Search Results

Some people see Mary in a variety of images and prophecies in the Bible where she is not specifically named. What do these passages tell us about God and how we can respond to him? [Revelation 12:1-6; 12:13-18; Isaiah 7:10-16; Psalm 22:9-10; Jeremiah 31:22; Micah 5:1-4] Previous Mary Index Next Session 7: Other possible references to Mary in the Bible Some people see Mary in a variety of images and prophecies in the Bible where she is not specifically named. What do these passages tell us about God and how we can respond to him? [Revelation 12:1-6; 12:13-18; Isaiah 7:10-16; Psalm 22:9-10; Jeremiah 31:22; Micah 5:1-4] Henry Moore (1898-1986). Mother and Child: Hood . 1983. St. Paul’s Cathedral, London, UK. Photo by Tom Faletti, 28 May 2025. “The work presents three stages of motherhood: conception, gestation and parenting. These gradually reveal themselves as you walk around the sculpture” (“ Mother and Child: Hood by Henry Moore,” St. Paul’s Cathedral, https://www.stpauls.co.uk/mother-and-child-hood-by-henry-moore ). Tom Faletti July 16, 2025 In the previous 6 sessions, we looked at every passage in the Bible that explicitly refers to Mary. We will round out our study by looking at other Bible passages that some people have interpreted as references to Mary but that do not specifically reference her. Most of these passages were written hundreds of years earlier in the Old Testament; one is embedded in the apocalyptic imagery of the Book of Revelation. Revelation 12:1-6 and 12:13-18 A dragon (Satan) wants to kill a woman and her baby This passage is interpreted in a variety of ways. Some say the woman represents Mary, but that raises a variety of questions; for example, the timeline of Revelation is set in the future, but Mary gave birth to Jesus in the past. Is this passage really about her? Many scholars, Catholic and Protestant, see the woman as representing something larger than just a single person. They suggest that she might represent God’s people, either the nation of Israel from the Old Testament or the Church established in the New Testament – that is, the People of God under the New Covenant, the Body of Christ, all believers in Jesus. (The story could have multiple levels of meaning, in which case both interpretations might have value.) What are some ways that Mary is a symbol for the whole Church in her relationship with Jesus? How might this woman’s protection of the child be an echo of Mary’s protection of Jesus? Verse 17 says the woman has many offspring. How are those people described in verse 17? Her offspring are the people who keep God’s commandments and hold onto the testimony of Jesus (or bear witness to Jesus). Verse 17 is one reason scholars think the woman represents the Christian faithful (or also represents the faithful on a different level as well as representing Mary). If verse 17 is about the Church, then it is about us. What are we called to do? Are there ways that you, by your words or deeds, could be a more effective witness to Jesus? What is the big-picture point of this passage, and what does it tell us about God? The rest of the passages we are going to explore come from the Old Testament, with prophecies that may refer to the mother of the Messiah. Our first passage tells what happens right after Adam and Eve eat the fruit in the Garden. God comes to them, and they have this dialogue with God. Genesis 3:9-15 enmity between the snake and the woman; her seed will strike the snake Verse 15 is considered the first verse in the Bible that promises a redeemer for humankind. In the second-to-last phrase, most modern translations say: “They will strike your head” or “He will strike your head.” The “you” is referring to the snake. Although the snake could be interpreted literally to mean that humans and snakes will not get along, Church fathers beginning with Irenaeus of Lyons in the 2nd century and scholars all the way to the present have interpreted the snake as referring to the devil. The “they” or “he” is referring to the woman’s “offspring” or “seed.” The word “offspring” or “seed” could be understood as a singular or a plural word, which is why we see it translated both as a singular and as a plural. It could be understood as referring literally to the descendants of Eve as a group (“they”) or to some particular descendant (“he”), but Church fathers back to Irenaeus and most scholars since then see the offspring/seed as referring to Christ. Although the pronoun translated as “he”/”they” is masculine, when Jerome translated the Bible into Latin in the translation known as the Vulgate, he translated it as “she,” and that has led some people to interpret it as referring to Mary. This is why we see artists from the Middle Ages on portraying Mary as stepping on a snake. Some translations in our time still use “she” even though the pronoun is masculine. ( New American Bible, revised edition , Gen. 3:15 fn.). Let’s start with the interpretation that