few words or a “sinner’s prayer” to signal that you “believe,” and you will be saved. That simplistic and distorted version of Christianity cannot be found in the Gospel of Matthew. Throughout the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus describes an entire change of outlook and lifestyle that he expects to see in those who claim to follow him. He expects faith to be put into action. A sinner’s prayer might be a first step, but it is not the ultimate sign of a true believer in Jesus. Here are some of the things Jesus tells his followers to do: In the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7), Jesus says: Be pure in spirit and pure of heart; be peacemakers, etc., from the Beatitudes; don’t speak angrily to others; don’t commit adultery; love your enemies; be perfect; don’t make a public show of your almsgiving, praying, and fasting; don’t serve money; put you trust in your heavenly Father; don’t judge others; do to others what you would like them to do to you; etc. In Matthew 16:24-28, Jesus says: Deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow me. In Matthew 18:1-5, he says: Humble yourself like a child. In Matthew 22:34-40, he lays down two Great Commandments: to love God with your whole heart, soul, and mind, and love your neighbor as much as you love yourself. In Matthew 25, he tells us to be responsible and fruitful with what God gives us; and to feed the hungry, welcome the stranger, care for those who are sick or in prison, etc. If we aren’t doing these things, Jesus hasn’t given us any reason to think that we will be counted among the ”elect” (Matt. 24:31), enter into his kingdom (Matt. 25:34), and receive eternal life (Matt. 25:46). Faith is demonstrated by our actions Some may ask: Are you preaching that we are saved by our works? Absolutely not! We are saved by faith. But “faith” is not just a bunch of words that come out of our mouth. Jesus warns us in Matthew 7:21 that not everyone who says, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the ones who do the Father’s will. James says that even the demons believe that there is one God, but they shudder (James 2:18-19). Claiming to believe in Jesus is easy. Our calling is to not just make the claim but to actually live our lives for him. If we do that, it will show in our actions. If our actions do not back up our alleged faith, our claim that we are followers of Jesus is hollow. Grace is necessary Some may respond: That’s a high bar you are asking us to reach. Actually, it’s a high bar that Jesus is asking us to strive for. He wants nothing less than our whole selves. This forces us to confront a problem: We fall short of Jesus’s high bar. Yes, we do! Even if we try to live our lives according to his teachings, most of us reach a point where we realize that, while we may do many things right, we still fall short and don’t give our lives fully to him. But God doesn’t leave us there. When we fall short, we need to recall what Jesus said about who can be saved. Remember when he said it is harder for a rich man to enter heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle? The disciples responded, “Then who can be saved?” Jesus’s answer remains true today and applies to us: “For human beings this is impossible, but for God all things are possible” (Matt. 19:26, NABRE). That’s what gives us hope – not our pious words, not even our most impressive actions, but God’s grace. We are saved only by the grace of God. The grace of God reaches deep into our sinful souls to heal us. It reaches out to us even when we stray. Jesus showed God’s love by putting it into action – healing, teaching, and feeding people, and giving his life for us on the Cross. He told parables of God’s love. He described God as being like a shepherd who searches for the one stray sheep even when he already has the 99 (Matt. 18:10-14), like an employer who ensures that every worker receives enough to live on even if they don’t find their way to the master’s vineyard until late in the day (Matt. 20:1-16), like a king who invites everyone to his son’s wedding feast (Matt. 22:1-14). Jesus does not offer cheap grace But the grace Jesus offers is not cheap grace. We must never forget that we are being called to line up our will with God’s will and conform our actions with Jesus’s teachings and example – to give and serve, not just mouth the words. We must not think that merely professing a few verses of Scripture will open up an easy door to eternal life with Jesus. That’s not what Jesus teaches in the Gospel of Matthew. He says the road is narrow that leads to life (Matt. 7:13-14). Saying a few magic words doesn’t suddenly open the door for people who have no intention of living the life Jesus calls us to live. Jesus helps us be more than we think we can be But we are not on our own in trying to be like Jesus. He is with us. He has sent his Spirit to empower us and purify us (Matt. 3:16), and his Spirit lives in us and works in and through us (Matt. 10:20). He understands our nature and is not scared off when we fall short. On the contrary, he is right there beside us, continuing to love us and gently calling us to take up his yoke (Matt. 11:29-30) – to truly let him be the Lord and Master of our life. The more we do that – the more we put our faith into action and let him work his character into our lives – the easier it is to enter into his rest (Matt. 11:28-29). In summary, the Gospel of Matthew calls us to embrace the challenge of living fully for Jesus and loving everyone around us in concrete, tangible ways, with the assurance that he will help us be what we are called to be and that he will never give up on us. It’s not a call to faith versus works; it’s a call to faith exemplified by works, a call to believe in Jesus and put that faith into action doing the works of Jesus. Copyright © 2025, Tom Faletti (Faith Explored, www.faithexplored.com ). This material may be reproduced in whole or in part without alteration, for nonprofit use, provided such reproductions are not sold and include this copyright notice or a similar acknowledgement that includes a reference to Faith Explored and www.faithexplored.com. See www.faithexplored.com for more materials like this. Previous Christian Faith Next

Pre-tribulation theories contradict Jesus and Paul. What does the Bible actually say? Previous Christian Faith Next The Rapture? It’s Not a Pre-Millennial Escape from Tribulation Pre-tribulation theories contradict Jesus and Paul. What does the Bible actually say? Image by CHUTTERSNAP, provided by Unsplash via Wix. Tom Faletti December 13, 2024 In 1 Thessalonians 4:17-18, the apostle Paul refers to the “rapture” while he is discussing the end times when Christ will return. The word “rapture” comes from the Latin word that translates the Greek word in verse 17 where Paul says that we will be “caught up” (literally, “snatched”) to meet the Lord in the air. Authors Tim LaHaye of the Left Behind series and Hal Lindsey of The Late Great Planet Earth fame have popularized an approach to interpreting what the Scriptures say about the end times that leans heavily on a modern interpretation of Paul’s “rapture.” These authors (and others, who don’t always agree among themselves) combine their interpretation of the rapture with their interpretation of the “1000 years” mentioned in Revelation 20:2-3 and other Bible passages to produce an entire timeline of the end times that is not consistent with the historic understanding of the Scriptures. Their views are based on ideas that mostly did not spread until the 19th century. Most of Christendom from the time of Augustine in the 5th century until the 19th century has taken a very different approach to interpreting the Bible’s end-times passages. Currently, the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Churches, and many Protestant denominations – including the Episcopal, Lutheran, and Methodist Churches and others – reject that interpretation of the end times. This summary of the problem is drawn from a variety of sources, in an attempt to identify the commonalities in Catholic and Protestant thinking about the subject. In addition to the sources used in my 1 Thessalonians study, it also considers Trent Horn (Catholic), Karlo Broussard (Catholic), Alan S. Bandy (Reformed), the Commission on Theology and Church Relations (Lutheran), and “Where does the Rapture fit into UM beliefs?” (United Methodist). The historic churches and denominations have much in common in their understanding of the end times. The main divide on this topic is not between Protestants and Catholics. The main divide is between a fundamentalist segment of modern Christianity and the rest of Christianity. Frameworks for thinking about the end times There are roughly 6 common frameworks for thinking about the rapture, the tribulation, and the 1000-year “millennial” reign mentioned in Revelation 20:2-3: The first three approaches all revolve around the idea that the rapture will precede a 1000-year millennium of peace and righteousness on earth. However, the pre-millennialists don’t agree on whether the rapture will happen before, during, or after the tribulation that precedes the end: Pre-tribulation, pre-millennial: Christ will come and take the Christians who are alive to heaven (the “rapture”) before the tribulation. Then the tribulation will come, in a world devoid of Christians. Then Christ will come again with the church (which sounds like a second Second Coming, since he already came to rapture people). Then Christ will reign for 1000 years, and then there will be the final judgment (which sounds like a third Second Coming). This is the view of the people like Tim LaHaye and Hal Lindsey who have fed the “rapture” industry. Mid-tribulation, pre-millennial: This approach is similar to the pre-tribulation, pre-millennial approach, except that the rapture will happen in the middle of the tribulation (i.e., halfway through the 7-year tribulation), not before it begins. Therefore, Christians will experience some of the tribulation and not be fully spared. Post-tribulation, pre-millennial: This approach says that Christians will not be spared the tribulation at all. Christians will not join Christ until he comes in his Second Coming at the end of the tribulation. Then Christ will reign for 1000 years, and then the final judgment will come. These approaches all separate the Second Coming of Christ from the final judgment. Jesus never suggests such a separation, nor does Paul. They both describe one decisive event when Jesus comes, takes believers to himself, and presides over the final judgment. Amillennial: This view rejects the separation of the “rapture” from the final judgment and the entire pre-millennial framework. In this view, we are in the 1000-year reign of Christ, which began when Christ broke the power of sin by his death and resurrection and ascended into heaven. The reference to “1000” years in the Book of Revelation is symbolic, not literal: “1000” means a large number and “1000 years” means “a very long time.” Revelation 20 says that in this millennial time, the devil is being restrained. God is giving us time so that the gospel can be spread around the world. After the period we are now in, which includes its own times of smaller tribulation, Satan will be allowed to try to turn people away from Christ and the great, final tribulation will come. The Christians and non-Christians suffer now, and both the church and non-believers will suffer during the final tribulation, as Jesus warned from the beginning (see, for example, Matthew 24:29-31, where the tribulation precedes the gathering of the elect to Christ). After that period of tribulation, the final judgment will begin with Christians being caught up with those who have risen from the dead to meet Christ when he returns (1 Thess. 4:17; also referred to by Paul in 2 Thess. 