Search Results

The work of God is that we believe in Jesus. How can we treat believing as an action that brings us into relationship with the person Jesus? Previous Next John List John 6:22-33 The work of God is that we believe in Jesus. How can we treat believing as an action that brings us into relationship with the person Jesus? Giovanni Battista Naldini (1535–1591). Manna from Heaven . Circa 1580. Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Manna_from_Heaven_by_Giovanni_Battista_Naldini.jpg . Tom Faletti February 21, 2026 Part 1 of John 6:22-59 In this chapter, Jesus talks about himself as the Bread of Life, answers people’s questions, and tells them they need to eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life. The dialogue runs from John 6:22 through 6:59. We will explore it in parts, beginning with John 6:22-33. Read John 6:22-33 the crowd questions Jesus The next day, the crowd expects to find Jesus still on the mountain, since they know that he went up the mountain to pray and his disciples left by boat. When they don’t find him, they go to Capernaum because that was where he had been preaching before the feeding of the 5,000. Matthew 4:13 tells us that Jesus had moved to Capernaum from Nazareth. We might think of Capernaum as his Galilee headquarters. In verses 22-24, why do you think the crowd is looking for Jesus? In verse 26, what is the reason Jesus gives for why they are looking for him? What is your main reason for following Jesus? In verse 27, what does Jesus tell the crowd they need to do? What would be examples of food that perishes? Jesus is not telling us that we shouldn’t work to get food to feed ourselves. What is his point? Still looking at verse 27, what is food that endures for eternal life? In what way does it endure for eternal life? What is Jesus telling us about the things we work for or strive for? How can we apply this in our lives today? In John 4:14, Jesus said that the water he offers is a spring of water welling up to eternal life. In 6:27, he says that the food that he gives endures for eternal life (6:27). How are both images related to eternal life? The crowd responds to Jesus’s comment about work by asking a new question: What do we need to do, to be doing the works of God (verse 28)? In verse 29, Jesus tells them what the work of God is. What does verse 29 mean to you? In what way is believing in Jesus the work of God? In verse 30-31, the crowd, or some people in the crowd who are more antagonistic toward Jesus, challenge Jesus. Why do you think these people want still more signs? The people in the crowd recall the manna that appeared daily while the Israelites were in the desert, which God called “bread from heaven” in Exodus 16:4. The people were aware of Jewish writings that suggested that God would once again miraculously provide manna to the Jews in the last days. It is possible that these people in the crowd were suggesting that if Jesus really was the Messiah he should provide bread every day. Why do you believe in Jesus without more signs? In verse 32, Jesus corrects some misunderstandings. First, he says that it was not Moses who provided the bread from heaven; it was God. We may have times when we forget that God is the source of our blessings and sustenance. Why is it important to remember that God is the ultimate source of all the good we experience? Second, Jesus says in verse 32 that it is not enough to say that God “gave” bread from heaven in the past; he “gives” the true bread from heaven now. Jesus is not yet speaking about the Eucharist (that will come in verses 50-59); he is speaking of himself. How is Jesus the true bread from heaven? In verse 33, Jesus says he gives life to the world. How does Jesus give life to the world? How does Jesus give life to you? Throughout John’s Gospel, Jesus has been describing himself as coming from heaven – i.e., he is not just a human. In this conversation, he redirects their focus. They are thinking about manna provided to their ancestors in the desert in the past that fed them temporarily; he is bread given by his Father in the present that gives life to the world. This sets us up for the text sentence, where Jesus says, “I am the Bread of Life.” Take a step back and consider this: In verse 29, Jesus uses the active verb to believe . He does not say that belief (noun) in Jesus is the work of God, but that believing (verb) in Jesus is the work of God. Believing is something you actively do , not something you passively accept. Jesus is trying to draw the crowd away from thinking that they are there to passively receive something from him, whether it is teaching or food, and to instead see his words as a call to action. But the action he seeks is not more of the works-oriented law-following that the Jewish religion was full of at that time, but instead a believing that enters into a relationship with the One in whom they are invited to put their trust. Our faith does call us to embrace certain beliefs and spurs us to do good things for others, but Jesus is not focused on either of those things in this passage. He is calling the people to engage with him personally just as they are engaged with the food they eat. How do you keep your eye on believing in the person Jesus? How can your relationship with Jesus invigorate you and sustain you the way bread and other food nurtures and sustains your body? What is one step you can take this week to reinforce your decision to believe in Jesus? Bibliography See John - Bibliography at https://www.faithexplored.com/john/bibliography . Copyright © 2026, 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 John List Next

Adultery, lust, and divorce start in the heart. Previous Matthew List Next Matthew 5:27-32 Adultery, lust, and divorce start in the heart. Image provided by Wix. Tom Faletti May 2, 2024 Matthew 5:27-30 Adultery and lust What does the Old Testament say in Exodus 20:14 and Deut. 5:18? What is lust? Why would Jesus say a person who lusts has already committed adultery in their heart? Is there a difference between committing adultery “in your heart” and committing physical adultery? What is Jesus prohibiting here? Jesus prohibits not only the action but the intense thoughts that underlie or can lead to the action. While Jesus is telling us to reject the thoughts that can lead to the action, we need to make a distinction between uninvited thoughts and the thoughts we nurture. Thoughts pop into our minds all the time. When uninvited, instinctual desires pop into our mind unbidden, that is not, in itself, a sin. When we intentionally nurture those thoughts and enjoy the fact that they are arousing our sexual passions, that is when we are embracing the lust that Jesus is telling his followers to reject. We cannot help looking at people, and our bodies sometimes react to what we see. But when we allow our eyes to linger so that our desires can be fed, then we have crossed the line. Why does he prohibit even entertaining the thought of adultery? What difference does a thought make? Actions begin with thoughts. Choosing to entertain the thought of lust means imagining that you are relating sexually with someone who is not your spouse. To choose to desire something which would violate the marriage commitment, Jesus says, is already a violation of that commitment to have only your spouse. When we look at another person as someone to have sex with, we are looking at them primarily as a body rather than as a whole person. We are called to treat all people as being made in the image of God, to treat them as people carrying infinite human dignity. In what ways does looking at someone with lust violate this principle of human dignity? In verses 29-30, do you think Jesus is actually recommending that people pluck out an eye or cut off a hand to avoid lust? (Would that actually solve the problem of lust, or could a one-handed person still lust?) What is Jesus’s point? Jesus is not speaking literally here. He is using the traditional Jewish technique of exaggeration or hyperbole to emphasize the importance of what he is saying. He is telling us to take our thought life seriously and not to allow our thoughts to linger in places they do not belong. Jesus clearly takes our inner thought life very seriously. Daniel J. Harrington tries to explain the thinking behind what Jesus is saying in this way: “The salvation of the whole person is of more value than the preservation of any one part that may lead to sin” ( The Gospel According to Matthew , p. 29). Myron S. Augsburger says, “We should understand these statements attitudinally, just as the previous injunction is addressed to our thoughts and attitudes. This means taking literally the basic intent of the passage, rather than physically removing the eye. The loss of one eye or one hand cannot in itself prevent a lustful look or thought. The word-picture is to emphasize deliberate, decisive action in dealing with our propensity to sin” ( Matthew , p. 74). Does our culture take our thought life as seriously as Jesus does? What is the prevailing attitude regarding thinking about things that would be sinful if acted upon? Do you take your thought life as seriously as Jesus does? The word translated “hell” in this passage is literally the Greek word Gehenna , which Jesus also uses in verse 22. Gehenna was the valley of Hinnom, a valley running along the south and southwest side of Jerusalem that had an ugly history. More than 700 years before Christ (in the 700s B.C.), it was a place where children were burned in sacrifice to the god Moloch (see 2 Kings 23:10; 2 Chronicles 33:6; Jeremiah 7:31-33; and Jeremiah 32:35). That location later came to be known as a garbage dump where refuse was burned, leading to its being used as a metaphor for hell. How can we avoid or fight lust and sins that involve our thoughts? It is a well-known principle that you can’t banish a thought by saying you won't think about it The more you try to “not think" it, the more you tend to focus on it. The only ways to get one thought out of your mind is by replacing it with another thought. So in this case, we need to replace the lustful thoughts with thoughts about good things. Barclay also suggests that a life of action helps. He says of the person struggling with sinful thoughts, “[H]e will certainly never defeat the evil things by withdrawing from life and saying, I will not think of these things. He can only do so by plunging into Christian action and Christian thought. He will never do it by trying to save his own life; he can only do it by flinging his life away for others” (Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, Volume 1 , p. 147). A life filled with good actions and good thoughts has less room for lust. Matthew 5:31-32 Divorce Read Deuteronomy 24:1-4. According to Deuteronomy 24:1, for what reasons might a man give his wife a certificate of divorce? There were two great Jewish scholars in the years before Jesus’s time – Hillel and Shammai – who launched two primary “houses” or schools of thought. The school of Hillel believed in marriage but interpreted Deut. 24:1 so loosely that a man could divorce his wife for any reason, while a woman could never divorce her husband without his consent. The school of Shammai was far less lenient about divorce. In contrast, the Greeks and Romans of Jesus’s time had an extremely low regard for marriage and little disapproval of sexual relationships outside of marriage. Having concubines and lovers other than your spouse was a normal part of society. In all of these cultures, obtaining