this passage is a prediction of a Messiah or redeemer to come, and the “seed” is a reference to Jesus. In that case, why is the passage significant? If the “seed” is Jesus and the snake is the devil, what does it tell us about the relative power of Jesus and the devil in our world today? How can you draw encouragement from the image of Jesus (the seed) striking at the devil (the snake)? If the “seed” is a reference to Jesus, what does it tell us about Mary? Now let’s look at the more questionable interpretation, based on Jerome’s translation, that the “seed” is referring to Mary. The text doesn’t support this interpretation, since the pronoun is masculine, but why do you think artists and other people down through the ages have been attracted to this interpretation that the passage is referring to Mary? People have also drawn comparisons between Eve and Mary. How are they similar? How are they different? What do you think Genesis 3:15 is saying, if anything, about Mary? And what difference does it make to you? What does this passage tell us about God? In particular, if God prophesied a Messiah who would vanquish the devil, all the way back at the beginning, right after the first sin, what does that tell you about God and his concern for humans? Isaiah 7:10-16 A young woman (virgin?) will bear a son who will be called Emmanuel Verse 14 is the key verse here. Some translations have used the word “virgin,” which makes us think of Mary, but the Hebrew word just means a young woman without specifying whether she is a virgin or not ( New American Bible, revised edition , Is. 7:14 fn.). There are people who appear to make judgments about whole translations of the Bible based on whether they use the word “virgin” in this verse. That excessive emphasis on this verse misses a crucial point. Christians believe that Mary conceived Jesus as a virgin not because of anything Isaiah says, and not because of how we translate Isaiah, but because of the clear testimony of the Gospel of Matthew that Mary was a virgin. So how we translate Isaiah 7:14 is a secondary issue, not a core issue of the faith. (For further information on this debate, see the sidebar at the end of this section.) Christians believe that the Old Testament often has stories that have two levels of meaning – one in the context in which it was written and one that can be seen in the light of the New Testament. Why is this passage important from a New Testament perspective? Regardless of whether the original meaning in Isaiah referred to a virgin, Christians see in Mary and Jesus a virgin and a child who is called Emmanuel, “God with us.” What is Mary’s role in making “God with us” a reality? In what ways is God still delivering on the claim that he is “God with us,” even in our day? Our theme has been that what Mary did, we are called to do. How can we make God’s presence with us more real for others? Psalm 22:9-10 in the NRSV and most other translations (Psalm 22:10-11 in the NABRE) Jesus had a relationship with God while still in Mary’s womb This is the prophetic psalm that begins, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me.” Jesus prayed this psalm while hanging, dying, on the cross. Many of the lines in the psalm describe Jesus prophetically. For example, the psalmist says he is scorned, that they pierced his hands and feet, that they divided his garments. In the two verses we are looking at, if we read them as being Jesus’s words, he is talking about the relationship he had with God when he was still in Mary’s womb. In the first of those two verses, what does it say God did? In the second of those two verses, how does it describe Jesus’s relationship with God? What does this tell us about Mary’s role in Jesus’s relationship with God? How can we, like Mary, provide a safe place for others to know God? [The following Jeremiah passage is confusing and can be skipped. It is included here only for the sake of completeness, as this study has included every passage that refers to Mary or that some scholars think may refer to Mary.] Jeremiah 31:22 woman encompasses man. This is an obscure passage, with a possible interpretation that might relate to Mary. A footnote in the New American Bible, revised edition says, “No satisfactory explanation has been given for this text. Jerome, for example, saw the image as a reference to the infant Jesus enclosed in Mary’s womb” ( New American Bible, revised edition , Jer. 21:22 fn.). Mary could not “encompass” Jesus forever. However, it is a beautiful image. To what extent, and for how long, do you think Mary “encompassed” Jesus? How does Mary point us to a God who encompasses us? How can we provide the encompassing love of God to others? Micah 5:1-4a out of you shall come forth a ruler when she gives birth What does Micah say a woman will do as God brings salvation to Judah (the nation of the Jews)? How did Mary fulfill this prophecy? What is the significance of the fact that this passage refers