2:1 as our “assembling” with the Lord). That event is not a pre-tribulation, pre-millennial escape from suffering; it is part of the Second Coming and final judgment exercised by Christ. This more traditional approach to interpreting the end-times Scriptures was the generally accepted view throughout the church from the time of Augustine in the 5th century, through the Protestant Reformation, and all the way until the 19th century. It is more faithful to the Scriptures, and it is followed by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and a variety of current Protestant denominations, including the Episcopal, Lutheran, and Methodist Churches and others. Although scholars call this approach the “amillennial” approach, that term is not necessarily used by these churches. All of those churches reject the pre-tribulation, pre-millennial approach that was popularized in the decades before and after the year 2000. There are two other views worth mentioning, for the sake of completeness (and there are many other sub-categories and branches dividing all of the approaches). Postmillennial: In this view, first there will be a (literal or symbolic) 1000-year golden age of prosperity and minimal suffering on Earth, during which most people will be converted to Christ and live in righteousness. The devil will be bound during that time but will be loosed at the end of the 1000 years. After that 1000 years of relative peace, there will be a time of tribulation followed by the Second Coming (when believers will be called up to heaven) and the final judgment. This view was popular in the 19th century (the 1800s), until the World Wars of the 20th century made people rethink whether the world could reach such a golden age of righteousness. Metaphorical: In this view, most of the end-times references in the Bible are metaphorical and should not be interpreted literally. There will not be a literal trumpet, a literal 1000-year reign, a literal meeting of Christ in the sky, etc. God has used figurative language and metaphors to help us understand things that are beyond us. All of the key points of Scripture will be fulfilled: Christ will return and judge the world, the dead will be raised, there will be a final judgment, the devil and death will be defeated, and Christians will live with Christ forever. But the details of what it will look like are not for us to worry about. Problems with the pre-tribulation, pre-millennial rapture idea The pre-tribulation, pre-millennial rapture theory is inconsistent with Scripture in several ways: The pre-tribulation, pre-millennial rapture violates the claim in Acts 1:11 that Jesus will return in the same visible way he left, since the pre-tribulation, pre-millennial story creates a scenario where Jesus remains hidden except to believers. The theory claims that Jesus doesn’t stay on Earth after the rapture and only returning visibly 1000 years later. The word Paul uses in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 for the “coming” of the Lord (the Greek word parousia ) in was used by the Greeks before Christ to refer to the ceremonial arrival of a king or ruler. Pre-tribulation, pre-millennial rapture proponents argue that in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, Christ only comes partly back, gathers the raptured people, and returns to heaven. However, Paul does not say Jesus immediately returns to heaven with them; he only says that those who are caught up to meet him in the air will be with him forever. The word for “meet” in verse 17 is a Greek word used to describe the situation where people go out from their town to meet a visiting official or king and escort that official into their city (in response to the “coming” in verse 15). Paul is saying that when Christ comes to Earth and the risen Christians and the still-alive Christians join him, they will stay with him as he comes to the Earth and does his work of final judgment. The idea that Christ aborts his “coming” and returns to heaven, only to return later, has been added by the pre-tribulation advocates without justification or good evidence. The pre-tribulation, pre-millennial rapture theory that Jesus’s coming to gather the elect is separated from his final judgment by 1000 years contradicts Jesus. 1 Thessalonians 4:16 says that Christ’s Second Coming will be announced with an archangel’s voice and the sound of a trumpet, at which point the dead will be raised. 1 Corinthians 15:51-55 also links the trumpet to the raising of the dead. In Matthew 24:29-31, Jesus links his coming in power and glory (verse 30) with the angels (verse 31), the sound of the trumpet (verse 31), and the gathering of the elect (verse 31). In Matthew 25:31-33, Jesus links his coming in glory (verse 31) with the final judgment (verses 32-33ff). These events are all connected and happen together. The pre-tribulation, pre-millennial approach contradicts Jesus by separating the raising of the dead from the final judgment by 1000 years. In Matthew 24:29, Jesus says that these events happen right after the tribulation (verse 29). The pre-tribulation, pre-millennial advocates seek to escape the tribulation that Jesus clearly foretells. The pre-tribulation, pre-millennial rapture violates Jesus’s statement in Matthew 16:27 that when he comes with his angels, he will repay people according to their deeds (i.e., the Second Coming with the final judgment). Again, Jesus does not teach any separation between these events. Note: Some rapture fans also interpret Luke 17:34-37 as referring to the rapture. In that passage, Jesus says that one person will be taken and another will be left. However, when you read that verse in context, starting at verse 26, you see that people are being “taken” in judgment. They are not being taken to heaven. They are not being raptured away to be saved from tribulation. Conclusion: The popular theory is wrong, but the Lord will be with us forever. In summary, the pre-tribulation, pre-millennial rapture story created in the 19th century and popularized as Americans endured the Cold War and approached the millennial year 2000 does not have a sound basis in Scripture. The Book of Revelation is filled with symbolic language. There is no reason to distort the teachings of Jesus and Paul in order to interpret Revelation’s round number of 1000 years as a literal 1000 years. It is symbolic for the long period of time we are in before the Lord returns. And Jesus and Paul are very clear that Christians will endure the tribulation before they are united with Christ in his return. We must reject the distortions of their words that are central to every pre-tribulation rapture theory. This also means that no one escapes the tribulation except by dying. What else is true? The Scriptures tell us clearly: Christ will return. The dead will be raised. Christians (both those who have died and those who are still alive) will be united with Christ and live with him forever. Christ will judge the living and the dead and ask them how they treated “the least of these” among us. Fortunately, that’s all we really need to know about the end times. Copyright © 2024, Tom Faletti (Faith Explored, www.faithexplored.com ). This material may be reproduced in whole or in part without alteration, for nonprofit use, provided such reproductions are not sold and include this copyright notice or a similar acknowledgement that includes a reference to Faith Explored and www.faithexplored.com. See www.faithexplored.com for more materials like this. Previous Christian Faith Next

Who can be saved? Your wealth won’t save you, but what will? Previous Matthew Index Next Matthew 19:23-26 Who can be saved? Your wealth won’t save you, but what will? Image by Jussara Romão, provided by Unsplash via Wix. Tom Faletti February 13, 2024 Matthew 19:23-26 The danger of riches Jesus uses a vivid illustration to make his point about the dangers of wealth. His statement about the camel going through the eye of a needle has led many people to search for answers – particularly because they don’t want to take it literally (and given that fact that Jesus was raised as a Jew in a culture where exaggeration for effect was the norm, he probably was exaggerating in some sense). Some scholars suggest the existence of a small gate into a walled city, separate from the wide, main gate, where a camel could only go through if it was stripped of all it was carrying. This smaller entrance is supposed to have been called the “needle’s eye.” There is no evidence for the existence of such entryways, but the image might be apt anyway. We need to let go of any possessions that would keep us from entering the kingdom of God, and that means we need to let go of everything we cling to, like a camel being relieved of its burdens, before we can go through. However, the disciples don’t envision there being any way through the eye of a needle. The disciples are astonished by what Jesus says about rich people because they think rich people are more likely to get into to heaven than poor people. That was common thinking in their day. Would that be a correct way of thinking? Explain. What is Jesus’s answer to their question, “Then who can be saved?” (19:25, NRSV) Note that Jesus is not saying rich people can’t go to heaven. Zacchaeus was rich (Luke 19:9). Joseph of Arimathea was rich (Matt. 27:57). Nicodemus was rich (John 19:39). Rich people were not required to give up their wealth in the early church (Acts 5:4). What do you think Jesus means by saying that for humans it is impossible? What do you think Jesus means by saying that for God all things are possible? What is he saying about us and wealth? What is your reaction to this passage? What does it say to you about your own wealth or lack of it and how it might affect your salvation? Take a step back and consider this: God is at work in us, in this world. He knows that we need possessions: a frying pan to cook in, clothes to wear, a toilet; etc. And the more advanced our world gets, due to the ingenuity of the human mind – which was created by God and then invited to use its free will to create other things – the more things we come to need: cars or bicycles, cell phones, microwave ovens, etc. The problem is not that things exist; the problem is that they sometimes take over the focus of our lives. Jesus has at least two different purposes in today’s conversation: to push us to re-focus and put our priorities in the right place, and to guide us to a deeper point – that there is nothing we can do to save ourselves. Only God can do that. Wealthy persons can live a life focused on their many possessions and the next possession they hope to get, or they live a life focused on sharing the love of God with those around them. Poor people can live a life focused on their meager possessions and the next possession they hope to get, or they live a life focused on sharing the love of God with those around them. Whatever a person’s situation, only God can bring them to the kingdom of heaven. Neither having many possessions nor having few possessions gives you a ticket to heaven. Only God can do that. What is one, small change you could make today, to take a bit of your mind off of wealth or “things” so that your mind and heart can focus more on people and God? Bibliography See Matthew - Bibliography at https://www.faithexplored.com/matthew/bibliography . Copyright © 2025, Tom Faletti (Faith Explored, www.faithexplored.com ). This material may be reproduced in whole or in part without alteration, for nonprofit use, provided such reproductions are not sold and include this copyright notice or a similar acknowledgement that includes a reference to Faith Explored and www.faithexplored.com. See www.faithexplored.com for more materials like this. Previous Matthew Index Next

Jesus loves his people like a mother hen who desires to gather her young under her wings. How can we embrace this maternal love of God for us? Previous Matthew Index Next Matthew 23:37-39 Jesus loves his people like a mother hen who desires to gather her young under her wings. How can we embrace this maternal love of God for us? Ben Austrian (1870-1921). Hen with Baby Chicks . Circa 1915. Cropped. Reading Public Museum, Reading, PA. Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ben_Austrian_-_Hen_with_Baby_Chicks_-_2009.3.1_-_Reading_Public_Museum.jpg . Tom Faletti August 22, 2025 Matthew 23:37-39 Jesus yearns for the people of Jerusalem like a mother hen for her chicks We have completed the material Matthew has gathered together regarding the confrontations between Jesus and the leaders of the various factions of Jews in Jerusalem. Matthew ends with a passage that is very different but is connected by the fact that both this passage and the previous passage refer to the killing of prophets sent by God. But the tone in this passage is different. In the previous passage, where Jesus is uttering woes against the scribes and Pharisees, it would be natural to assume that Jesus’s tone was stern and judging. What is his tone in this passage? How does he feel about Jerusalem? What does the image of a mother hen gathering her chicks under her wings tell you about Jesus? How does a mother’s love portray God’s feelings toward us? This is not the only passage in the Bible that presents God using maternal images. Read Isaiah 49:13-15 As they struggle in exile, how does verse 14 describe how God’s people (the people of Zion) are feeling? They are feeling forsaken or forgotten by God. How does God respond in verse 15? God describes his relationship with them as like that of a woman and her infant, saying: “Can a woman forget her nursing child, / or show no compassion for the child up for womb? / Even these may forget, / yet I will not forget you” (Isaiah 49:15, NRSV). God is to his people like a mother to her nursing babe. What does this tell you about God’s relationship with us and love for us? Read Isaiah 66:13 In this portion of Isaiah, the prophet is describing the future restoration of Israel. What does God say in this verse? God says, “As a mother comforts her child, / so I will comfort you” (Isaiah 66:13, NRSV). How is the image of a mother comforting her child a helpful image of God’s concern for