a divorce was simple. In Israel and Rome, a man could have a divorce by simply writing a statement of divorce witnessed by two people. The Greeks didn’t even require a written statement; a man could simply dismiss his wife in the presence of two witnesses, although the woman at least got her dowry back (Barclay, Gospel of Matthew, Volume 1 , p. 148-155). How might Deut. 24:1 have been interpreted more permissively or less permissively? What impact would the permissive practices of these cultures have had on the security of women? How does Jesus redefine the law of divorce? How does this transform the thinking about divorce? Note: Matthew allows an exception in 5:32, which is translated in the NRSV as: “except on the ground of unchastity.” Older translations of the New American Bible said, “lewd conduct is a separate case,” but the current NABRE retranslates it in a way that more clearly upholds Catholic Church teaching on divorce: “unless the marriage is unlawful.” The Greek word that is here is porneia , which was used to describe a range of illicit/unlawful sexual activity and might refer to adultery or might refer to other unlawful situations such as incest. Most Protestant denominations interpret it to refer to adultery and allow divorce in cases of adultery. Catholic scholars argue that if Jesus had meant “adultery” rather than other kinds of “unlawful” situations, he would have used the more common word for adultery, which he uses later in the same sentence. In practice, the Catholic Church offers an annulment process for marriages, allowing annulments in situations where the marriage was founded on a misunderstanding of true marriage, and that misunderstanding of true marriage in some cases might be demonstrated in part by an unwillingness of a spouse to be committed to the sexual exclusivity of Christian marriage. We will hear more about marriage in Matthew 19:3-9. The New Testament also includes Ephesians 5:21-33, which sees the marriage covenant between husband and wife as an image of Christ’s covenant with his people, the church. How does Jesus’s new law on divorce change the status of marriage? How does Jesus’s new law on divorce affect the status of women? Where does our society today fit on the scale of possible views of marriage and divorce? How does it compare to the teaching of Jesus on marriage and divorce? What difference does it make how our society views divorce? What can we do to encourage strong marriages? Take a step back and consider this: Although Jesus’s teachings about adultery, lust, and divorce here could be seen as simply a series of “don’ts,” in the broader context of the Sermon on the Mount these teachings might be better seen as calling for a transformation in a married couple’s thoughts and attitudes toward each other. In marriage as Jesus sees it, husbands and wives are committed to each other. They aren’t thinking about having sex with anyone else. They aren’t looking for a way to get out of their marriage commitments. They are committed to finding their fulfillment in each other. What might we say or do to help reclaim the vision of marriage as a union of committed love where the desire to stray is never nurtured because the commitment to mutual fulfillment is paramount? How can we help married couples to keep their eyes on their mutual commitment to love each other, when the marriage is tested and the temptation to “look at another with lust” arises? 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 List Next

Bible Study resources for the Gospel of Mark, to help individuals and small groups explore how the Bible applies to life today: background, commentary, questions. Mark Introduction to Mark Mark presents Jesus as the Messiah (the Christ) and the Son of God. Mark 1:1-8 John the Baptist comes to prepare the way for one greater than him. Mark 1:9-16 Jesus is baptized, subjected to temptation, and starts preaching. Image at top: First lines of Mark 16, Codex Sinaiticus. Late 2nd century or early 3rd century. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:P.Oxy_LXXXIII_5345.png .

Matthew shows the universal relevance of Jesus – to all people of all nations. Jesus cared about all people and offered a gospel for all people, while demonstrating His authority over all nations. Previous Matthew List Next Introduction to Matthew Matthew shows the universal relevance of Jesus – to all people of all nations. Jesus cared about all people and offered a gospel for all people, while demonstrating His authority over all nations. Image by Brett Jordan, provided by Unsplash via Wix. Tom Faletti February 13, 2024 Introduction to the Gospel of Matthew This study is designed for anyone who is willing to approach the Bible with an open heart, including: Catholics, Protestants, evangelicals, and Orthodox. People who are active in their church, who have stepped away from a local church or the Church as a whole, or who have never found a church home. People who are familiar with the Bible and people who are just starting out. Seekers, doubters, agnostics, explorers, and the curious. Everyone is welcome to join us as we explore what the Bible says, what it means, and how we can apply it in our lives today. A NOTE FOR SMALL GROUPS This study material can be very enriching for personal study and growth, and it can be even more powerful and life-changing when it is used by a small group of people who explore God’s Word together. We will occasionally offer instructions, indented like this, that may be useful for a small-group study. Small-group leaders can find leadership training material and practical suggestions at Leading a Small-Group Bible Study . Leaders can see Preparing to Lead a Small-Group Bible Study Meeting for suggestions on how to prepare for a small group Bible Study. I encourage you to begin and end each meeting with a time of prayer, and to go through each passage in detail, often verse by verse. As you do so, try to explore what the passage says, what it means, and how we can apply it in our lives. Personal Introductions Before you begin a small-group Bible Study, you should take some time to build community, beginning with introducing yourselves and making sure that everyone has a chance to know everyone else’s name. Here are some questions you could ask everyone in the group to answer: What is your name? What is your connection to this church/parish/group? Why is the Bible important to you? Why are you interested in studying it? If the group is reconvening after a summer break , you could renew the introductions with questions such as these: Could everyone remind us of your name, and tell us why you decided to return to this group? (Or if you are new, why did you decide to join us?) What is one insight about faith or life that you gained this summer or were reminded of? Overview of the Gospel of Matthew Matthew seeks to show the universal relevance of Jesus – to all people of all nations. As a man, Jesus interacted with people of many nations, cared about all people, and offered a gospel for all people. As the Son of David, Son of Man, and Son of God, Jesus demonstrated that his authority extends over all nations. Who is the author? The author of the Gospel of Matthew is unknown. From early on, the name Matthew was added to the top of it (“according to Matthew”), but there is no information about the author in the text and the text does not say that it comes from the tax collector named Matthew. However, there is good reason to believe that the Gospel of Matthew draws on material from the original Matthew, and therefore we might think of it as being at least partly “according to” Matthew, even though it was probably not “written by” Matthew. What do we know that leads us to this conclusion? Eusebius was a bishop who wrote the first history of Christianity around 324. Eusebius attributes Matthew’s Gospel to the disciple Matthew named in the Gospels (Eusebius, ch. 24, par. 5) and says that Matthew wrote his Gospel “in his native tongue” (ch. 24, par. 6), which would have been Aramaic, the language related to Hebrew that Jews were speaking in Jesus’s time. Eusebius quotes a document we no longer have that was written by Papias, probably in the first part of the second century (perhaps around 125, plus or minus 20 years). In that document, Papias says that he learned from the “presbyter” or “elder” that (1) “Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ” (ch. 39, par. 15), and (2) Matthew wrote “oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able” (ch. 39, par. 16). The Greek word that in this sentence was translated as “oracles” is the Greek word logia , which means “sayings." The document Papias is referring to cannot be the Gospel of Matthew in the form it was handed down to us through the centuries, for 2 major reasons: While the Gospel of Matthew as we have it includes many “sayings,” it is not a book of sayings: it has extensive narrative that tells the stories of what Jesus did, not just what he said. The Gospel of Matthew that we have was written in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic, and there is no evidence that it ever appeared in another language before it was provided to us in Greek. So whatever Papias was referring to is not what we have today. After looking at all the evidence, most scholars across all Christian traditions have concluded that (1) the Gospel of Matthew in the final form we have it was written by an anonymous writer, not the Matthew mentioned in Papias; (2) this unknown writer drew from those “oracles” provided by Matthew, from Mark, and from other material; and (3) this Gospel acquired the name “Matthew” because it included some material from the document Papias mentioned that was from Matthew. Additional facts guide us to this conclusion: If the author of the Gospel of Matthew had been the apostle Matthew, who was an eyewitness to Jesus’s ministry, he would not have drawn so much of his material from Mark, who mostly was not an eyewitness. Yet we see Matthew condensing and reshaping what Mark wrote. If the Gospel of Matthew was written in the 80s, as most scholars believe it was, the apostle Matthew probably would have been dead before this Gospel reached its final form 50 years after Jesus died. It is important to note, however, that the Gospel of Matthew clearly was written by someone who compiled stories and teachings handed down from eyewitnesses. It is not a fabrication. It is a compilation that draws on the stories told by Matthew and other eyewitnesses, and it is a trustworthy part of the inspired Word of God. Christians who are not familiar with how the Bible came together might react: What? Are you saying Matthew didn’t write Matthew? This reflects a gap in knowledge about how the Gospels came into being. The stories of Jesus first circulated orally. And in those days, people didn’t necessarily sign their names on their books the way people do today. The Gospels were compiled through a process by which people, years later, gathered together and sifted the stories of Jesus that were being passed around orally. God inspired someone to bring together in one book what was available in a variety of sources, and the result is a masterpiece presentation of the life and teachings of Jesus. It doesn’t matter whether we know the name of the final author; God does. We will call the author “Matthew,” because Matthew is part of its history and the tradition leads us to no other name. (Further information about these conclusions can be found in a variety of sources. Here are some examples of scholars