both to Bethlehem and to a shepherd who brings security and peace? What does this passage tell us about God? How can we help people return to their shepherd and find peace? Concluding Questions for This Study on Mary, the Mother of Jesus As you think back over what you have seen and learned in this study of Mary, what has stood out for you or touched your heart in a particular way? What did you find most surprising? What did you find most encouraging? Our guiding principle in this study has been: What Mary was, we are called to be; what Mary did, we are called to do. What is one trait or characteristic of Mary that you would like to grow in? If you could name one thing that you think God might be calling you to do as a result of this study, what would that be? How can we help each other be more like Mary? Take a step back and consider this: Mary, in the Bible, is in some ways a well-defined person and in some ways an enigma. We rarely know what she is thinking. And yet, we see that she is a person of deep faith, unwavering in her commitment to her son, and present in the most significant moments in his life She consents to carry him in her womb and give him life; she is present in his childhood; she encourages him to perform his first big miracle or “sign”; she is visibly present to him throughout the agony of his crucifixion; and she is present when his Holy Spirit first comes upon his followers and the Church is born. You could say that one of her biggest ways of being a role model and example for us was her dogged determination to remain faithful to Jesus and thereby fulfill the role to which God called her. How can you imitate her unwavering commitment to remain faithful to Jesus in the roles you have been given in your life? In her devotion to Jesus, Mary was an encouragement to her son even by standing by him at the cross. Who might need you to stand by them, to help them stay faithful to their calling? How might you encourage them in their faith? _____ Sidebar: In Isaiah 7:14, did Isaiah refer to “the young woman” or “the virgin,” and how much does it matter? (This is for people who like to dig into the nitty-gritty of scholarly debates.) This is not a debate over whether Mary was a virgin. That is decisively stated in Luke 1:27, 34 and Matthew 1:18, 20, 25. The question here is only whether Isaiah prophesied a virgin birth. In Isaiah 7:14, King Ahaz is told that “the young woman” or “the virgin” (depending on how the word is translated) – will have a child who will be called Emmanuel (“God with us”). This makes people think of Mary. The Masoretic text, which is our oldest surviving copy of the text in Hebrew, says “the young woman,” and the word used there is a word used to describe a young woman who is old enough to get married. The word does not specific whether the woman is a virgin or not. Scholars note that the phrasing in Hebrew indicates that the woman was already pregnant at the time the words were spoken, which means that the “sign” was not that she would become pregnant but that the child would be called Emmanuel (“God with us”). That is why the NABRE translates this verse with these words: “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign; the young woman, pregnant and about to bear a son, shall name him Emmanuel” (Is. 7:14, NABRE), and the NRSV uses these words: “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.” (Is. 7:14, NRSV). Those translations make clear that the Hebrew indicates that the woman was already pregnant. The scholars who produced the translation for the Catholic New American Bible, revised edition explain why they concluded that Isaiah 7:14 should be translated as “the young woman” in this footnote: 7:14 Isaiah’s sign seeks to reassure Ahaz that he need not fear the invading armies of Syria and Israel in the light of God’s promise to David ( 2 Sm 7:12–16 ). The oracle follows a traditional announcement formula by which the birth and sometimes naming of a child is promised to particular individuals ( Gn 16:11 ; Jgs 13:3 ). The young woman : Hebrew ‘almah designates a young woman of marriageable age without specific reference to virginity. The Septuagint translated the Hebrew term as parthenos , which normally does mean virgin, and this translation underlies Mt 1:23 . ( New American Bible, revised edition , Is. 7:14 fn.) Many evangelical Protestants also agree that the Isaiah passage refers to a young woman, not a virgin. For example, David F. Payne, the then-Registrar of the evangelical London Bible College, now called the London School of Theology, in writing the Isaiah section of the International Bible Commentary , edited by evangelical leader F. F. Bruce, concludes: (c) Despite several attempts to demonstrate otherwise, it remains very doubtful whether the Hebrew word ‘almāh signified only a ‘virgin’. Certainly it was a term which included virgins; but it cannot be restricted to them. (d) In a context where names clearly functioned