us? Read Psalm 131 How does the psalmist describe his approach to God? The psalmist says, “I have calmed and quieted my soul, / like a weaned child with its mother” (Psalm 131:2, NRSV). The psalmist could have said “father” – the child has been weaned, so this is not a nursing image. But here he pictures the peace and security he finds in the presence of God as being like a child leaning into the embrace of its mother. How does that enhance our image of God’s love for us? Can you picture yourself leaning into God’s embrace like a child to its mother? How does that make you feel? Does this image add anything to your usual image of your relationship with God? Read Hosea 11:1-4 Although the people of Israel have not been faithful to God, how does God describe his relationship with them? This is not an exclusively maternal image of God, but certainly has maternal overtones. When God says he taught his people to walk, “took them in my arms,” cared for them with love like those who “lift an infant to their cheeks,” and “bent down to feed them,” how does that remind us of a mother? Do you feel like God is helping you to grow and develop the way a mother nurtures her child? How is this image helpful? These few verses cannot be used to construct a theology for calling God “Mother,” especially considering the massive counterweight of biblical language that explicitly calls God “Father.” Since God is not a material creature, he is neither male nor female. But he chose to become a member of the human family as a male, and Jesus called God his “Father.” That is not something to be rejected. So it is appropriate to call God “Father.” Nevertheless, Jesus and Old Testament writers occasionally used the metaphor of a loving mother to express God’s love for us, which offers us the opportunity to explore the value of that metaphor in understanding how much God loves us. Go back and re-read Matthew 23:37-39 . Imagine being swept up into Jesus’s arms, or under his wings. How does that make you feel? What does Jesus want you to understand about yourself and him, in these words he spoke? Notice that Jesus’s words imply that he has been in Jerusalem many times previously. Matthew and the other synoptic Gospels tell Jesus’s story as though his public ministry included only one visit to Jerusalem. John’s Gospel shows that he has been there multiple times. Luke 3:41 tells us that Mary and Joseph and the child Jeus went to Jerusalem for Passover every year. It is unlikely that he would have stopped the practice as an adult. So Matthew’s Gospel, despite how much it covers, still only presents part of Jesus’s life in the public eye. Picture Jesus traveling to Jerusalem (like a pilgrimage) every year for the Passover sacrifice. What does that add to your understanding of his life? In verse 38, “your house” means Jerusalem – Jerusalem will be left desolate. This is another instance of Matthew alluding to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, after the time when Jesus spoke but before Matthew wrote his Gospel. Since Jesus has already had his dramatic entrance into Jerusalem in Matthew 21:1-11, where the people cried out, “Blessed is he who come in the name of the Lord,” verse 39 can’ be interpreted as a reference to that day. Therefore, verse 39 is often interpreted as referring to the Second Coming, when Jesus will come in glory for the final judgment. That make sense in the context of what is coming in the next two chapters, which are about the Second Coming and the Final Judgment. Everyone will face a final judgment at the end of their life. Jesus shows patience rather than calling for an immediate punishment upon the people in Jerusalem who oppose him. How has he treated you with similar patience? How might we imitate Jesus’s love for people even when they are rejecting him? How might we imitate Jesus’s love for people even when they are rejecting us? Take a step back and consider this: In Psalm 131, the psalmist says, “I have calmed and quieted my soul, / like a weaned child with its mother” (Psalm 131:2, NRSV). You can imagine him simply being present to God: not trying to direct the conversation, not imploring God to do one thing or another, just being with God, as young child in its mother’s arms. The next time you have a quiet time with God, don’t start with your requests and petitions. Don’t start with your sins. Start by just being with God, like a child with its mother. Jesus wants to bring all of us under his wing, close to himself. Spend some time resting in the peace of knowing that Jesus is near you and wants you near him. Like a child, lean in and enjoy just being with God. What effect does this kind of prayer, just resting in the arms of God like a child with its mother, have on you? How can responding to Jesus’s desire to gather you under his wings change your spiritual life? Bibliography See Matthew - Bibliography at https://www.faithexplored.com/matthew/bibliography . Copyright © 2025, Tom Faletti (Faith Explored, www.faithexplored.com ). This material may be reproduced in whole or in part without alteration, for nonprofit use, provided such reproductions are not sold and include this copyright notice or a similar acknowledgement that includes a reference to Faith Explored and www.faithexplored.com. See www.faithexplored.com for more materials like this. Previous Matthew Index Next

The various denominations within Christianity don’t agree on whether Mary had other children besides Jesus, but they do agree with his statement that those who do his will are his brothers and sisters. How can we respond? [Matthew 13:54-58; Mark 6:1-6; Matthew 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21] Previous Mary Index Next Session 5: Jesus’s family The various denominations within Christianity don’t agree on whether Mary had other children besides Jesus, but they do agree with his statement that those who do his will are his brothers and sisters. How can we respond? [Matthew 13:54-58; Mark 6:1-6; Matthew 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21] Everyone can be a brother or sister of Jesus, if they are willing to do the will of God. Image provided by Wix. Tom Faletti July 16, 2025 In the next two sets of passages that we are going to explore, the Gospels refer to Jesus’s “brothers.” The question of how to interpret the word “brothers” divides the body of Christ, with Protestants on one side and Catholics and Orthodox on the other. At its root, the question is whether Mary had other children after she gave birth to Jesus or remained a virgin all her life. Protestants say she gave birth to many children and Catholics and Orthodox say she was “ever-virgin.” There is also a question as to whether Jesus had stepbrothers who were children of Joseph from a prior marriage. This study is designed to be useful to people from all Christian denominations, so we will not insist that everyone reach the same conclusion. What this study will do, however, is call attention to the many pieces of evidence that scholars consider as they study the question, because the evidence is not as simple as some would like to think it is. Matthew 13:54-58 / Mark 6:1-6 Isn’t Jesus the son of Mary and the brother of James et al? Matthew and Mark tell about the same incident in these passages, which is why they are paired together here. Before we explore the main point of the passage (which is not whether Mary was a perpetual virgin), let’s deal with the issue of Jesus’s “brothers.” Without trying to argue one side or the other, can you state in one sentence why the word “brothers” is controversial? Why does it matter whether Jesus had “brothers” or not? There are a variety of issues to consider in exploring the disagreement about what “brothers” means in this passage. Here is the background: Three common interpretations of the references to Jesus’s “brothers” Protestants take the word “brothers” literally and argue that Mary had sex with her husband Joseph after Jesus was born and gave birth to children who were the blood brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church have always maintained that Mary was a virgin throughout her life and that “brothers” is properly interpreted as “relatives” – most likely cousins. A third view, which is acceptable to the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, is that “brothers” refers to sons of Joseph from a prior marriage, who would therefore be stepbrothers of Jesus (because Jesus was, in effect, adopted by Joseph). What is the evidence that might help us determine whether “brothers” means blood brothers, cousins, or stepbrothers, when it is used with regard to Jesus? To evaluate whether when the Bible refers to Jesus’s “brothers” it is referring to blood brothers, cousins, or stepbrothers, we must consider a variety of evidence, background information, and Scripture passages. Here are some of the factors to consider: In both the Old and New Testaments, the word “brother” is used for a variety of relationships, figurative and literal, partly because the Hebrew language did not have a word for “cousin” ( Ignatius Catholic Study Bible , Matthew 12:46 fn., pp. 29-30). In Greek, which is the language of the New Testament, the word for “brothers” is adelphoi , which is used for many kinds of relationships: (1) blood brothers (including stepbrothers), (2) people from the same nation, (3) one’s fellow men, and (4) fellow believers. It does not always mean a literal blood brother, so its meaning in any particular passage must be considered carefully, taking into account everything we know. The Gospels never refer to any person as a child of Mary except Jesus. We see references to Jesus’s brothers, but no one other than Jesus is ever called a child of Mary. This does not prove that Mary was ever-virgin any more than the references to Jesus’s “brothers” proves they were blood brothers. It is just evidence to be considered. Matthew 12:55 and Mark 6:3 tell us the names of four “brothers” of Jesus: James, Joseph (or its Greek variant Joses, in Mark’s Gospel), Judas, and Simon. Later, Matthew 27:56 tells us that one of the women looking on at Jesus’s crucifixion was “Mary, the mother of James and Joseph.” Similarly, Mark 15:40 refers to “Mary the mother of the younger James and of Joses.” Joses is a variant of Joseph. If both of these references to a James and Joseph are referring to the same pair of brothers, (which is likely but can’t be proved), it would mean that James and Joseph are not blood brothers of Jesus because their mother was with Jesus’s mother Mary at the crucifixion. They could be relatives, however, if, for example, this Mary and Mary the mother of Jesus are sisters or sisters-in-law. John 19:25 says that standing at the cross of Jesus were his mother and “his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas.” This might indicate that the Mary who was with Jesus’s mother at the cross was Jesus’s mother’s sister. Some people find that doubtful because it would mean that the two sisters were both named Mary. Alternatively, since “brother” and “sister” could refer to a wider circle of family relationships and not just blood brothers, it is possible that this Mary is the wife of a brother of Joseph. If that is the case, then she is the sister-in-law of Jesus’s mother, not her immediate sister. In either case, this might indicate that the James and Joseph who are identified as Jesus’s “brothers” are these relatives, sons of the Mary who was with Jesus’s mother at the cross. While Jesus is hanging on the cross, in John 19:26-27 Jesus entrusts his mother Mary to the beloved disciple (who is traditionally believed to be John). If Mary had other children, it would have been the norm for Mary to automatically come under the care of her other children. Jesus would not have needed to entrust her to a non-relative, and to do so would have been considered a serious breach of tradition. One explanation sometimes offered for why Jesus might have entrusted his mother to someone outside the family is that Jesus’s “brothers” did not believe in him. John 7:5 tells us that this was true for at least a period of time earlier in Jesus’s ministry. However, if the word “brother” is to be taken literally every time it shows up with reference to Jesus, then Jesus did have a “brother” who soon after that was a recognized leader of the church. Either he was already a believer when Jesus was executed, or he became a believer soon after. This “brother” is mentioned by Paul in Galatians 1:19, where Paul says that when he first went to Jerusalem after he started preaching the gospel of Christ (probably around AD 37, which is only a few years after Jesus’s death), he met with Peter but did not see “any other” apostles except “James, the brother of the Lord.” His use of the word “other” indicates that this James was considered an apostle. Two Jameses are named as apostles in the Gospels: the James who, along with John, was a son of Zebedee (Matthew 4:21), and the James who was the son of Alphaeus (Matthew 10:3). Matthew tells us the names