from a variety of positions on the theological spectrum who have reached the same conclusion: H. L. Ellison, “Matthew,” in The International Bible Commentary , edited by F. F. Bruce, p. 1121; Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament , pp. 158, 208-211; William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, Volume 1 , pp. xx-xxi; Myron Augsberger, Matthew , volume 1 of The Communicator’s Commentary (Mastering the New Testament) , Lloyd J. Ogilvie, general editor, pp. 14-15; and Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: The New Testament, Revised Standard Edition, Second Catholic Edition . Ignatius Press, 2010, p. 3.) What were his sources? Where did he get his material from? The author of the Gospel of Matthew appears to have gotten his material from several sources. Half of the verses in this Gospel have parallel verses in the Gospel of Mark, which is believed to have been written earlier (the evidence suggests Mark was written before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70). (References to the number of verses in this and the next paragraph are calculated based on information in Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament , p. 111). Perhaps one-fifth of the verses in Matthew appear in Luke but not in Mark. Scholars have proposed the existence of an earlier source that both Matthew and Luke had access to and drew from as they wrote their Gospels. That source is usually called Q – short for the German Quelle , meaning “source.” There is no manuscript available today that contains the material from Q, so it would be unwise to make many claims about it, even though it is reasonable that Luke and Matthew, with so many verses in common, both had access to such a document. Matthew has a significant amount of material comprised of sayings or teachings by Jesus that does not appear in the other Gospels. This material could have come from the source Papias identifies as “Matthew,” which would have been written in Aramaic/Hebrew and might have come from the apostle Matthew. Note, though, that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew, so the author of this Gospel or someone else would have had to translate that original “Matthew” material into Greek. Matthew also has other material unique to his Gospel that he might have written himself or gathered from other sources. Matthew, like any good writer, also frames and explains material in the context of his readers’ own situations, so we see some things in Matthew that appear to be commentary from the perspective of the mid-80s, when Jewish Christians were being forced out of Jewish synagogues, Christian churches were developing more of a structure, and these churches were a multifaceted mix of Gentiles, Jews who still tried to maintain Jewish practices, and Jews who had given up practicing Judaism. When and where was the Gospel written? The best thinking is that the Gospel of Matthew was written perhaps between 80 and 90, give or take 5 or 10 years. I will often shorthand that to “around 85,” but 85 is not a precise date. Some scholars propose a date as early as before 70 or after 100. If it came after Mark as the majority of scholars think, it would have to have been written after 70 since Mark is thought to have been written around 70. Furthermore, Matthew seems to show great awareness that Jerusalem has been destroyed, which happened in 70. The ways he hints at tensions between Jews and Christians at the time it was written suggests that it might have been written between 80 and 90, when Christians were being pushed out of synagogues. And it was written before 110, because Ignatius, a bishop from Antioch, quotes phrases from it in a letter dated around 110. Scholars do not know where Matthew wrote this Gospel. Proposals range from Judea to Syria to Antioch to Phoenicia. There may be vague hints in the text that Matthew might have been based in a large city in Syria. For example, in Matt. 4:24, he adds Syria to Mark’s description; he uses the word “city” far more than the word “village”; and Ignatius, who was aware of his Gospel by 110 was from Antioch (Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament , p. 212). This leads a majority of scholars to lean toward Antioch in Syria as the locale. Antioch had a large Gentile Christian population and also a large Jewish population, some of whom embraced Christianity while others did not; and tensions had grown high by the time Matthew was writing. So Antioch fits the evidence. But it is a conjecture, not a fact. What community or audience was Matthew writing to? For centuries, the assumption was that since Matthew quotes so frequently from the Old Testament, he must be writing to a community of Jewish Christians. In the past century, this has given way to a more nuanced interpretation that pictures him writing to a community that is a mixture of Jewish and Gentile Christians. What do scholars think were Matthew’s main purposes? Scholars differ on what Matthew’s purposes were. Was he providing a handbook for local church leaders? Was he trying to teach his community and stir up their commitment? Was he trying to make the case for Jesus to people who were open to the message? Was he responding to attacks from Jews who were opposed to Christianity? Was he trying to clarify who Jesus really is – including his roles as Messiah, Son of David, etc.? We can see all these things in Matthew’s work, so perhaps he was trying to do all these things, not just one thing. The theme that perhaps is woven most consistently through Matthew’s Gospel is the theme of the “kingdom of heaven” – what is it; how things work there; what demands it places on us; and what will happen when it reaches its fulfillment. Matthew also makes considerable effort to point to Old Testament passages that are fulfilled by Jesus, which is one of the factors that led scholars from the beginning to assume that Matthew’s audience was Jewish. Matthew works hard to establish that Jesus is the Son of David, a term linked in Jewish minds to a hoped-for Messiah, but he later demonstrates that the Messiah must be more than just the Son of David. He presents Jesus identifying himself as the Son of Man, a term from Daniel associated with a decisive, final act in which God saves the Jewish people. He ends with material where Jesus takes the role of king, but scholars who try to make out this Gospel as being primarily about Jesus as King are overemphasizing one facet of Matthew’s multifaceted presentation. Unlike in the other Gospels, we see some discussion of “church” in Matthew, though it is very brief and embryonic. What is the structure of Matthew’s Gospel? When scholars try to write an outline of Matthew to show the organization of the story (since the original did not have sections, chapters, or even verse markings), they find a clear structure that most scholars accept. Matthew presents his story of Jesus in 6 narrative sections, interspersed with five teaching sections. The five teaching sections are collections of teachings by Jesus, gathered together in clumps (for example, the Sermon on the Mount). Matthew is not trying to tell the life story of Jesus in order; he is trying to help us understand what Jesus is about and what he has taught us by organizing material for throughout Jesus ministry. One key element of Matthew’s structure has not been mentioned in any of the commentaries I have consulted, so I will lay it out here in some detail. Matthew seeks to show the universal relevance of Jesus – to all people of all nations. At the beginning of the Gospel, there are Gentiles in Jesus’s family tree in Matthew’s version of Jesus’s genealogy. At the end of the Gospel, Jesus tells the disciples to take the gospel to all nations. In between, the itinerary of Jesus’s geographical movements shows his relevance to people of all nations: Jesus is born in Bethlehem in Judea , in the south near Jerusalem; lives for a time as a refugee in Egypt ; and then grows up in Nazareth in Galilee , in the north of Palestine. He goes to the eastern side of Judea to John at the Jordan River to be baptized, and then returns to Galilee. In Matthew 4:12-13, Jesus leaves Nazareth in Galilee and moves to Capernaum, by the Sea of Galilee , and begins to gather disciples. In Matthew 4:24-25, Matthew tells us that Jesus’s healings are attracting attention in Syria (Gentile territory to the northwest of Galilee), the Decapolis (largely Gentile Greek cities east and southeast of the Sea of Galilee), Jerusalem and Judea (Jewish territory to the south), and beyond the Jordan (Jewish territory east of the Jordan River, south of the Decapolis, east of Samaria and running south to the area across the river east of Jerusalem and Judea). Jesus will eventually visit all of these territories. In Matthew 8:28, Jesus crosses over to Gadara, in the territory of the Decapolis , southeast of the Sea of Galilee, and then returns “home” in Matthew 9:1, presumably to Capernaum. He travels to all the towns and villages of Galilee (9:35). He sends out the Twelve to preach and heal (10:1) but restricts them (for the time being) to Jewish territory (10:5). In Matthew 15:21, Jesus goes to Tyre and Sidon in the province of Syria, Gentile territory northwest of Galilee and performs healings and miracles before returning briefly to Galilee in Matthew 15:39. In Matthew 16:13, Jesus goes to Caesarea Philippi, Gentile territory northeast of Galilee for some key incidents with his disciples as well as a healing. By Matthew 17:22, he is back in Galilee. In Matthew 19:1, Jesus goes to the Jewish territory of Judea across the Jordan , at the beginning of his journey to Jerusalem. By Matthew 20:29, Jesus has reached Jericho, in Judea , less than 20 miles from Jerusalem. In Matthew 21:1-11, Jesus enters Jerusalem . Some key themes What this itinerary shows us is that Jesus had an extensive ministry in both Jewish and Gentile territories. Matthew wants us to understand that: As a man, Jesus had an international background and cared about all people. He was a man for all people. As the Son of David, Son of Man, and Son of God, Jesus’s authority extends over all nations. His gospel is for all people. The gospel is for all nations and needs to be preached to all nations. Jesus tells us what the kingdom of heaven is like and how to live the kind of life that is appropriate for those who wish to be part of his kingdom. These are key themes that Matthew focuses on, every step of the way through his Gospel. Look for these themes, and explore how you can apply them to yourself and to how you interact with the people and world around you. Which of these themes of Matthew’s Gospel intrigue you the most, and why? What do you hope to learn by studying Matthew’s Gospel? What questions do you hope to have answered as you study? If you could ask Matthew one question, what would you ask, and why? How do you think he would respond? 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 List Next

Does a high school coach prevent all suffering their players might endure? Why not, and what might that tell us about God? Previous Next Table of Contents God is Like a High School Coach Does a high school coach prevent all suffering their players might endure? Why not, and what might that tell us about God? Tom Faletti (to be continued) 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 Table of Contents Next