as signs (Shear-Jashub in 7:3, and Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz in 8:1-4), it is highly probable that it was the name ‘Immanuel’ rather than the child’s conception or birth, which was to be the sign. (e) It seems probable, though not certain, that the Hebrew construction suggests that Isaiah was referring primarily to a young woman already pregnant; virtually the same construction occurs in Gen. 16:11. (Payne, pp. 726-727). Some conservative scholars, Catholic and evangelical, argue that the word “virgin” would more accurately reflect what Isaiah wrote and intended. They argue that what made this birth a “sign” – something extraordinary – was that it was a birth to a virgin. They argue that the Masoretic text of the Hebrew that we have today may not accurately reflect what the original Hebrew said, and that the Septuagint, with its Greek word for virgin, may better reflect the original Hebrew. They note that Matthew was familiar with both the Hebrew and Greek versions of Isaiah, and he chose to use the Greek Septuagint translation, which uses the Greek word for “virgin.” However, these scholars have not provided evidence that the Masoretic text here is a garbled version of what Isaiah originally wrote. And Matthew’s decision to use the Septuagint translation does not tell us what the original Hebrew said or meant. He might have chosen the Septuagint version simply because it better fit the actual circumstances of Jesus’s birth, not because he had an opinion on whether the original word in the Hebrew text was “young woman” or “virgin.” In summary, we do not have enough information to be sure what word Isaiah originally used and what he meant by it, but the wording in the oldest Hebrew text we have (the Masoretic text) is “the young woman,” and in order to adopt the alternate reading of “the virgin” we would have to accept, without strong evidence, that the text became garbled between its original writing and the earliest version we have today (the Masoretic text) and that somehow the Septuagint preserved a more accurate reading. In the end though, it doesn’t matter. Whether Isaiah meant “young woman” or “virgin” has no bearing on the faith of Christians. We believe in the virgin birth of Jesus not because of anything Isaiah said but because the Gospels of both Matthew and Luke tell us that Mary was a virgin. What we know for sure from Isaiah 7:14 is that Isaiah prophesied that there would be a child who would be called “God with us,” and that is what we have in Jesus. And this Child was conceived by the Holy Spirit and delivered by a virgin. All of this is true regardless of whether Isaiah refers to “the young woman” or “the virgin.” End of sidebar _____ Bibliography See Mary - Bibliography at https://www.faithexplored.com/mary/bibliography . Copyright © 2025, Tom Faletti (Faith Explored, www.faithexplored.com ). This material may be reproduced in whole or in part without alteration, for nonprofit use, provided such reproductions are not sold and include this copyright notice or a similar acknowledgement that includes a reference to Faith Explored and www.faithexplored.com. See www.faithexplored.com for more materials like this. Previous Mary Index Next

Worry – how to deal with it. Previous Matthew Index Next Matthew 6:25-34 Worry – how to deal with it. The "lilies of the fields" Jesus talked about may have been these multi-colored flowers called anemones, which are found in Israel today as they were in Bible times. Zachi Evenor, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anemone-coronaria-in-Dalia-Israel-Zachi-Evenor-176.jpg . Tom Faletti May 24, 2024 Matthew 6:25-34 Do not worry; seek the kingdom of God and his righteousness Jesus has just been teaching us not to focus on money, telling us that we can’t serve both God and wealth. The natural reaction might be: But we need money! He responds to that natural concern in this passage. In verse 25, Jesus tells us several things not to worry about. What are the things he tells us not to worry about? Concerns about our life such as what we are to eat or drink, and concerns about our body such as what we are to wear. What does it mean to “worry”? Is worry different than simply thinking about things? What is “worry”? Worry dominates the mind in a way that causes stress or distress. It takes over or preoccupies our thoughts so that we find it difficult to set aside the thing we are worried about and think about other things. In this way, worry absorbs our attention to the extent that it makes us less free. How would you interpret the question in verse 25: “Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing?” What is the point of Jesus asking this question? In verse 26, what is the meaning of the illustration Jesus gives of the birds? Why should we not worry, according to verse 26? Here, the point is a spiritual one: God provides for the birds, and you are more valuable than the birds. What is the illustration