of their fathers. Since neither of their fathers is Joseph, they cannot be sons of Mary. Therefore, if “brother” always means blood brother when applied to Jesus, then Paul is not referring to either of them. Acts 12:17 and Acts 15:13-21 tell us of a James who is a leader of the church in Jerusalem. According to tradition, the first bishop/leader of the church in Jerusalem was “James the brother of the Lord,” so that is probably who Paul is referring to. That means there was a James who believed in Jesus and was a “brother of the Lord,” and he was so prominent that he was a recognized leader of the church just a few years later. Jesus could have entrusted his mother to that “brother,” if indeed it was a blood brother; there would have been no need to turn Mary over to a non-family member. Therefore, the claim that Jesus turned his mother over to John because his family didn’t believe in him does not easily fit the facts. A better case can be made that this James the brother of the Lord is the son of the other Mary who was with Jesus’s mother at the cross, and therefore that in at least this instance, “brother” may mean cousin or relative. Some early church fathers taught that Joseph was an older man when he married Mary and that he had children by a previous marriage. That claim first appears in the Protoevangelium of James , a document written around AD 150. That document was not accepted as part of Scripture and was specifically rejected by some early Church leaders because some of its content was considered fiction or legend, but it offers some insight regarding ideas that were circulating in the early days of the Church. That document explains that Mary was dedicated to God as a virgin when she was born, that she was raised in the Temple from the age of 3 until she was 12, and that Joseph was then selected by lot, with a full understanding that she was a dedicated virgin, to take care of her by taking her as his wife. The references to the brothers and sisters of the Lord would then be references to the children of Joseph from an earlier marriage. They would therefore a stepbrothers and stepsisters of Jesus by adoption – not sons and daughters of Mary but still “brothers and sisters” of the Lord. A variety of church fathers before AD 400 taught that Mary was a perpetual virgin, but many of the early church fathers did not discuss the question, perhaps because it did not become an issue until a group of people in the 4th century began to teach explicitly that Mary was not a perpetual virgin. The details of who taught what over the years are beyond the scope of this study, but citations and quotes from various church fathers on the subject can be found in many places, including in “ Which church father first taught the perpetual virginity of Mary? ” A thousand years later, Martin Luther rejected the Catholic practices of venerating Mary and praying to her, but he taught the perpetual virginity of Mary. To summarize, there is a lot of evidence indicating that this is not a simple question. “Brothers” can mean many things in the Bible. Catholic and Orthodox readers find a lot of support for the position that Mary was a lifelong virgin and the word “brothers” refers to relatives of Jesus, but Protestant readers of the Scriptures prefer the plain-language interpretation of the literal words of the Bible. No Bible Study is going to resolve the ongoing disagreement among Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants about whether Mary remained a virgin throughout her life (or about the other issues about Mary that divide us). For the purpose of how you live your life, to what extent does this disagreement matter? _____ Matthew 13:54-58 / Mark 6:1-6 continued Now let’s return to these passages and look at what actually happens in this incident. Jesus has been traveling around Galilee preaching, and he returns to his hometown of Nazareth. What happens? Why do they not believe in him? How do you think Mary feels about the resistance of her fellow townspeople to believing in Jesus? What does Jesus’s statement about “a prophet” in Matthew 13:57 and Mark 6:4 mean? What do you think Mary’s view of Jesus is at this point? Who do you think she believes him to be? Are there ways that we are like the people of Nazareth? Do we ever find ourselves unwilling to accept the value of people who are doing the work of God, because they are too familiar to us? If so, what do we need to do to avoid missing what God is doing? It may require humility, letting go of our ego that wants to ask why he’s so great if I’m not, seeing with new eyes, and having some faith that God is at work in people and that they can grow to be more than what we may have seen in them. Are there ways that we are like the people of Nazareth in not embracing the teachings of Jesus because he or his teachings have become too familiar to us? If so, what do we need to do to continue to embrace his teachings and have them remain fresh and potent for us? Matthew 12:46-50 / Mark 3:31-35 / Luke 8:19-21 Jesus’s mother and brothers come to him Jesus has been traveling all over the region of Galilee. His mother and brothers have not been traveling with him. From Mary’s perspective, what happens at the beginning of this story? Why do you think she and the brothers have come and are standing outside the place where Jesus is preaching? What do you think Mary wants? When Jesus receives word that his family is outside, how does he react? Jesus says that whoever “hears the word of God” (Luke 8:21) and “does the will of God” (Mark 3:35) or “does the will of my heavenly Father” (Matthew 12:50) is his brother and sister and mother. What do you think he means by that? How can determine whether we are hearing the word of God and doing the will of God? How do we know if our actions are consistent with that description of the brothers and sisters of Jesus? How might God be calling you to respond right now to the call to hear the word of God and do God’s will? Even before Jesus was conceived, Mary was someone who heard the word of God and did God’s will. So is Jesus drawing a distinction that separates her from those who follow him? Or is he expanding the concept of his family, as he expanded on many Old Testament teachings when he said, “You have heard . . . , but I say . . .” (for example, in Matthew 5:21-48), to include others along with his mother? Explain. How do you think Mary interprets what Jesus says here? Note that Jesus presumably loves his mother dearly, but he wants to make a bigger spiritual point. We will see Jesus push us to see a bigger picture again soon. Take a step back and consider this: Jesus’s relationship with his mother was different when he was an adult than when he was a child. In what ways did Mary have to accept a change in her relationship with Jesus, and how do you think she dealt with it? We also have a changed relationship with parents and other family members as we grow older. Are there times when we are called to step outside the comfort zone of our previous relationship with a parent or other family member, as Jesus did? If so, how do we continue to honor our parents or other family members even as we live our lives in ways that might be different from their expectations? Sometimes it is the other person (perhaps a grown-up child) rather than us who is responding to an inner call that changes their relationship with us. What can we learn from this story that might help us deal with those changes? Bibliography See Mary - Bibliography at https://www.faithexplored.com/mary/bibliography . Copyright © 2025, Tom Faletti (Faith Explored, www.faithexplored.com ). This material may be reproduced in whole or in part without alteration, for nonprofit use, provided such reproductions are not sold and include this copyright notice or a similar acknowledgement that includes a reference to Faith Explored and www.faithexplored.com. See www.faithexplored.com for more materials like this. Previous Mary Index Next

Who is Jesus? Who is Peter? Where do you fit in the Church that God is building? Previous Matthew Index Next Matthew 16:13-20 Who is Jesus? Who is Peter? Where do you fit in the Church that God is building? “On this rock I will build my church.” St. Peter’s Church, Staunton on Arrow, England, UK. Photo by Fabian Musto, 12 May 2018. CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:On_this_rock_I_will_build_my_church_-_St._Peter%27s_Church_(Staunton_on_Arrow)_-_geograph.org.uk_-_5772113.jpg . Tom Faletti June 16, 2025 Matthew 16:13-20 Peter recognizes Jesus as the Messiah and is given the keys to the kingdom This happens in the region of Caesarea Philippi, which is 20-25 miles north of the Sea of Galilee and inhabited mainly by Gentiles. Jesus first asks the disciples who the people say the Son of Man (i.e., Jesus) is. How do they answer? Why might the people have thought that Jesus was a return of one or another of these figures that preceded him? Jesus then asks them: Who do you say I am? Simon Peter speaks, and speaks accurately. Who does Simon Peter say Jesus is (verse 16)? Some translations use the word “Christ”; some use the word “Messiah.” Peter would have used the Hebrew word Messiah , but the biblical text was written in Greek and the actual word in the biblical text is the Greek word Christos , from which we get our word “Christ.” Both mean “Anointed One.” Peter adds that Jesus is “the Son of the living God.” (That is not in Mark 8:29.) Matthew has previously identified Jesus as God’s Son in 2:15 and 3:17. Including the term here helps clarify that Jesus is not the kind of military messiah the Jews were hoping for. (For those who might be troubled that Matthew might be adding something, many scholars think Peter might have declared Jesus to be the Son of the living God when Jesus appeared to him after the resurrection, and Matthew may simply be combining the two declarations to keep things tidy.) What does the “Anointed One” mean to you personally? Why is it so important that Jesus is the Messiah? Matthew builds the case that Jesus is the Son of God slowly throughout his entire Gospel. In 2:15, Matthew applies to Jesus an Old Testament passage where God refers to his son. In 3:17, God calls Jesus his Son. In 14:34, the disciples say Jesus is the Son of God after he walks on the water. Here, Peter identifies Jesus as the Son of God. In 27:54, the centurion calls Jesus the Son of God. Why is it so important that Jesus is the Son of God? Jesus asks all of us: Who do you say I am? We can’t let someone else answer this question for us. If you didn’t feel bound to use the particular term Messiah or Christ , how would you answer the question: Who do you say I am? People experience Jesus in so many different ways: as their savior, hope, healer, teacher, model, purpose for living, strength, the one they can share anything with, and more. In verse 17, Jesus says to Peter, “flesh and blood has not revealed this to you,” but God the Father. In what ways could you say about your faith that it has not been revealed to you by humans but by God himself? “this rock” Until verse 18, Peter has been known as Simon. Here, Jesus gives him a new name in Aramaic which was the language spoken by the Jews in Jesus’s time (a distinct language but related to the Hebrew language). The new name means “rock,” and that name has been passed on to us as Peter ( Petros in Greek in the New Testament). Jesus immediately continues by saying, “upon this rock [ petra , which also means “rock”] I will build my church.” When Jesus says, upon “this rock,” what does he mean? Throughout history, the scholars have not agreed. Is he saying that Peter is the rock, or that Peter’s faith is the rock, or that the truth that Peter professed is the rock, or that Peter’s confession of faith is the rock, or that the Messiah Peter proclaimed (Jesus) is the rock? The Roman Catholic Church has leaned heavily on the first interpretation, while Protestant preachers have ranged widely while rejecting the first interpretation. What do you think Jesus means when he talks about “this rock” in verse 18? “church” There was no “church” yet in Jesus’s time. The Greek word for “church” that appears here appear only twice in the Gospels: here and in Matthew 18:17 (the NRSV in two other verses refers to a “member of the church” but the Greek in those places is “brother”). What did “the church” mean to Matthew and his community? They had to translate into Greek what Jesus said in Aramaic. The Greek word for “church” is ekklesia . The corresponding Hebrew word is qahal , and translators generally used the Greek word ekklesia for the Hebrew word qahal . This Hebrew word was used for the assembly or congregation of the people of Israel, and that sometimes meant the entire people of Israel and sometimes a local gathering. So when Jesus refers to the “church,” he could mean the universal church – the whole body of Christians. But he could also mean the local manifestation of the church – what we would call a parish or congregation – and that is clearly what