Jesus tells us to eat his flesh and drink his blood. How does your celebration of the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist/Holy Communion reflect this teaching? [John 6:51-59] Previous Next John List John 6:48-59 Jesus tells us to eat his flesh and drink his blood. How does your celebration of the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist/Holy Communion reflect this teaching? Image by Sylvain Brison, provided by Unsplash via Wix. Tom Faletti February 22, 2026 Read John 6:48-59 Jesus calls us to eat his flesh and drink his blood In verse 48, Jesus repeats, “I am the bread of life,” which he said in verse 35. In verse 35, it marks a transition to new material, and it may be a transition in verse 48 also. However, before turning to that new material where he commands us to eat his flesh and drink his blood, Jesus bridges the two sections by summarizing what he said in the previous passage. What does Jesus say in verses 49, 50, and the first half of 51 that he has already said in verses 27-47? Why does he emphasize these things? Why are they so important? Up to this point (through the first half of verse 51), most of Christendom is in general agreement about what Jesu is saying in this chapter. The various denominations within Christianity all see verses 35-47 as an invitation to believe in Jesus, who was sent down from heaven by the Father, and to receive eternal life through him. The major disagreements begin with the second half of verse 51 (John 6:51b) and what follows it. Different Interpretations of John 6:51-59 The Christian churches diverge on how to interpret verses 51-59. Is this passage merely saying in a different way what Jesus said in the previous passage, or is Jesus making a new point about what we call the Lord’s Supper/Holy Communion/the Eucharist? More specifically, is this just another way of calling us to believe in Jesus, or is it calling us to embrace the real, literal presence of the risen Christ in the Eucharist/Holy Communion? There is a wide range of views: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that in this passage Jesus is speaking literally and spelling out the nature of the Eucharist/Holy Communion: namely, that what is received in communion in a Catholic Mass is literally the flesh and blood of the risen and glorified Christ, even though they remain under the appearances of bread and wine. Catholics call this “transubstantiation.” The Orthodox Churches teach that the consecrated bread and wine in our Eucharistic celebrations become the body and blood of Christ and that there is a literal transformation of the bread and wine, but they do not try to define in dogma the mystery of that transformation and they do not accept the Roman Catholic doctrine of “transubstantiation.” Lutherans believe that the body and blood of Christ are “truly and substantially present” in the consecrated bread and wine but that it is still bread and wine. Episcopalians believe that Christ’s body and blood become “really present,” without any need for the consecrated elements to stop being bread and wine. Most evangelical churches reject the idea that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ. They see the communion service as purely memorial in nature and interpret John 6:51-59 as figurative or symbolic language that calls us to be united to Christ spiritually by faith. They say Jesus is telling us to feed on him in a spiritual sense and incorporate him spiritually into all we are. They argue that in John 6:63 Jesus signals that he wasn’t speaking of literal flesh and blood. There is also a debate over how this passage relates to other passages in the Bible. To many scholars, there is a clear connection between (1) what Jesus teaches in John 6:51-59, (2) the Last Supper as described in the Synoptic Gospels, (3) what the apostle Paul describes uses similar language in 1 Corinthians 10:16, and (4) what we celebrate in our time as the Eucharist/Holy Communion/Lord’s Supper. Some evangelical scholars deny that John 6 has a connection to the Last Supper, arguing that John’s material should be read as being in chronological order and the Last Supper hasn’t happened when Jesus says these things. Other evangelicals do think these passages are related. For example: In the International Bible Commentary , David J. Ellis says that the connection to the Lord’s Supper is “inescapable” and that “the teaching of the Lord Jesus” in this passage “can only be fully understood in the light of the feast which He inaugurated” – although Ellis says the flesh and blood language is only “metaphorical” (Ellis, p. 1244). In Dr. Lloyd J. Ogilvie’s Communicator’s Commentary Series , Dr. Roger L. Fredrickson argues that although the “primary purpose of these verses is to teach us how to feed on the Son of Man, to take Him into our innermost being by faith,” this teaching is also about “the meaning of the Lord’s Supper.” He suggests that there is “a particular sense in which Christ’s presence is made real among His people when we eat the bread and drink the wine” and that it “goes beyond a remembrance of Christ and His sacrifice” (Fredrickson, p. 138). For those who would like to explore this further, some brief background reading might be useful. In around AD 155, Justin Martyr summarized the thinking in the early church about the practice of the Lord’s Supper (which he called the “Eucharist”) in his First Apology , where he described the Eucharist as “the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus” (Justin, read paragraphs 65-66). Evangelicals, Protestants, and even Catholics who wonder why Catholics don’t consider this a form of cannibalism might find this article helpful: “ Are Catholics Cannibals? ” (Staples). An example of how evangelicals present their disagreement with transubstantiation can be found here: “ What Did Jesus Mean in John 6:54 ”. Notice that this entire debate is over what cannot be seen with our physical eyes. Protestants and Catholics agree that the elements at communion have the appearance of bread and wine and that if you examined them under a microscope with the most advanced scientific instruments, you would see the molecules and cell structures that constitute bread and wine. Evangelicals and Catholics agree that the bread and wine (or grape juice) used in an evangelical church is only bread and wine. The disagreement is over whether the bread and wine used in a Catholic Mass literally becomes the body and blood of the glorified Christ even though it retains the appearance of bread and wine – and whether that transubstantiation is what Jesus meant by what he said in John 6:51-59. What is your experience of communion? Without judging anyone else’s views, what does it mean to you when Jesus says, “The bread I will give is my flesh for the life of the world” (verse 51)? What do you think Jesus is saying in the rest of this passage (verses 52-59), and how does it relate to your celebration of the Eucharist/Holy Communion? In verse 52, the Jewish religious leaders object to what Jesus is saying. Why would this be objectionable to them? It sounds like nonsense or cannibalism to them. Moreover, in a moment, Jesus is going to add that we are called to drink his blood, and the drinking of blood was prohibited under Jewish Law. Jesus knows that they are troubled by his words and that it sounds to them like cannibalism. Yet he doesn’t soften his language. Instead, he restates his point 4 more times, even more intensely and explicitly, in verses 43, 44, 45, and 46. For Protestants: Why do you think Jesus does not rephrase it, if he isn’t actually saying that we are called to eat his flesh and drink his blood? For Catholics: Why do you think Jesus makes such a big point about this? In verse 54, Jesus says that those who eat his flesh and drink his blood have eternal life, and he will raise them up on the last day. In verse 56, Jesus says that those who eat his flesh and drink his blood remain in him, and he remains in them. In verse 57, he says that they will have life because of him. In verse 58, he says they will live forever. Which of these ways that he describes it is the most meaningful to you, and why? Eating and drinking are essential to our physical life. Jesus is essential to our spiritual life. Jesus wants us to be as dependent on him and connected to him as we are to our physical food and drink. How can we live our lives in a manner that is as dependent on Jesus as our bodies are dependent on food and drink? How can your celebration of communion help you to become more fully united with Christ so that you can live a life more fully dedicated to serving him and him alone? John begins the chapter about the feeding of the 5,000 and Jesus as the Bread of Life by saying, “The Passover feast was near” (John 6:4). Why would he choose to make a point of that? How does this chapter about Jesus as the Bread of Life connect to the Passover? Jesus made the connection between himself and the unleavened bread of the Passover at the Last Supper, when he said: “Take, eat; this is my body” (Matt. 26:26) and shared the bread with his disciples. The Jewish celebration of Passover remembered that the Israelites were “passed over” when the angel of death saw the blood of lambs on the lintels of their doors. The Jewish celebration of Passover was immediately followed by the 7-day Feast of Unleavened Bread, which celebrated the Israelites’ hasty journey out of Egypt. Jesus offered himself as a sacrifice for us. John notes in verse 59 that this dialogue took place in the synagogue in Capernaum. What stands out in your mind as you envision Jesus having this discussion in the synagogue with scribes and Pharisees who worship God there? Take a step back and consider this: People on all sides of the transubstantiation debate call attention to two sermons given by Augustine in the early 400s. In what is now known as his Sermon 227, he spoke on Easter morning to newly initiated Christians who had been baptized the night before. Here is how he began that sermon: I had promised those of you who have just been baptized a sermon to explain the sacrament of the Lord’s table, which you can see right now, and which you shared in last night. You ought to know what you have received, what you are about to receive, what you ought to receive every day. That bread which you can see on the altar, sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That cup, or rather what the cup contains, sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ. It was by means of these things that the Lord Christ wished to present us with his body and blood, which he shed for our sake for the forgiveness of sins. If you receive them well, you are yourselves what you receive. You see, the apostle [Paul] says, We, being many, are one loaf, one body (1 Cor 10: 17). That’s how he explained the sacrament of the Lord’s table; one loaf, one body, is what we all are, many though we be. (Augustine, Volume 6, p. 254 ) Augustine says that if you receive the body of Christ well (i.e., worthily), “you are . . . what you receive”; that is, when you receive the body of Christ, you are the body of Christ. Similarly, in his Sermon 272, which he delivered on Pentecost to newly initiated Christians, Augustine says: What you can see on the altar, you also saw last night; but what it was, what it meant, of what great reality it contained the sacrament, you had not yet heard. So what you can see, then, is bread and a cup; that’s what even your eyes tell you; but as for what your faith asks to be instructed about, the bread is the body of Christ, the cup the blood of Christ.... [Somebody might ask,] “How can bread be his body? And the cup, or what the cup