Jesus uses in verse 27? Why should we not worry, according to verse 27? Here, the point is a practical one: Your worrying can’t make any difference, so it is wasted effort. Note: Translations of verse 27 vary because the Greek word can mean “life-span” or “stature” (i.e., height). So he may be saying we can’t add a single unit to our life-span or to our height. Both interpretations make the same point – worrying can have no effect on the stated problem. What is the illustration Jesus uses in verses 28-29? Why should we not worry, according to verses 28-30? Here, the point is a different spiritual one: You are an eternal being. God is generous in lavishing beauty even on things that are finite and die quickly; he will clothe you, his immortal ones, with what you need. In verse 28, Jesus says of the lilies that they “neither toil nor spin.” These words describe what humans do to create cloth for clothing. People toil: they work the crop – for example, flax in Jesus’s time. Then they spin: they turn the fibers of flax into yarn from which linen cloth is made for clothing and other purposes. Jesus is certainly not telling people not to work, so we have to look beyond the literal to find his meaning. One possibility is to consider it a caution about focusing too much attention (worry) on how impressively beautiful our clothes are. In your culture, do people worry about whether their clothes are beautiful enough or impressive enough, or made by the right designers? What might Jesus say? This passage might be interpreted metaphorically as referring to our calling to be clothed in righteousness in the kingdom of God, particularly in the context of verse 33. How might you worry less if you clung to the assurance that God desires to, and is able to, provide you with the “clothing” you need? At the end of verse 30, Jesus identifies the spiritual issue at work when we worry. What is the spiritual issue here? The spiritual issue is trust in God. What does worry do to people? In what ways is it harmful? When we are worrying, what is our focus on? What does Jesus want us to be focused on? It is hard to “not” do something, unless we replace it with “doing” something else. How do we “not” worry? Saint Paul offers advice on what to do instead: Read Philippians 4:6 . What does Paul tell us to do instead of being anxious? What does that verse mean? Let your requests be made known to God; i.e., tell God what you need. What it the difference between asking God for what we need and worrying? Why is praying, or talking to God about our needs, an antidote to worry? Worrying is talking to ourselves while focusing on what we lack. Praying about what we need is talking to God while focusing on the Person who can do something about what we lack. Paul is telling us that it is OK to ask God for what we need. Is there any need that is too small to talk to God about it? Explain. In verse 32, Jesus gives us some perspective. What does he tell us about God? What difference does it make that God knows what we need? The phrase “your heavenly Father knows” might be a good refrain or mantra for all the things we face in life. How would absorbing that assurance change your life? In verse 33, what does Jesus tell us to strive for? What does it mean to strive for the kingdom of God? In what ways might striving for the kingdom call us to action? What might it call us to do? What does it mean to strive for righteousness? This could be referring to the righteousness God wants to work into our character, or the righteousness God wants to bring into the world through the coming of his kingdom. In what ways might striving for righteousness call us to action? What might it call us to do? Jesus says that when we strive for these things, the other things will be given to us as well. We know that, in a literal interpretation of this statement, it isn’t always true. Non-believers are not the only people to starve to death in famines; Christians have starved to death too. This is the sort of thing that might make a skeptic take this sentence in isolation and use it to reject the gospel of Jesus. Yet Jesus has warned us earlier that Christians will face trials and persecutions. So, how should we understand this statement? How would you explain it to the skeptic? In verse 34, Jesus broadens his point by adding “tomorrow” to the list of things to not worry about. That takes us far beyond just food or drink or clothing. Almost any concern or possible trouble can lead us to worry about tomorrow. What is he telling us about all the other things we tend to worry about? What are the worries about “tomorrow” that are most likely to take over or absorb your thinking? If you could have a conversation with Jesus where he mentioned the worry or worries you have, what would he say to you about it? At the last sentence of verse 34, Jesus throws ends with a little twist at. What does he say? Today has enough trouble for today. In the final sentence in verse 