Matthew has in mind in 18:15-20. The word is also used in the New Testament in chapter 2 of the Book of Revelation, which addresses the “church” of Ephesus, the “church” of Smyrna, etc., and there it probably means the group of local assemblies that met in those cities. The Catholic Church interprets this passage in light of the development of the papacy, a different view than evangelical churches, which reject the hierarchical superstructure of the Catholic Church. Mainline Christian denominations and the Orthodox church reject the papacy but have hierarchies. What do you think Jesus means when he says that upon this rock “I will build my church”? “the gates of Hades” In verse 18, Jesus uses the phrase “the gates of Hades.” He does not say “the gates of hell.” In Greek mythology, Hades was the god of the underworld where souls went when they died, and the name came to be used for the place where they resided: the abode of the dead, the netherworld. “Hades” was the word used to translate the Hebrew word Sheol , which was the place of the dead. There was no joy in Sheol, but it was not a place of torment. It was merely the place where the souls of the dead went. Jesus says that the place of death will not prevail over the Church: the people of God will not end up in the grip of (in the gates of, in the location of) death. The power of death cannot overcome the Church. We will end with God, not in the place of death. When Jesus says in verse 19 that the gates of Hades will not prevail over the Church, he is saying that death is not our final destination. What does Jesus’s promise that death will not prevail in the end mean to you? “the keys of the kingdom” and the power “to bind” and “to loose” In verse 19, Jesus two things that have been controversial through much of the Church’s existence. He is still speaking specifically and singly to Peter. He says he will give to Peter “the keys to the kingdom” and the power “to bind” and “to loose.” Scholars have debated the meaning of “the keys of the kingdom.” The phrase is often interpreted in light of Isaiah 22:22, where God says that Hilkiah will become the master or chief steward of King Hezekiah’s royal household. He will have the key to the House of David – “key” being a symbol of authority – and he will have control over whether the doors are open or closed. Scholars also have debated the meaning of the power to bind and loose. Father Daniel Harrington says, “The content of that power is not completely clear. It may involve laying down rules and giving exemptions, imposing or lifting excommunications, forgiving or not forgiving sins, or even performing exorcisms” (Harrington, p. 68). In Jesus’s time, rabbis might have interpreted these terms in reference to their teaching authority. They would have been seen as having the power of excommunication (and Jesus was once expelled from a synagogue by rabbis who thought they had that authority). The leading rabbis also made rulings on how to interpret the Scriptures. The early church saw this teaching authority as being held by the apostles. As time went on, this teaching authority passed from bishop to bishop. In Matthew 18:18, the power to bind and loose is extended to all of the disciples in cases of disciplinary action in the local church community. But only Peter is described as receiving the revelation from the Father that Jesus is the Messiah (Matt. 18:17), and only Peter is given the keys of the kingdom. The Roman Catholic Church has develop a whole theology of the papacy, and this verse is part of that theology: that the Church is built on Peter, that Jesus instituted Peter in a unique role, that Peter has primacy in the teaching authority of the Church, and that his teaching authority is passed on to his successors (the popes) as the visible head of the Church. Protestants reject this whole theology of the papacy and do not see any hint of papacy in this passage. They see Peter as the leader of the apostles in Jesus’s time, but they generally see “this rock” as Peter’s confession of faith or the truth he professed or Jesus himself, not Peter, and they see the power to bind and loose as broadly shared by all Church leaders or the Church as a whole. Note, however, that this is partly a disagreement over who has authority and how much authority, not over whether there is a teaching authority. Protestants believe that their denominations have the power to determine who is and is not a member of the denomination and the power to decide what is and is not official doctrine. That leads to a series of questions for people of any denomination: In verse 19, Jesus is still speaking specifically and singly to Peter when he gives Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the power to bind and loose. What do these statements about Peter mean to you? How important was Peter’s role in the early Church? In what ways does the binding and loosing authority of the Church benefit us (the authority to establish doctrine and to decide who is a member of the church or not)? How can this authority be used wisely so that it is not abused? Jesus ends this exchange in verse 20 by telling the disciples not to tell people that he is the Messiah. This restriction was obviously only meant for a time; after his resurrection, they were called to tell the world all about him. But why do you think he told them not to tell people he was the Messiah at this time? Take a step back and consider this: The arguments over the papacy have taken attention away from Jesus’s metaphor. He says that the Church – which is the entire people of God from every Christian denomination – is like a building made of rock and built out of individual stones. In Matthew 21:42, Jesus identifies himself as the cornerstone, quoting Psalm 118:22 (“the stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone”). Peter builds on that image when he writes, “Come to him, a living stone,” adding that “you, as living stones, are being built into a spiritual house . . .” (1 Pet. 2:4-5). Jesus is a living stone, the cornerstone of God’s house, and we are living stones who help form that house of God. This is a metaphor for the Church. Each one of us is a living stone in God’s enormous spiritual building. Each of us have our own, specific place in the Church that God is building. How important is it for the stones that make up the Church God is building to fit together well? How important is it for each stone to be fitted to the stone next to it, for each row of stones to be aligned properly upon the row before it, as part of God’s overall plan? In what ways are you a living stone in the Church that God is building? Where do you fit in the construction of God’s spiritual house? Bibliography See Matthew - Bibliography at https://www.faithexplored.com/matthew/bibliography . Copyright © 2025, Tom Faletti (Faith Explored, www.faithexplored.com ). This material may be reproduced in whole or in part without alteration, for nonprofit use, provided such reproductions are not sold and include this copyright notice or a similar acknowledgement that includes a reference to Faith Explored and www.faithexplored.com. See www.faithexplored.com for more materials like this. Previous Matthew Index Next

How to pray: The Lord’s Prayer shows the way. Previous Matthew Index Next Matthew 6:9-15 How to pray: The Lord’s Prayer shows the way. Image provided by Wix. Tom Faletti May 18, 2024 Matthew 6:9-15 The Lord’s Prayer: How to pray This prayer has two parts: 3 petitions focused on God and 3 petitions focused on our needs. How does the prayer known today as “the Lord’s Prayer” or the “Our Father” begin? What does this first part – "Our Father who art in heaven" – say about the nature and character of God? “Heaven” tell us God is not human, or like a human. “Father” tells us what God is like – what God’s character is, relative to us. Note: Matthew is writing in Greek and here uses the Greek word for “father.” However, if Jesus taught the prayer in Aramaic, he might have used the more intimate Aramaic word “Abba,” which means “Daddy.” “Abba” only appears 3 times in the New Testament – in Mark 14:36; Romans 8:15; and Galatians 4:6 – but it casts a new light on our relationship with God that is not taught prior to Jesus. What does this beginning of the prayer say about our relationship to God? . . . and our relationship with each other? This part of the prayer establishes that we are children of God – and therefore that we are brothers and sisters of each other. What does “hallowed be thy name” mean? “Hallowed” establishes that God, by his very nature, is holy. In combination with “heaven” it establishes that God has a supreme degree of holiness, and this indicates a distinction between God and us. Is this just about treating God’s name with respect, or is there more to it? What are some ways we can “hallow” God’s name in our everyday living? Verse 10 has the form of a typical Jewish couplet: two statements that say the same thing in different ways, so that the second amplifies the first (Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, Volume 1 , p. 211-212). How do “thy kingdom come” and “thy will be done on earth as in heaven” make the same point? How does the second petition in verse 10 – “thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” – go further than or further explain the first of these petitions? The petitions in verse 10 suggest that wherever God’s will is done, there the kingdom of God is. Anywhere on Earth where the will of God is being done is part of the kingdom. What does this say to you about how you live your life? Barclay suggests that the last 3 petitions in this prayer focus our attention on 3 great human needs that are related to the present, past, and future: bread now, forgiveness for what we have done in the past, and help in future temptation. He also suggests that these petitions point us to God the Father as Creator (bread), God the Son as savior/redeemer (forgiveness), and God the Holy Spirit as source of strength and guidance (in temptation) (Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, Volume 1 , p. 199). What do you think Jesus meant by “bread”? Is it just about meeting our physical need for food? Is it about all of our material needs? Is it expressing a desire for spiritual food? Is it about the Eucharist? Is it about desire to participate in the heavenly banquet to come? Throughout the ages, people have found benefit in all of these interpretations. What might be the significance in praying for “our” daily bread, not “my” daily bread? The word usually translated “daily” is uncertain. It is used in the New Testament only here and in Luke’s version of the Lord’s Prayer (Luke 11:3), and it only appears once in other Greek literature outside the New Testament. Scholars suggest that it could mean “daily” or “tomorrow’s” or “needful” or “future” (Viviano, par. 39, p. 645). Although in the Lord’s Prayer today many people pray, “Forgive us our trespasses,” the word is better translated as “debts,” which is what we find in both the NRSV, the NABRE, and most other modern translations. The word “debts” is a metaphor for our sins. If we are talking about sin, what does “Forgive us our debts” mean? What does the word “debt” suggest about our sins? What does “as we forgive those . . .” mean? “as” means in the same proportion or to the same degree – with the same measure. So we are asking God to forgive us to the same degree that we forgive others, or using the same measure we use to measure out forgiveness to others. How do verses 14-15 amplify the message of the importance of forgiveness? Why is forgiveness so important? Forgiveness isn’t always easy. How can we move to a place of forgiveness when we have been deeply hurt? It is important to acknowledge the hurt, and sometimes we need time to process the hurt. But ultimately, when forgiveness is hard, it comes down to a decision. We can decide to hold on to the hurt or to give it to God and decide as an act of the will to stop holding it against the other person. This does not necessarily mean “forgetting” the offense; for self-preservation we sometimes need to remember what has been done to us. But we can still decide to stop holding it against the other person. Sometimes, when we do this, we find that letting go of it provides a release for ourselves as well, allowing us to put the matter in the past and move forward. In the Lord’s Prayer as we pray it today, we say, “Lead us not into temptation” (verse 13a). There is a lot going on behind the scenes in this verse. First, although we pray, “Lead us not into temptation,” the word “temptation” is not the best translation of the word. Modern translations often say “test” or “trial” in verse 13. The Jews of Jesus’s time expected that there would be a time of severe testing before the coming of the Messiah. A common understanding of the petition is that it is asking God to spare us that trial. Second, although the first part literally means “Lead us not,” we know that God does not lead people into temptation – see James 1:13-14. Therefore, it is better to interpret this metaphorically. The Catholic bishops in a couple of countries in Europe have sought and received approval from the Vatican to rephrase this part of the prayer in their liturgies to remove the implication that God might lead us into temptation. They are adopting other wordings that might be translated into English as: “Do not let us fall into temptation” or “Do not abandon us to temptation.” The point is that, while God allows people to be put to the test, we want to ask him to spare us from that trial. Where is God when you are tempted – leading you into the temptation or trying to lead you out of it ? Explain. What is the test or trial you need to ask God to keep you from? In the Lord’s Prayer, we usually pray, “Deliver us from evil.” This acknowledges that evil is real, along with temptation. What is the response to evil that Jesus is calling us to take? In modern translations, the "deliver us" line in verse 6:13 is translated: “rescue us from the evil one” (NRSV) or “deliver us from the evil one” (NABRE), because the Greek word is sometimes used for the devil (for example, Matthew 13:38) – i.e., evil personified, not some abstract notion of evil. What does this add to your understanding of what we are praying here? Compare this prayer to your picture of the heaped-up, empty phrases Jesus rejects in Matthew 6:7. How is this prayer different? How can you capture some of the Lord’s Prayer’s simplicity and directness in your personal prayers to God? For some people, this prayer has become so rote that it has lost some of its power. If we could reclaim this prayer – every petition of it – so that it was a conscious expression of our intimate reliance on God as we face life in the real world, how might that affect our lives? Which of these petitions is speaking must directly to your heart today, and why? What might you consider doing differently because of today’s study? Take a step back and consider this: Barclay writes: “In the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus teaches us to bring the whole of life to the whole of God, and to bring the whole of God to the whole of life” (Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, Volume 1 , p. 199). How does this prayer invite us to make God the center of all that we face in life? How can you use the Lord’s Prayer to help you invite God into “the whole” of your life? What are the short, simple, direct things you need to say to God right now? Bibliography See Matthew - Bibliography at https://www.faithexplored.com/matthew/bibliography . Copyright © 2025, Tom Faletti (Faith Explored, www.faithexplored.com ). This material may be reproduced in whole or in part without alteration, for nonprofit use, provided such reproductions are not sold and include this copyright notice or a similar acknowledgement that includes a reference to Faith Explored and www.faithexplored.com. See www.faithexplored.com for more materials like this. Previous Matthew Index Next

How can we recognize when we are focusing on little things that are of less importance and missing the more important matters of justice, mercy, and faithfulness? Previous Matthew Index Next Matthew 23:13-24 How can we recognize when we are focusing on little things that are of less importance and missing the more important matters of justice, mercy, and faithfulness? Image by Sheldon Kennedy, provided by Unsplash via Wix. Tom Faletti August 21, 2025 Matthew 23:13-24 (Part 1 of Matthew 23:13-36) Read Matthew 23:13-36 Jesus denounces the scribes and the Pharisees for their hypocrisy In Matthew 23:13-36, Jesus pronounces 7 woes upon the scribes and Pharisees. The word usually translated “woe” has a meaning that communicates sorrow as well as anger. Wiliam Barclay tells us, “There is righteous anger here, but it is the anger of the heart of love, broken by the stubborn blindness of men” (Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, Volume 2 , p. 318). Jesus is speaking these stern words of judgment with a heavy heart. Part 1 Verses 13-14 It is not surprising that, of all the groups that opposed Jesus, Matthew retains this denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees, because those were the two groups that lived on after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 and opposed the work of Christian communities such as Matthew’s that included both Jews and Gentiles. What is the first thing Jesus denounces the scribes and Pharisees for? In what ways do you think they were doing that? Are there ways that we might unintentionally block people from entering the kingdom of heaven or be an obstacle to other people’s faith? How should we act to avoid being an obstacle to other people’s faith? Sometimes, the problem is a desire to try to push everyone to conform to one for how to live the faith, so it may be helpful to try to avoid being controlling or judgmental. Instead of trying to corral or force people, we can seek to love them into the kingdom of heaven. Note: Most modern translations leave out verse 14, in which Jesus accuses the scribes and Pharisees of devouring widows’ houses. It is not in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts of Matthew, but it is in the corresponding passage in Mark; so it may have been added by a copyist who pulled it from Mark 12:40 rather than being in the original version of Matthew. Verse 15 What do the scribes and Pharisees do that leads to the second woe? Judaism is not today thought of as a proselytizing religion. However, in the 1 st century, before the destruction of Jerusalem, Jews encouraged Gentiles to join them as “god-fearers" – people who accepted the Jewish moral law and belief in one God – and Pharisees sought to convince them to convert fully to Judaism through circumcision and acceptance of the full Law with all its detailed rules regarding foods, etc. In Matthew’s time, Pharisees wanted Christians to embrace the whole Jewish Law; so verse 15 might have resonated even more for Matthew’s readers than for Jesus’s original audience. Every Christian denomination seeks converts. What’s wrong with what the Pharisees were doing? Barclay says it well: “The sin of the Pharisees was that they were not really seeking to lead men to God, they were seeking to lead men to Pharisaism” (Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, Volume 2 , p. 321). In our time, how might Christians sometimes be more focused on converting people to their “side” or their flavor of Christianity than to God? How are we vulnerable to focusing more on winning people to our “party” – our part of the body of Christ or even our political party – than to God? One of the ways we see this happening in the United States is people putting politics before religion. Ryan Burge, a political science professor at Eastern Illinois University, author, and American Baptist pastor, says that between 2005 and 2020, political scientists observed a “pretty significant revolution” in people’s thinking. Previously, political scientists thought that “religion was the first lens and then politics lived downstream of religion” – i.e., that people chose their religion first and then decided how to vote based on their religious views. But now, he says, “we recognize that politics is the master identity, and . . . that people pick their religion [or denomination or local church] based on their politics. It’s not the other way around” (“ Faith and the Faithful in the 2024 Election ”). Given that our faith should be the primary guiding light for our worldview and everything else should come second to that, this finding is troubling. Verses 16-22 Recall from Matthew 5:33-37 (in the Sermon on the Mount) that Jews in Jesus’s time were casual about oaths, arguing that unless an oath directly invoked God it didn’t “count.” Here, Jesus may be quoting them, or he may be using exaggeration to show the foolishness of their hypocritical hair-splitting. What is the point of Jesus’s response to the Pharisees’ game-playing about which oaths “count” and must be honored? Jesus is pointing out that the things they say don’t “count” – the Temple, the altar – are more important than the things they say do count. Furthermore, in verses 20-21 he suggests that it all goes back to God, so all of it “counts.” Perhaps the real issue here is whether you should need to swear by anything in order to assure someone that you are telling the truth or will fulfill your word. When should people be able to count on your words being trustworthy? What does it say about us if we are focused on when we might be able to slip out of an oath based on a technicality? In Matthew 5:33-37, Jesus told his followers that they should never swear an oath by anything. Should you ever need to swear an oath, other than in a court of law or official document? Explain. Verses 23-24 Jews were directed in the Law of Moses to tithe from the produce they harvested (Lev. 27:30-32). Jesus indicates that the scribes and Pharisees are so zealous about collecting the whole tithe, or tithing of their entire gain, that they demand that people tithe even from their garden herbs (mint, dill, and cumin). If you have ever owned a basil plant, imagine if an advocate of tithing asked you to give to the church one-tenth of your “harvest” of basil, besides your tithe of your income. That’s what Jesus is criticizing here: they were trying to calculate the tithe down to the basil leaves, while ignoring more important matters. Is there anything wrong with tithing from even your smaller gains? In verse 23, what are the “weightier” matters of the Law that Jesus says they should be more focused on? Jesus identifies justice, mercy, and faithfulness as “weightier” matters than the tithing of mint. (The NABRE uses the word “judgment,” but “justice” may be a more appropriate translation that better captures the meaning of the word today.) What does it mean to practice “justice”? Justice means is to give to God what is due to God and to give to people what is due to them as people made in God’s image. What does that call us to do? What does it mean to practice “mercy”? One way to think about mercy in a modern context is to think about the use of discretion to balance the possible harshness of strict justice. Legal systems often ask judges to use discretion in deciding what is an appropriate way to deal with the circumstances of an individual case. What does it mean to practice “faithfulness”? (Note: Some translations say “faith” or “fidelity,” but in today’s language “faithfulness” probably better captures what Jesus is saying.) Why are justice, mercy, and faithfulness “weightier” than detailed tithing? Jesus does not reject tithing. He says that they should focus on the weightier matters “without neglecting the others” – i.e., without neglecting tithing. Does Jesus want us to tithe our mint and basil? How can we balance Matthew 22:21 – where Jesus tells us to “give back to God what is God’s” – with Jesus’s overall objection to the zeal with which the Pharisees focused on details? The Pharisees might say, “We haven’t neglected the weightier matters. We tithe of everything because of our faithfulness to God.” What point are they missing? In verse 24, Jesus refers to gnats and camels. Both are identified as “unclean” in the Law of Moses (Lev. 11:41-43 and Lev. 11:4), so Jews were supposed to avoid them. Pious Pharisees poured their drinks through a cloth to strain out any possible gnats. Jesus accuses them of straining the gnats out of their drinks while swallowing camels. What is the meaning of this metaphor? What are the “gnats” they we might become unnecessarily focused on in our day? In other words, what are the little things we might have a tendency to focus on that don’t really matter very much in the grand scheme of our faith, but that might draw our attention away from more important things? What are the “camels” – the big, important things – that we might be overlooking in our focus on gnats? This could be considered personally and also societally. Societally, we might fail to address weighty matters such as hunger, homelessness, racism, etc. Individually, we might fail to address issues such as paying fairly those who work for us, avoiding unkind or abusive words that hurt other people, doing our fair share of the chores, showing mercy to other people when they are not perfect, etc. You can probably add good examples of your own. Throughout this denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus repeatedly calls them “hypocrites” (see verses 13, 15, 23 ,25, 27, 29). What is a hypocrite? “Hypocrite” is actually a Greek word. That word was used to describe actors in the theatre. They play a part that is not who they really are, so they are pretending to be something they are not. The meaning of the word then expanded to the more general meaning we have for it today. How does their behavior make it appropriate to describe them as hypocrites? How are we at risk of falling into hypocrisy in our day? Take a step back and consider this: It is easy to become critical of the scribes and Pharisees and miss the ways we also put our focus in the wrong places. It is also possible to go to the other extreme and adopt a worldview that unconsciously says that no details matter – that anything goes. God calls us to find the balance that allows us to stay focused on justice, mercy, and faithfulness (Matt. 23:23). What are the big things that you think matter most? What can you do to make sure you stay focused on those big things and don’t get distracted by little matters that aren’t as important? Bibliography See Matthew - Bibliography at https://www.faithexplored.com/matthew/bibliography . Copyright © 2025, Tom Faletti (Faith Explored, www.faithexplored.com ). This material may be reproduced in whole or in part without alteration, for nonprofit use, provided such reproductions are not sold and include this copyright notice or a similar acknowledgement that includes a reference to Faith Explored and www.faithexplored.com. See www.faithexplored.com for more materials like this. Previous Matthew Index Next