contains, how can it be his blood?” The reason these things, brothers and sisters, are called sacraments is that in them one thing is seen, another is to be understood. What can be seen has a bodily appearance, what is to be understood provides spiritual fruit. So if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the apostle telling the faithful, You, though, are the body of Christ and its members (1 Cor 12:27). So if it’s you that are the body of Christ and its members, it’s the mystery meaning you that has been placed on the Lord’s table; what you receive is the mystery that means you. It is to what you are that you reply Amen , and by so replying you express your assent. What you hear, you see, is The body of Christ ? and you answer, Amen . So be a member of the body of Christ, in order to make that Amen true. (Augustine, Volume 7, p. 300 ) Augustine sees the consecratedbread on the communion table as the body of Christ and also sees us at the communion table as the body of Christ. This teaching of Augustine is sometimes paraphrased as: Be what you receive; receive what you are; that is: Be the body of Christ that you receive; receive the body of Christ that you are. In both sermons, Augustine goes on to urge his listeners to live in unity with one another. He argues that, as the bread is made from many grains that have become one loaf, and as the wine is made from many grapes that have become one cup, so too we must be one united body. It is a sad irony that the Eucharistic celebration that Augustine saw as a sacrament of unity has become a central point of division among the Christian denominations. How can you embrace the unity of the body of Christ in your celebration of communion? How can we strive for some level of unity with those who do not agree with us about the meaning and application of John 6:51-59? Bibliography See John - Bibliography at https://www.faithexplored.com/john/bibliography . Copyright © 2026, 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 John List Next

The temptation of Jesus shows how to respond to our own temptations. Previous Matthew List Next Matthew 4:1-11 The temptation of Jesus shows how to respond to our own temptations. Image provided by Wix. Tom Faletti March 22, 2024 Matthew 4:1-11 Jesus is tempted by the devil In Matthew 4:1, the Holy Spirit leads Jesus into the desert. Jesus needs some alone time to prepare for his ministry. The 40 days parallels the 40 years the Israelites were in the desert. In v. 1, where some translations say the Spirit led Jesus out to be “tempted,” the word can also be translated “tested.” “Tested” is the better translation because God does not tempt people. God does not lure people toward sin, nor does he dangle the thought of sin in front of people to see if they will succumb. James is very clear about this: “No one, when tempted, should say, ‘I am being tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted by evil and he himself tempts no one” (James 1:13, NRSV). However, while God does not tempt people, he does allow people to be tested by temptation. He does not preserve us from temptation, but instead gives us ways to resist (see 1 Cor. 10:13). The word “tested” conveys better the reality of what is going on: the temptation may come from the devil or from our own weaknesses, and God allows it to happen; but God does not cause temptation and he always stands beside us, urging us to resist sin and offering us the strength to overcome the temptation. What happens in this passage? What is the value of being tested? Explain. Why does this take place in the wilderness/desert? On a human level, in the desert people have no support system and no distractions. On a figurative level, Jesus’s testing parallels the testing of the Israelites in the desert after they were delivered out of Egypt. Jesus is identifying with humanity in being tempted. What are some similarities between the testing of Jesus in the desert here and the testing of the Israelites in the desert before they entered the Promised Land? In what ways are they different, including in how well they handled the temptations they faced? No disciples of Jesus were present for Jesus’s temptation. They could have known about it only if Jesus told them about it. Why do you think Jesus would have told his disciples about what happened to him in the desert? Throughout Christian history, theologians and commentators have seen the three temptations of Jesus as representing the three types of sins that all humans face : sins of the flesh , sins of the world , and sins of the devil . (You can easily find more about this, from a variety of denominational perspectives; for example: Fr. Dwight Longenecker, “Fighting the Un-Holy Trinity: The World, the Flesh and the Devil,” Catholic Online , 14 Feb. 2010, https://www.catholic.org/news/national/story.php?id=35421 ; “The World, the Flesh, and the Devil,” Ligonier Ministries (founded by Dr. R. C. Sproul), 23 May 2011, https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/world-flesh-and-devil ; and nicely summarized by Wikipedia with examples from scholars who wrote centuries ago here: “The world, the flesh, and the devil,” 31 March 2024, Wikipedia , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_world,_the_flesh,_and_the_devil .) Temptation #1 : Bread, sins of the flesh, putting our own wants ahead of what God wants for us. On the surface, there would not seem to be anything immoral about Jesus turning stones into bread. What is the root of the potential sin in doing so? How might this have been a misuse of his powers? Some of the reasons why this is a temptation to sin include the following: He would be using his power for his own sake rather than using it for its intended purpose: to serve others. He would be failing to identify with the human race he came to identify with. There many also be a battle going on here regarding how Jesus would carry out his mission. Should he entice people to follow him by giving them food to eat? What would have been wrong with that as his primary method of spreading the Gospel? How does this temptation apply to us? How might we be at risk of the temptation to put our own wants ahead of what God might have for us? Throughout the life of the church, going back many centuries, this temptation has been described as involving sins of the flesh, including gluttony, drunkenness, and sexual immorality, but also laziness, covetousness, etc. A personal question, not necessarily for sharing if you are discussing this passage in a small group: Which sins of the flesh do you tend to struggle with and why? What Scripture passage does Jesus quote in response to this temptation? How does this Scripture passage provide guidance for us for how to think about and resist this kind of sin? Temptation #2 : Spectacle, attention, sins of the world, telling God what to do. Jesus could have jumped from the top io the Temple and survived, if he chose to. What would have been wrong with that? What is the potential sin in this temptation? There are several issues here: Some see it as a matter of tactics: Should I use spectacle and razzle-dazzle to try to draw people to God by attracting them to me? Others see it as a matter of authority: Will I assert leadership over God by putting him in a position where he has to do what I want him to do? Others see it as a matter of abdicating our responsibility to do God’s work, leaving things to God that he expects us to be doing as part of our calling.) Jesus could have used spectacle as a way of attracting the attention of people. What would have been wrong with that? Note that Jesus did perform miracles, but they were miracles of service, to help others – not for show. The devil is implying that Jesus could force God to do things his way by doing things that would only work out if God steps in. But Jesus was God, so what would have been wrong with that? An alternate view is that the temptation here was to abdicate responsibility for how to do the work of God and just leave it to God and his angels to make it work. Are there times when “God will take care of things” is not an act of faith but instead an act of laziness? How does this temptation apply to us? How might we be tempted to draw attention to ourselves or wow others rather than doing God’s work humbly? How might we be tempted to force God’s hand by doing things that will only work out if God steps in? (“If God doesn’t want me to do that, he’ll stop me.”) What’s wrong with that approach to life? How might we be tempted to leave everything to God and not do the work he calls us to do? What Scripture passage does Jesus quote in response to this temptation? How does this Scripture passage provide guidance for us for how to think about and resist these kinds of “sins of the world”? Temptation #3 : Allegiance, power, sins of the devil, compromising our commitment to God. What is the nature of the third temptation? It involves a temptation to submit to the devil in order to gain power. What is wrong with the devil’s offer? The devil is asking for a compromise. What are some ways Jesus might have faced this temptation throughout his ministry on Earth? How does this temptation apply to us? How might we be at risk of the temptation to seek power or control of our circumstances even at the price of a bit of spiritual compromise? What Scripture passage does Jesus quote in response to this temptation? How does this Scripture passage provide guidance for us for how to think about and resist this kind of sin? In what ways did the devil misuse Scripture? In your life, how valuable is it to know Scripture? Is it an aid to avoiding or resisting temptation? To what extent do you turn to Scripture for specific guidance in difficult moments or times of temptation? How might the Bible be a greater help to you in dealing with temptation, if you knew the Bible better? Is there anything you could be doing to strengthen your ability to rely on the Word of God? The devil leaves Jesus at this point. What kinds of opportunities do you think the devil will be looking for, to return and tempt Jesus again? When are you at risk of temptation? Silently, unless you are comfortable sharing, which temptation is the greatest risk for you: Inappropriately fulfilling your own wants? Seeking recognition or attention in inappropriate ways? Trying to get God to do things your way in order to make your efforts successful? Making inappropriate compromises to gain more power or control over your circumstances? What can you do to avoid or respond successfully to these temptations? What are your best strategies? Here are some strategies to consider: First we need to step back and not dash headlong into the temptation. Then we have many things we can do: Pray. Think about what is really going on, both inside of you and in the situation around you. Try to see the situation from God’s perspective. Get help from Scripture. Open your heart to the Holy Spirit’s influence. Get counsel from wise and godly people around you. Take a step back and consider this: The first temptation is a temptation to put our own wants ahead of the ways God wants us to deal with our lives. The second temptation is a temptation to draw attention to ourselves or to get God to do things our way. The third temptation is a temptation to compromise our commitments to God in order to gain some power or control. All three temptations, at root, are temptations to put ourselves ahead of God. When we are facing temptation we often forget that God is not looking down from on high with a frown, just waiting to catch us in a sin. Most of us grow up with that kind of image of God, but it doesn’t match the reality of God as presented in the Gospels. Jesus is always standing right next to you, loving you and urging you to do what you and he know is right. His Spirit lives in you, reminding you of who you are in Christ and empowering you to be what you are called to be. If the root of temptation is our desire to put ourselves – our plans, our ideas, our desires, our wants – ahead of God, and yet we know, when we are not in the middle of the temptation, that our greatest happiness and greatest fulfillment comes in putting God first, then in the time of temptation we need to remember who we really are in Christ. Our most desperate need in those times is to see things from the perspective of the God we have given our lives to, and to receive his power to act on who we are. When you are not in the middle of a temptation, where are your allegiances? Have you decided that your goal is to put God first in everything? Or are there still parts of your life that you have not been ready to give to him? Temptations will never go away, but some temptations fade after that fundamental question has been resolved. Have you really given your life to God? If not, now would be a good time to talk with God about it. There is nothing more important that you can do. Talk to God about where you stand with him right now. Jesus’s example tells us something important: Scripture is the first line of defense in times of temptation. Is there anything you can do to embed the Word of God more deeply into your heart, mind, and deepest self, so that you can call it forth when you need it? 