John the Baptist comes to prepare the way for one greater than him. Previous Mark Index Next Mark 1:1-8 John the Baptist comes to prepare the way for one greater than him. Tom Faletti Mark 1:1-8 In verse 1, how does Mark describe this book he is writing? Leaving aside the religious meaning for a moment, what does it mean to you when you have "good news"? In the context of our faith, what is "the good news of Jesus Christ"? Mark describes Jesus using two titles in verse 1. What are those titles and what do they mean? The first term is "Christ," which is a Greek translation of the Hebrew term "Messiah" – both meaning "anointed one." Why did it matter to the Jews whether Jesus was the "Messiah"? What did that word mean to them? Jews expected a messiah who would overthrow the Romans, end their oppression, and usher in a new age of freedom and peace. The other title in verse 1 is "Son of God." This phrase does not appear in many of the earliest manuscripts but was a well-established part of the Gospel by the second century (Daniel J. Harrington, S.J., "The Gospel According to Mark," The New Jerome Biblical Commentary , p. 599). Since Jesus's identity as the Son of God seems to be a key theme for Mark, it is fitting for the title to be used here at the beginning of his Gospel. In the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament), references to a "son of God" or "sons of God" generally appear to mean angels, so for the Jews of Jesus's time this phrase would have been more ambiguous than it is to Christians. Jesus's appropriation of the term and assertion that he is not only the Son of God but one with the Father leads us to understand the term literally. What does "the Son of God" mean to you? (to be continued) Bibliography See Mark - Bibliography at https://www.faithexplored.com/mark/bibliography . Copyright © 2025, Tom Faletti (Faith Explored, www.faithexplored.com ). This material may be reproduced in whole or in part without alteration, for nonprofit use, provided such reproductions are not sold and include this copyright notice or a similar acknowledgement that includes a reference to Faith Explored and www.faithexplored.com. See www.faithexplored.com for more materials like this. Previous Mark Index Next

What is a healthy view of wealth? Previous Matthew Index Next Matthew 6:19-24 What is a healthy view of wealth? Image by Mathieu Stern, provided by Unsplash via Wix. Tom Faletti May 19, 2024 Matthew 6:19-24 Money and wealth Verses 19-21 What does Jesus tell us not to do in verse 19? What does Jesus tell us to do in verse 20? Jesus offers a practical reason for these two arguments. Why does Jesus say the one kind of treasure is better than the other? The problems Jesus identifies with trying to preserve the world’s treasures relate to the kinds of ways people might store up treasures in Jesus’s time: Moths eat fine clothing, which is something that wealthy people might put their wealth into – recall the parable of Lazarus and Dives (Luke 16:19-31) where the rich man dressed in purple and fine linen. The word for rust literally means “eating,” which could refer to rust corrupting metal but could also refer to vermin eating away at storehouses of grain. Thieves could break into houses and steal gold, silver, or other treasures. The contrast Jesus draws between the two kinds of treasures revolves in part around treasures that can be corrupted or taken away from us, and the secure and incorruptible treasures that will remain with us in heaven. What “treasures” do we have now that would still have value in heaven? Jesus describes these as treasures we “store up” now, so they are things that we at least partially experience now, before we go to heaven. So be not talking just about “heavenly” treasures, but also things that we experience at least partially on earth but that have lasting value in heaven. Here are some possible examples: The character we develop and demonstrate by showing patience, fortitude, or other virtues, which we will still have in heaven; the ways we experience Jesus as we respond to him by feeding the hungry, helping the poor, comforting those who are mourning or sick, educating others, etc.; the ways we live the teachings of Jesus by working to make peace or promote justice or to encourage others to live for God; etc. “Who we are” goes to heaven, so our virtues, character, and godly ways of living that made us who we are will still be there in heaven. What are some examples of earthly treasure that are corruptible or lacking in eternal value and will not be treasure in heaven? What does “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be” mean to you? How can we train ourselves to focus on the “treasures” that have heavenly value and not just earthly value? Verses 22-23 This passage is not based on the modern science of the eye but on a more simple idea that light enters our body through your eyes. A “healthy” or “sound” eye (Matthew 6:22, NRSV and NABRE, respectively), allows the light to come in fully and easily. We might think about the effect of cataracts on human eyes. A cataract clouds your eye so that not as much light gets in and what gets in is more blurry. To use that as a metaphor for our approach to wealth, In the context of the surrounding teachings, Jesus may be using the idea of the eye and light as a metaphor for the need for his disciples to have a clear view about wealth or riches. What are some spiritual or metaphorical cataracts that might keep the light of Jesus’s teachings from shining clearly into your eyes? Some of the things that might block the light are: Anxiety, fear, prejudice, pride, the desire to be thought well of by others, confirmation bias or other cognitive biases, self-centeredness, excusing our own actions in ways we would not excuse others. What are the effects or results when those things keep the light from getting in? What kind of eye do we need? What would make for a “sound” or “healthy” eye? How does the attitude expressed in the Lord’s Prayer – “Give us this day our daily bread” – which Jesus taught in the previous passage, offer guidance about how to let the light of God’s teaching about possessions shine clearly through healthy eyes in our lives? In what ways do you need a new way of “seeing” wealth if you are going to take a Christ-like approach to money, wealth, and possessions? Verse 24 What does Jesus say in this verse? The last word of the verse is the Greek word mammon , which can mean money or wealth or possessions. “Wealth” better captures the point, since there are various forms in which we might be focused on riches or possessions or assets rather than God. What are some forms of “wealth” we might be tempted to become devoted to? Regarding verses 19-20, St. Jerome said: “This must be understood not of money only, but of all our possessions. The god of a glutton is his belly; of a lover his lust; and so every man serves that to which he is in bondage; and has his heart there where his treasure is” (quoted in Thomas Aquinas, Catena aurea , p. 244). What does Jesus say about the possibility of serving two masters at once? Why do we sometimes think we can serve more than one master? Why doesn’t it work to try to serve two masters at once? Jesus does not reject all forms of wealth-holding. It is worth noting that his ministry was funded in part from the resources of wealthy women – see Luke 8:2-3. St. Jerome suggested that there is a difference between being a slave or a master of one’s money: “Let the covetous man who is called by the Christian name, hear this, that he cannot serve both Christ and riches. Yet He said not, he who has riches, but, he who is the servant of riches. For he who is the slave of money, guards his money as a slave; but he who has thrown off the yoke of his slavery, dispenses them as a master” (quoted in Thomas Aquinas, Catena aurea , p. 248). Jerome’s insight is that a person may have wealth yet be the master rather than the slave of it by how they regard it and what they do with it. In our time, it is considered irresponsible as well as imprudent to go through one’s whole work life and approach retirement without having saved up some wealth, because our social system does not provide a way for us to live in dignity in our old age if we do not have assets saved up to spend down in retirement. How can a person have riches and yet not become a servant of riches? How do we find balance in our handling of wealth? What are the practical attitudes and actions that would help us not become slaves or servants of the wealth or assets we have? In 1 Cor. 7:29-31, Paul talks about having possessions and dealings with the world but living as though you do not have them. It might be possible to apply that idea here. There are several dimensions that could be considered. First is our focus : How much attention do we give to our wealth? What is one practical thing you could do to reduce your focus on money, wealth, or possessions? Second is our spending : How much do we spend on ourselves? Just because we have wealth (if we do) does not mean we have to spend it on ourselves. Instead, we could be on the lookout for ways to use it for the kingdom of God. If you don’t currently tithe (give 10% of your income to the work of God – i.e., church, service agencies, groups working for justice, etc.), could you increase your giving to the level of a full tithe? If you already tithe and you don’t need to spend all the money you earn, could you increase your charitable giving? Regardless of your level of tithing, how could you become more open to opportunities to help others who need help? What is one thing you could do differently that would shift your amount of spending somewhat from yourself to others? Take a step back and consider this: Many Christian denominations have found value in the concept of “stewardship” – the idea that what we have is not ours, to be used for our own benefit, but a gift or loan from God to be used for his service. This might lead to a shift in our attitude toward our paycheck: Instead if thinking of it as “what I have earned,” we could think of it as “what God has given to me.” If we can get there, we can consider a further mind-shift, from “what God has given to me” (which is still me-centered), to “what God allowed me to receive in trust for his purposes.” What we hold in trust, we hold for another’s benefit. If we can view all we have as being entrusted to us by God for his benefit and the benefit of his children (i.e., for the common good), it can help us avoid becoming a slave to our money, wealth, or possessions. Then we can see the things we do with our wealth as acts of service to God, as we acknowledge him as our master, rather than ourselves or our wealth. John Wesley, founder of the Methodist movement in the Church of England, understood this view of stewardship. In a sermon on money in 1760, he said: First: “Gain all you can” through your labor and effort without hurting yourself or anyone else. Second, “save all you can” and don’t waste any of what you have gained on unnecessary expenses. Third, “give all you can.” In deciding how to give, Wesley said you should think about it this way: God “placed you here not as a proprietor [owner], but a steward: As such he entrusted you, for a season, with goods of various kinds.” As a faithful steward of what the Lord has “for the present lodged in your hands,” you should first meet your own genuine needs and the needs of those dependent on you, and then “give all you can; nay, in a sound sense, all you have,” giving for the purpose of doing good to all people, and particularly to help the poor. Every expenditure we consider, he suggested, could be evaluated by whether the spending would be the action of a steward or the action of someone who thought he or she was the owner of what they possess. When we act like a steward rather than like an owner, then we are recognizing that all we have has been entrusted to us by God (Wesley, “The Use of Money” ). How would you approach wealth, money, or possessions differently if you routinely thought of them as things entrusted to you by God rather than as things you have earned or received on your own account? What is one step you might take in response to today’s insights? Bibliography See Matthew - Bibliography at https://www.faithexplored.com/matthew/bibliography . Copyright © 2025, Tom Faletti (Faith Explored, www.faithexplored.com ). This material may be reproduced in whole or in part without alteration, for nonprofit use, provided such reproductions are not sold and include this copyright notice or a similar acknowledgement that includes a reference to Faith Explored and www.faithexplored.com. See www.faithexplored.com for more materials like this. Previous Matthew Index Next