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 List Next

The apostle Paul undermined the Roman system of slavery by seeking to transform the relationship between masters and slaves. Could he have done more? Could we be doing more to challenge the injustices of our time? Previous Philemon List Next Philemon: Broader Questions About Slavery The apostle Paul undermined the Roman system of slavery by seeking to transform the relationship between masters and slaves. Could he have done more? Could we be doing more to challenge the injustices of our time? Kiwi the Green Wing Macaw, in a cage. Quality Inn Oceanfront, Ocean City, MD. Photo by Tom Faletti, 28 Sept. 2024. Tom Faletti October 6, 2025 Broader Questions About Slavery We have carefully explored Paul’s letter to Philemon. Now let’s look at the broader issue of slavery in the Roman Empire as it affected the early church. First, some background facts: When the New Testament was being written, 20% or more of all the people in the Roman Empire were slaves, and the percentage was higher in the Empire’s home province of Italy ( Welch and Hall ; The British Museum ). Slavery was embedded in the entire fabric of the Roman Empire. It was central to the social structure and economic system, and it was a central feature of Rome’s military expansion. The Empire routinely captured thousands of enemy soldiers and civilians when they won military victories and brought them to Rome or other parts of Italy as slaves. Slaves performed a wide range of jobs, both professional and menial, so they often moved freely around their city and could show up everywhere – sometimes working side by side with freed people. A master didn’t have to be wealthy to own a slave. Slaves were allowed to earn money, which served as an incentive for good performance. They could buy their freedom, if their master was willing. Masters also sometimes freed slaves by their own choice. In the early centuries of the Roman Empire, slave owners were allowed to treat their slaves any way they wanted, and abuses were common. Almost any kind of punishment was permitted. A slave could be beaten, forced to wear irons, branded on the forehead, or even killed by a master. In addition, if the government got involved – for example, when there were slave rebellions – the penalty could be crucifixion. And being a fugitive slave in the Roman Empire was a major crime. Later, restrictions were placed on how masters treated their slaves. Both slaves and masters, like other people, were often attracted to the new religion of Christianity. Therefore, the early church included both slaves and masters, and the church had to figure out how to deal with the constant presence of slaves and masters in their midst. People sometimes ask why Paul didn’t denounce slavery or call for its abolition. How might his approach have been affected by his expectation that Christ would be coming back soon? Considering the structure of the Roman Empire, what do you think would have happened if he or other Christians had worked to abolish slavery in the Roman Empire? Why might he have chosen not to challenge the slave-based social structure? In the Gospels, Jesus never calls for the abolition of slavery. He tells stories about slaves and masters. He says that the truth will set you free (John 8:31-36), but he is talking about spiritual freedom from sin, not slavery as an institution. Why do you think Jesus never called for the abolition of slavery? While Paul does not explicitly call for an end to slavery, he says things that could be seen as undermining the system. For example, what are the implications of saying that a slave is a beloved brother in the Lord (Philemon 16)? Paul talks about slaves, masters, and free people in several of his letters. Let’s look at what Paul says when he brings up the topic: 1 Corinthians 7:20-24 Stay in the state you’re in Why does Paul encourage people to avoid slavery and to become free if they can? What attitude does he say people should have if they are slaves? How is Paul’s teaching here supportive of the existing social structure of slavery? How does Paul’s teaching here undermine the existing system? In what ways might saying that slaves are free in the Lord lay the groundwork for an end to slavery? 1 Corinthians 12:13 the Spirit is given to slaves and free people Consider the social and political distinctions that come with being a slave or a free person. How is Paul’s teaching here subversive of the existing social structure of slavery? Galatians 3:26-28 In Christ there is neither slave nor free How does the principle Paul establishes here undermine the slavery system and lay the groundwork for enslaved people to eventually be freed and treated as equals? Colossians 3:11 there is no slave nor free; Christ is in all How does saying that “Christ is in all” add to what Paul said in Galatians 3? Ephesians 6:5-9 how slaves and masters should treat each other How do Paul’s instructions to slaves suggest an entirely different way of thinking about their work? How do Paul’s instructions to masters suggest an entirely different way of thinking about their relationship to their slaves? Considering what we know about how masters could abuse their slaves with impunity in the Roman Empire, how is Paul fostering a new way of thinking about slaves? Colossians 3:22–4:1 how slaves and masters should treat each other These instructions are very similar to the instructions in Ephesians 6. What words does Paul uses in 4:1 that introduce a new way of thinking about how masters should treat slaves? Paul says masters should treat their slaves “justly” – a word that raises a question: what is justice for slaves? And when he says masters should treat their slaves “fairly,” the root of the Greek word he uses is the word for equality (Liddell and Scott; Vine; and the Interlinear Bible ). In other words, Paul is telling masters to treat their slaves with justice and with equality (although he does not elaborate as to whether he means equality among slaves or equality between slaves and free people). What message about slavery is Paul sending by saying that slaves should be treated justly and fairly? Conclusion Different people reach different conclusions about Paul’s handling of the reality of slavery in the Roman Empire. What do you think about how Paul dealt with this central feature of Roman society? Do you think his focus on transforming attitudes was appropriate, or do you think he should have done more? Could we be doing more to challenge the injustices of our time? Paul Robinson Coleman-Norton is cited as a key source by Joseph A. Fitzmyer, who wrote the commentary on Philemon for The New Jerome Biblical Commentary . Coleman-Norton (1898-1971) was an authority on Roman law at Princeton University for 40 years. Coleman-Norton noted that Paul “does not denounce the system [of slavery] itself as wrong; rather Paul tries to transform the relation of master and slave by referring it to Christian considerations.” He concludes that Paul “enunciates the doctrine which eventually destroyed the system of slavery” (Coleman-Norton, p. 165). In other words, Paul sowed seeds that eventually led Christians to conclude that the institution of slavery could not be defended. Do you agree? When you get to heaven, what would you like to ask Paul about this subject? Epilogue Why do you think this letter about a personal matter was included in the New Testament, when most of the letters in the canon were written for the public instruction of a church or a group of churches? There is an interesting historical footnote to this story. Around 50 years after Paul wrote this letter, sometime between 108 and 117, Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop or “patriarch” of Antioch, was being taken to Rome to be martyred. On the way, he wrote 7 letters (which still survive) to various churches in Asia Minor. In his letter to the church at Ephesus, he praises their bishop, Onesimus. Scholars wonder whether this Onesimus might be the same Onesimus who Paul wrote to Philemon about. (If Philemon was a young man when he ran away, he could have been an old bishop 50 years later.) Some scholars believe that Paul’s letters were assembled into one document at Ephesus. If Onesimus became the bishop there, he could be the reason why the church at Ephesus preserved this seemingly personal letter from Paul. (See Orthodox Church in America for a statement of this belief.) If Onesimus did ultimately become a bishop, that would suggest that Paul was successful in his mission of getting Philemon to allow Onesimus to work in ministry. Take a step back and consider this: Every generation faces new or resurrected issues where the Christian faith has something to say that runs contrary to the norms of a culture or society. If we are trying to influence someone to “do the right thing” in their treatment of a group that might be suffering mistreatment or might be at risk, Paul’s approach to Philemon might offer us some suggestions for how to be effective advocates. Paul’s leadership tips for how to approach a decision maker might include the following: Praise the decision maker for what he or she has already done. Praise the people you are advocating for. Try to persuade but not command. Describe the benefits to the decision maker of following your suggestion. Describe the benefits to yourself and the people you are advocating for. Offer logical, reasoned arguments. Appeal to both the head and the heart. Acknowledge that the decision is ultimately in their hands. What might be an issue today where you feel called to speak up and urge someone to find an appropriate way to put the teachings of Christ into practice? How could you draw wisdom (and courage) from Paul’s example, regarding how to do it? What might your next step be? Bibliography See Philemon - Bibliography at https://www.faithexplored.com/philemon/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 Philemon List Next

Can you embrace a king who comes in peace? Previous Matthew List Next Matthew 21:1-11 Can you embrace a king who comes in peace? Aelbert Cuyp (1620–1691) (school of). Christ Riding into Jerusalem. Circa 1640–1700. Glasgow Museums Resource Centre (GMRC), Glasgow Life Museums, Glasgow, Scotland. Image provided by Art UK, CC BY-NC-ND, https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/christ-riding-into-jerusalem-83691 . Tom Faletti August 3, 2025 Matthew 21:1-11 The crowds rejoice as Jesus enters Jerusalem riding on a donkey Jerusalem was the capital of Judea. Bethphage (pronounced Beth'-fuh-dzhee) was a village on the Mount of Olives, just outside the city of Jerusalem, around one mile from the Temple. The “village opposite you” was probably the nearby village of Bethany, where Jesus will go that evening (see Matt. 21:17) – Mark names Bethphage and Bethany in Mark 11:1. Jesus is arriving just as Passover is beginning. Barclay says that 30 years later, a Roman governor said that around a quarter of a million lambs were sacrificed in Jerusalem at the Passover, and the Jews had a regulation that there should be at least 10 people for every lamb. That would suggest that there could have been 2.5 million people crammed into Jerusalem – a huge crowd far beyond its usual population (Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, Volume 2 , p. 262). Jesus has chosen to come to Jerusalem at the moment when his arrival may have maximum impact. How does Jesus get a donkey? There is no way to know whether Jesus arranged this in advance or used supernatural power to make it possible; but either way, what does it tell you about how much Jesus has been thinking about how to approach the final week of his life? Jews who were expecting a messiah to come soon had interpreted Zechariah 14:4 in a way that suggested that the messiah would approach Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives on the “day of the Lord.” That is what Jesus does. How does Jesus enter into Jerusalem (verse 7)? Riding on a donkey Matthew 21:5 quotes from Zechariah 9:9-10. Read Zechariah 9:9-10 The daughter Zion or daughter of Zion mentioned here and also in Isaiah 62:11 is Jerusalem and its inhabitants. There is only one donkey in Zechariah, it is referred to twice in the typical Hebrew way for poetic effect. Why would Matthew say that there was a donkey and her colt, and that Jesus sat on “them”? Scholars have a variety of ideas: Perhaps he was interpreting the Zechariah passage overly literally; perhaps the “them” refers to the cloaks he sat on; or perhaps he rode on one and then the other. Why would the disciples have brought two donkeys to Jesus? Perhaps a young donkey – one that hasn’t been ridden on yet – would not be eager to be led away from its mother but follow her if she was led to Jesus. These details don’t really matter. What matters is this: What is the significance of riding into a capital city on a donkey? A conquering king would ride in on a horse. Jesus comes in peace, not as a conquering king. How does the rest of these two verses from Zechariah suggest to us about Jesus? He has not come as a worldly, conquering king. What is the nature of his coming? Now return to Matthew 21:1-11 What do the people do? Spreading cloaks Spreading cloaks on the road was a way to acknowledge the reign of a new king. This had been done for Jehu in 2 Kings 9:13 when he became king of Israel. Matthew says just refers generically to branches from the trees, but John specifically identifies them as palm branches. In around 142 BC, when the Maccabees overthrew the Seleucid (Greek) empire and gained independence, 1 Maccabees 13:51 tells us that in celebration of that great victory, the people waved palm branches as the miliary leader Simon and his troops entered the citadel at Jerusalem. This was the end of the fight for liberation from the Greeks that put an end to the defilement of the Temple, which Antiochus Epiphanous had ordered. 2 Maccabees 10:1-8 describes the steps that were taken to purify the Temple, which included the waving of palm branches. So when the people spread palm branches before Jesus, they are invoking a history of liberation. What do the people say? Hosanna In Matthew 21:9, the people cry out, “Hosanna,” which is literally a cry in Hebrew to “save, I pray/beseech.” We see this word in Psalm 118:25, where the psalmist calls on God to “save us,” followed in the next verse (118:26) by the statement, “Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord.” They appear to be clearly invoking Psalm 118:25-26. What is the significance of the people identifying Jesus as one who can save them? The Son of David What is the significance of the people calling Jesus the “son of David”? An interesting footnote is that when David declared that the king who would follow him would be his son Solomon – the first person who was the “son of David” – Solomon rode into Jerusalem on David’s mule (1 Kings 1: 32-40) – again, not the horse of a warrior. People might also have recalled this as they proclaimed Jesus to be the “Son of David.” What is the significance of the people proclaiming that Jesus comes in the name of the Lord? In what ways can we embrace the words of the crowd when they identify Jesus as the Son of David, proclaim him to be the one who comes in the name of the Lord, and ask him to save them? What do you think they people are thinking about Jesus? The Jews at that time had a strong expectation that their Roman oppressors would be thrown off by a descendant of David and that the kingdom of David would be re-established as an earthly kingdom. Calling Jesus the Son of David and spreading cloaks and palm branches were ways of signaling that they thought he was the one who would come and establish a new earthly kingdom. When God does something in our lives, how do we express our joy at what God has done? Can we learn something from the people of Jerusalem? Notice that Jesus does not correct their thinking about what kind of messiah he is. The time will come for people to understand better who Jesus is, but for now he responds to their faith, not their understanding of doctrinal facts. We see this in our day as well. Christians don’t agree about major points of doctrine, which means somebody is wrong. Jesus makes it clear in other parts of the Gospels that it is important to know the truth, but God still works in the lives of believing Christians who have conflicting views, some of which must be wrong. Why do you think God still works in the life of people who don’t have all their doctrinal facts sorted out perfectly, and what does that tell you about God’s relationship with us? Verses 10-11 have an interesting juxtaposition. The “whole city” is in turmoil and asking who is the person people are making such a fuss big deal about, and the “crowd” explains. The “whole city” would be the people who were already there and mostly knew little about Jesus, and the “crowd” would mainly be the people who had come with Jesus all the way from Galilee or had joined him on the way to Jerusalem as he traveled through Judea (see Matt. 19:2 and 20:29). The people in Jerusalem want to know why people are so excited about this person they don’t know about. Where do you see yourself in this story? Would you have been with Jesus from the beginning, accompanying him from all the way back in Galilee? Would you have been so moved by him when he came through your little town in Judea that you left town to follow him? Would you have already been a devout person intending to go to Jerusalem for the feast, and you decided to go with Jesus when you learned that he would be walking to Jerusalem for the Passover too? Would you have been part of that crowd waiving branches and spreading your cloak on the road? Would you have been among the people asking, “Who is this?” Would you have been one of the people answering the question, explaining who Jesus is? Would you have been watching skeptically? Would you have missed it entirely? Where do you see yourself in this story? What does this story of Jesus’s entrance into Jerusalem say to you today? Take a step back and consider this: We have seen a number of instances in Matthew’s Gospel where Matthew shows us a Jesus who cares especially about the people at the bottom of the social spectrum – what we have called God’s downside-up view of the world. Jesus’s entry into Jerusalem shows the contrast again, where Jesus’s approach is the opposite of what the world expects. They expect a king who will establish dominion under the mantle of power; they get a servant who will establish his kingship under a mantle of peace. John Fischer, a Christian friend of mine who was a popular musician in the Christian contemporary music scene in the 1970s and now runs an online ministry to try to extend the grace of God to people who feel left out of traditional churches, wrote an online post in which he says that the “strong, biblically-based evangelical church” he grew up in always seemed to skip over the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes (Matt. 5-7). That is where we first see clearly Jesus’s downside-up view: Blessed are the poor; turn the other cheek; love your enemy; etc. John wrote: [W]e should stick out like a sore thumb in our culture right now. The acceptable cultural milieu is currently one of separation, isolation, fear, bullying, show no mercy, take no prisoners, no sympathy, no empathy, foster hate, and a rejection of that which is different. It is the culture of the strong man more in keeping with John Wayne than Jesus. In fact, our culture right now is dominated by everything that is the exact opposite of the Beatitudes. So if you want to be different, now is the time to follow Jesus, and steer clear of any movement of Christianity that borrows from the strong man tactics that are prevalent today. That’s not Jesus; it’s John Wayne. (“ John Wayne and the Sermon on the Mount ”) Jesus challenges us to turn the world’s view upside-down – to see differently, to think differently, to act differently. He did not come with horse and chariot to force our submission to him. He came on a donkey of peace. We are called to follow his example. What does Jesus’s refusal to accept the trapping of power say to leaders in our day? How might Christians in our time be overly eager to embrace the exercise of military power? In what ways does Jesus’s refusal to exercise worldly power challenge us? What might we need to do differently to point the leaders of our time to the Jesus who enters Jerusalem on a donkey? How can we join the One on the donkey who comes in the name of the Lord, and follow his way? How can we also point the powerless of our time to the Jesus who rides on a donkey? 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 List Next

Outside the timeline. Previous Next Table of Contents Where is God? - Part 1 Outside the timeline. Tom Faletti (to be continued) 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 Table of Contents Next