Prologue to Luke's Gospel: Why is he writing and for whom? Previous Next Luke Index Luke 1:1-4 Prologue to Luke's Gospel: Why is he writing and for whom? Tom Faletti Luke 1:1-4 What does Luke say that others have done before him? What does Luke say that he has done? What do you think an "orderly account" means? He refers to events that have been "fulfilled among us." Who is "us"? What do you think it means to say that these events have been "fulfilled" among us? What does Luke want Theophilus to know? Who do you think Theophilus is? "Theophilus" means "friend of God. The style of Luke's writing at this point, with his reference to the "most excellent" Theophilus, is the way one would refer to an official or other prominent member of the community. However, the meaning of the name is convenient for indicating that anyone who is a friend of God would welcome this account. It is therefore possible that "Theophilus" is not a specific person and that Luke sees himself writing for all the Theophiluses of the world -- all the friends of who want to know the truth about what they have been taught. (to be continued) Bibliography See Luke - Bibliography at https://www.faithexplored.com/luke/bibliography . Copyright © 2025, Tom Faletti (Faith Explored, www.faithexplored.com ). This material may be reproduced in whole or in part without alteration, for nonprofit use, provided such reproductions are not sold and include this copyright notice or a similar acknowledgement that includes a reference to Faith Explored and www.faithexplored.com. See www.faithexplored.com for more materials like this. Previous Next Luke Index

Jesus doesn’t want to lose anyone – not those who have strayed, and not those who have wronged others. He offers a path that seeks reconciliation and broad agreement before disciplinary action. [Matthew 18:10-14; 18:15-20; 18:19-20] Previous Matthew Index Next Matthew 18:10-20 Jesus doesn’t want to lose anyone – not those who have strayed, and not those who have wronged others. He offers a path that seeks reconciliation and broad agreement before disciplinary action. Domenico Fetti (c.1589-1623). Das Gleichnis vom verlorenen Schaf [The parable of the lost sheep] . Circa 1619-21. Cropped. Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister (Old Masters Picture Gallery), Dresden, Germany. Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Parabola_della_pecora_smarrita_-_Fetti.png . Tom Faletti June 29, 2025 Matthew 18:10-14 God seeks out the little ones who stray from his ways In verse 10, Jesus describes the little ones as having angels in heaven. The Jews of Jesus’s time thought that nations and individuals had guardian angels and that angels presented people’s prayers to God. We can see this in the books of Daniel and Tobit. This verse reflects that thinking. Verse 10 seems unrelated to the verses that follow, but maybe it’s not. What does it tell us about the importance of the little ones, and the importance of saving any who are lost, if their angels stand before the face of God and therefore are in the direct presence of God? Most modern Bibles skip verse 11, because it is not in the oldest manuscripts. Some manuscripts insert here: “For the Son of Man has come to save what was lost.” Many scholars see it has having been added by a copyist, who took it from Luke 19:10. As later copyists copied that copy, that addition was preserved, even while the older versions without it were still being copied and handed down. Verse 11 might have been seen as a useful link connecting verse 10 to the parable of the lost sheep. In the parable of the lost sheep, who does the owner of the sheep represent? The 99? The one? What is the meaning of the parable? How does the shepherd feel about those who have been led astray or wander off from his flock? What does he do about it? What does this tell us about the shepherd? He knows when even one of the 100 is missing. And he cares enough to go after those who are missing in order to bring them back. How does he feel about them when they are found and returned? What does this parable tell us about the love of God? This parable indicates that God cares for each one of as an individual. How should that affect the way you live or the way you think about yourself or others? There are significant differences between Matthew’s version of the parable and the version told in Luke’s Gospel (see Luke 15:3-7). In both versions, the sheep owner is joyful; but in Luke that joy is the main point, whereas in Matthew the main point – the point the parable ends with – is different. What is the point made in verse 14? God does not want anyone to perish. This chapter is not primarily about us as individuals; it is about the church. What does it say to us as church? If the church is called to be the Body of Christ, how should the church view someone who strays? If we are to be like God, how should we think about someone who has strayed from the faith or are doing wrong? Should we condemn them, and, if not, how should we think about them? How should we feel when they return? What should we do about it when someone strays from the faith? Matthew 18:15-20 When a church member does wrong; and agreeing in prayer This section begins with a scenario where a “brother” has wronged you. In the context of Jesus’s teaching to his disciples, a “brother” was a fellow disciple of Jesus. Translating this story to our time, who would a “brother” be? In Matthew’s time, and in ours, a “brother” would be a fellow member of the local church community. In our time, what might be some examples of a “brother” sinning against another brother? This could be lying or saying unkind things about another, treating another unkindly, not living up to one’s commitments, not doing one’s share of the work, flirting with another’s spouse, owing money and not paying it back, pushing ahead of others – the list of problems that could arise in a church is endless. Jesus lays out a series of steps for dealing with an offense. Step 1 What is the first approach to dealing with a situation where someone has done you wrong (verse 15)? Why would Jesus want us to start here? What is the value or benefit in approaching the matter in this private way? What happens if we don’t start with this first step? What is the significance of Jesus saying that if you succeed you have “regained” the brother? What was lost and now is re-gained? How is this language of “gaining” the offending brother connected to the previous passage about the “lost” sheep? Step 2 What is Jesus’s second step for dealing with a case where someone has wronged you (verse 16?) Sometimes, what we think is an offense against us is actually a misunderstanding or might even be our own sin. What are some possible examples of that? What is the value in this second step where we bring someone else into the dialogue? Why does Jesus say it is useful “so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses”? What is the “evidence” that is provided if other Christians are willing to support you in confronting the person who has done you wrong? If other members of the Christian community don’t agree with your interpretation of the situation and don’t see the need to confront the person you think has done you wrong, what might that tell you? This might be a sign that you have misunderstood the situation, or that you are as much at fault as the other person, or that you are making too big a deal out of a little offense and should just let it go and leave the situation to God to deal with. What is the goal of this intervention, where others join you in talking with the person who offended you? Is it the same as in verse 15? If so, what attitude should we have? Step 3 What is the third step Jesus offers if a person who has done you wrong does not come around in your first two efforts (verse 17)? Who is the “church” in this verse? The local assembly, i.e., your local church, congregation, or parish. What is the goal of bringing the sinning person to the whole community? Is it the same goal that was sought in verse 15? If so, what attitude should we have? Note that this strategy presumes that the church at large will agree with you. If there is wide disagreement in the church, it doesn’t really work. How do you think we should situations where the church is divided over whether something wrong has been done? Is the goal still the same (to re-gain a “brother”)? If the church is in agreement and the offender still won’t listen, what does Jesus say to do? Why might it be necessary to impose this kind of social discipline on a person when they have refused to listen to the entire church? In light of verses 14 and 15, what do you think the goal of spurning the sinning person is? And therefore, what attitude do you think must accompany this action? It may sound odd to us when Jesus tells his disciples to treat the offending or sinning member of the church like a Gentile or tax collector, given that he spent time with Gentiles and welcomed tax collectors who repented and followed him. The point may be that, just as Gentiles and tax collectors did not have a place in the Jewish religious community, a person who has taken a stand against the entire church after having been found guilty of a significant offense does not fit in the local church. This language may have sounded perfectly normal among the significant Jewish population in Matthew’s community. Verses 18-20 Verse 18 takes some of the broad authority to bind and loose that was given to Peter in Matthew 16:19, and delegates it to all of the disciples and, by implication, to those who follow in subsequent generations. What does that say to you? In what sense does the Christian community have power to bind and loose in a way that will be honored in heaven? How should the Christian community use this authority? Verses 19-20 are ordinarily thought of as being primarily about prayer. But Matthew has placed those verses here for a reason. In the context of verses 15-18, Jesus could be indicating that it is important to collaborate with fellow believers and not try to deal with the matter alone, when we want to address a situation where we have been wronged. Why is it important to involve others? This connection between verses 15-18 and verses 19-20 also suggests that when we are wronged, our responses need to be immersed in prayer. Why is that so important? Why is important that Christians “agree” with others in prayer, in cases involving church discipline? What does this passage say to you about anything you or your church community should be doing differently? Take a step back and consider this: When we look at the overall sweep of these passages and how they are interconnected, we see some themes: God does not want to lose anyone – not those who have strayed from the church community and not those who have stayed among us but are doing wrong. He wants all of them, together. God asks the church to be involved in addressing the interpersonal conflicts that arise in the local church. God calls us to join together in agreeing on any consequences imposed on those who do wrong, and also to agree in prayer. These observations suggest that God has a mindset we often lack. When someone does wrong to us, we see it as setting up an interpersonal battle that we want to win. When God sees someone doing something that wrongs another member of the church community, he sees it as a moment where the church needs to come together and agree on a way forward. For us, the focus is often on the point of division. For God, the focus is on the route to unity. How can we cultivate God’s focus on unity and agreeing together whenever possible, in situations where it may be more in nature to focus in the hurt and division? Bibliography See Matthew - Bibliography at https://www.faithexplored.com/matthew/bibliography . Copyright © 2025, Tom Faletti (Faith Explored, www.faithexplored.com ). This material may be reproduced in whole or in part without alteration, for nonprofit use, provided such reproductions are not sold and include this copyright notice or a similar acknowledgement that includes a reference to Faith Explored and www.faithexplored.com. See www.faithexplored.com for more materials like this. Previous Matthew Index Next