Peter and Judas illustrate 2 different ways to respond when you have committed a serious sin. How can you stay connected to a God who loves you even when you deny him? [Matthew 26:69-75; 27:1-2; 27:3-10] Previous Matthew List Next Matthew 26:69-27:10 Peter and Judas illustrate 2 different ways to respond when you have committed a serious sin. How can you stay connected to a God who loves you even when you deny him? Caravaggio (1571–1610). The Denial of Saint Peter . Circa 1610. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY. Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Denial_of_Saint_Peter-Caravaggio_(1610).jpg . Tom Faletti September 18, 2025 In Matthew 26:69 through 27:10, we see Peter’s denial and Judas’s betrayal, and 2 very different approaches to what to do next when you have sinned. Matthew 26:69-75 Peter denies Jesus 3 times We see here that Peter did not run away and hide after Jesus was arrested. On the contrary, he has come to the courtyard of the high priest, inside the high priest’s house. What do you think is going through his mind before the first servant girl calls him out? Look at each of the 3 times Peter is accused of being associated with Jesus and how he responds. What do the people say, and how does he respond? Notice how the vehemence of Peter’s denials escalates from “I don’t know what you are talking about to “I don’t know the man” to cursing. Sometimes sin starts small. How can we train ourselves to be honest in little things, so that we do not turn out to be dishonest in big things? After the first woman questions Peter, he moves from the inner courtyard out to the porch. Why do you think he didn’t just leave the place entirely at that point? This is a sign that Peter’s devotion to Jesus was great, even though his fear turned out to be greater than his courage. How do you think you would have responded to Jesus’s arrest? Would you have been at the high priest’s house in the first place, or would you have been somewhere else? How long would you have stayed there, before you decided it was too dangerous and you left? If you had been challenged about being one of the people with Jesus, what would you have said? Are there ways that we avoid making clear our association with Jesus today? Are there certain places, or conversations, where you decide to keep your mouth shut? Are there times when you, in effect, deny your connection to Jesus? The Romans rotated their soldiers every 3 hours during the night. The changing of the guards at 3:00 a.m. was called “cock-crow” and was marked by the sound of a trumpet. It is possible that this is the meaning of what Peter hears in verse 74, not a literal rooster crowing. When Peter hears the cock crow, how does he react? When the deed has already been done – when you have said or done something and later you deeply regret it – what do you do next? What would God want you to do, when you have failed to be true to your faith or to your relationship with him? Matthew 27:1-2 The chief priests hand Jesus over to Pilate After a night of agony, a mock trial, and abuse, what happens to Jesus in the morning (27:1-2)? Some scholars believe it is only now that the Sanhedrin formally passes judgment on Jesus rather than having done so during the night. Either way, they now have a plan for achieving their goal of having him killed. They bring him to the Roman governor, who has the power to carry out a death sentence. What do you think Jesus is thinking at this point? Matthew 27:3-10 The death of Judas How does Judas react to the action of the Sanhedrin? Recall that one of the theories for why Judas betrayed Jesus is that he was trying to push Jesus to act decisively to usher in the kingdom. In verse 3, Matthew tells us that when Judas saw that Jesus had been condemned, he repented, or regretted what he had done, and tried to return the 30 pieces of silver. How does this support the idea that Judas did not think what he was doing would hurt Jesus? What do you think Judas thought would happen when Jesus was arrested? Are there times when we use immoral or questionable means to try to force things to go in a particular direction? Why is that wrong, and why do we sometimes want to do it? It is wrong to do something evil, even if it will allow us to achieve something good, because we are meant to be like God, and God does not do evil in order to achieve good. This issue is sometimes described by saying that the end doesn’t justify the means: i.e., your goal (the end) is never so important that it justifies doing something immoral (the means) to achieve it. When a person is willing to use immoral means to achieve a good goal, how is that a sign of lack of trust in God? How can we train ourselves to use only godly ways of trying to achieve the goals we seek? In verse 4, how does Judas describe what he has done? How do the chief priests and elders respond to Judas? What does their response mean? In verse 4, the chief priests say to Judas, “See to it yourself” (Matthew 27:4, NRSV). In our day, we might say, “That’s not my problem.” Was it appropriate for the chief priests to try to absolve themselves of their role in Judas’s betrayal by saying, in effect, “Not my problem”? Think about our own lives now. When is it fair to excuse ourselves from involvement in another person’s concern by saying, “That’s not my problem” or “Don’t blame me,” and when do we have moral responsibilities despite our protests? In verse 5, we learn that Judas is in such a great state of despair that he kills himself. What do you think Jesus would have said to Judas, if he could have talked to Judas before Judas initiated his act of suicide? How can we help people who are considering suicide, whether because of despair, depression or other mental health issues, loneliness, pain, abuse, or other underlying issues? What can we say and how can we point them toward the help that is available to them? If someone expresses suicidal feelings to you, take it seriously. Don’t say, “Oh, they would never do that.” Take time to listen, recognize the pain they are experiencing, and let them know that people care – that they are seen as valuable. And help them get help. In the United States, getting help can start with the simple act of calling 988. In verse 6, we find that the chief priests are very concerned about the moral issue of what to do with the money that Judas gave back to them. They want to do the ethical thing with it. It's funny how we can be so focused on doing the right thing or avoiding sin in one area of our lives that we totally miss the fact that we may be participating in something evil in another area of our lives. What does that irony say to you? How do the chief priests solve this problem? What do they do with the money? Acts 1:18-19 passes on to us a different story about what happened to Judas and the 30 pieces of silver. Both stories agree that the money was used to purchase a field that then became known as the “Field of Blood,” but the details differ. In verse 9, Matthew refers to Jeremiah. This is one of the rare places where some scholars think Matthew might not have been as careful as usual with his Old Testament references. Jeremiah does not talk about 30 pieces of silver. Zechariah has a passage where 30 pieces of silver are thrown into the Temple (Zech. 11:12-13). The rest of what Matthew describes can be connected loosely to various events in Jeremiah. Jeremiah 18:2-3 talks about a potter. Jeremiah 32:6-9 talks about the purchasing of a field. And in Jeremiah 19:1-15, Jeremiah goes out to the valley of the son of Hinnom, southwest of Jerusalem, where in his time Jews were offering child sacrifices to false gods, breaks a potter’s jug, and declares that Jerusalem and its surrounding towns will be like that jug: their enemies will slaughter them and so many people will be buried in that valley of Hinnom that they will run out of space for more burials. (That place is the location of the garbage dump that was known as “Gehenna” in Jesus’s time, which Jesus used as a term for hell.) The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible ties it together in this way: “Ancient tradition locates Judas’ burial site (Field of Blood) in the same valley of Hinnom, precisely where Jeremiah smashed the pot and foretold its destiny as a future graveyard (Jer. 19:11). Matthew may think of the smashed vessel, originally a sign of Judea’s demise, as also a prophetic sign of Judas’ destruction” (Matt. 27:8-10 fn, p. 58). Matthew might have been working from memory rather than having the Old Testament texts in front of him, which might explain how he conflated these various Old Testaments passages. God inspired the authors who wrote the Scriptures, but he worked through real human beings who were real authors, not dictation machines, and God clearly didn’t consider it necessary to force Matthew to be precise here. It doesn’t affect our salvation or the overall gospel message. In Peter’s weeping and Judas’s despair we see very different approaches to how to deal with our own serious sin. Compare and contrast Peter and Judas’s betrayal and how they acted when they realized they had done wrong. How are they similar and how are they different? Both did wrong, and both eventually recognized it. Peter stayed committed to the community of disciples and is still with them two days later. Judas decided he had no options and gave up. He lost all hope. This is not the first time Peter has gotten something wrong: remember “Get behind me, Satan” (Matt. 16:23). What is different about Peter’s relationship with Jesus, compared to Judas’s relationship with Jesus? What can we learn from Peter’s example that might be useful in our own lives? Take a step back and consider this: Peter, for all his flaws, got some important things right. He realized that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God. He poured his life into serving Jesus and letting Jesus be his Lord. And he realized that Jesus loved him so much that Jesus would never give up on him, even if he had denied Jesus. Some Christians find it easier to embrace the first two points – that Jesus is God and that we are called to serve him – without fully embracing the third point: that Jesus’s fundamental attitude toward us is love. Particularly if we were raised in households where love was conditional, or brought up in churches where God was presented more as a wrathful judge than as a loving Father, it can be hard to understand that third point: that God loves us unconditionally, even when we do wrong, and that we can stick with him even when we have failed. This understanding of Jesus’s love does not give us license to sin. Peter would be the first to say that the fact that Jesus forgave him did not mean it was OK to sin; rather, Jesus’s unalterable love made him want all the more to avoid sin. But it can make a huge difference in our lives if we understand that Jesus loves us even when we sin and doesn’t withdraw his love from us when we have a catastrophic failure of faith. We are taught that God is always watching us. Do you picture God’s “watching” as being more like a police officer always on the lookout to see if you break the law, or more like a parent seeing and delighting in every new step a young child takes? Take a moment to picture God delighting in you, and loving you so much that he keeps loving you even when you falter and sin. Bask in that love. What do you want to say to this God who loves you so much? Now take it a step further. If this is how God loves us even when we sin, and we are called to be like God, then this is the attitude we are called to have toward others when they sin. We are called to love even those who mistreat us or betray us. How can you immerse yourself in the love of God so deeply that you can love others as Jesus still loved Peter and Judas after they sinned against him? What is one step you can take to extend that unconditional love of God toward people in the world around you today? 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 List Next