34, the majority of Bible translations use the word “trouble,” but some say “evil.” There is a reason why the translators don’t agree. According to lexicographers, the word here, which is kakia , means badness (Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon , entry for κᾰκία at http://folio2.furman.edu/lsj/ ; Vine, Vine’s Expository Dictionary , https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/ved/e/evil-evil-doer.html ). The word is often used in a narrow sense with regard to human character flaws or evil, but here it more likely encompasses the broader troubles we experience because of the “badness” in the world. This verse might be saying: Don’t worry about tomorrow; today has enough bad stuff for today. There are times when, in the economy of God’s plan for this world, we may be called to help fill the needs of others, and thereby be God's means of answering other people’s prayers. In what ways might we be God’s means of answering other people’s prayers for their basic needs? Take a step back and consider this: Jesus is not telling us to be lazy, and he is not telling us to not think about the things we need. We need jobs in order to pay our bills and in order to contribute in our unique ways to the good of the world. Parents need the means to feed and clothe their children. When we are sick, we need good health care. Our communities need good schools, safe streets, and assistance for those who struggle. Our businesses need customers and affordable inputs and good workers. Our governments needs leaders who seek justice and work for the common good, and don’t settle for assisting the powerful or wealthy or the noisiest voices. We need to apply our minds to think through what we face in order to address these needs. But there is a difference between thinking about things and worrying about things. Can Jesus be our model here? Jesus clearly thought about a lot of things, including the terrible death he was going to endure on our behalf. Yet we don’t see signs that he spent much time worrying. How do you think Jesus handled his thoughts about the difficult things he was going to endure without falling prey to worrying? What is one area of your life where worry often intrudes? What would Jesus encourage you to do about it? How would your life be better if you replaced worrying with trustful conversation with God about the thing you are worrying about, even if the problem didn’t magically go away? How can cultivating a life where you are constantly talking to God, and routinely letting your needs be made known to him, improve your life and help you become more like Christ? Bibliography See Matthew - Bibliography at https://www.faithexplored.com/matthew/bibliography . Copyright © 2025, Tom Faletti (Faith Explored, www.faithexplored.com ). This material may be reproduced in whole or in part without alteration, for nonprofit use, provided such reproductions are not sold and include this copyright notice or a similar acknowledgement that includes a reference to Faith Explored and www.faithexplored.com. See www.faithexplored.com for more materials like this. Previous Matthew Index Next

Jesus was found guilty because he told the truth. When should you speak the truth? And when should you speak out against injustices against others? Previous Matthew Index Next Matthew 26:57-68 Jesus was found guilty because he told the truth. When should you speak the truth? And when should you speak out against injustices against others? José de Madrazo y Agudo (1781-1859). Jesus in the House of Annas . 1803. Museo del Prado, Madrid, Spain. Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jes%C3%BAs_en_casa_de_An%C3%A1s_Museo_del_Prado_Jos%C3%A9_de_Madrazo.jpg . Tom Faletti September 17, 2025 Matthew 26:57-68 Jesus is subjected to interrogation, false testimony, and abuse Where do the people who arrested Jesus take him? Who and what group is he brought to? Caiaphas, the high priest, was appointed by the Roman authorities, so he was both the highest-ranking civil official and the head of the Temple. The council was the Sanhedrin, the Jewish political authority in Jerusalem. The Romans allowed the council to exercise judicial authority and make judgement in cases that were not capital cases – i.e., where the sentence could not be the death penalty ( New Oxford Annotated Bible, NRSV , Matthew 26:59 fn., p. 1787). Matthew calls the high priest’s place a “house,” but given that it could be a meeting place for the council, with guards and witnesses and so forth, we might picture the scene better if we thought of it as a mansion or compound. It turns out the Peter didn’t totally desert Jesus. Where did he go (verse 58)? The courtyard of a Jewish house. Who is Peter standing around with? Would it have taken courage for Peter to have gone there? What did the chief priests and council (the ruling elders) seek? Why do you think they sought false testimony? What charge was leveled against Jesus in verse 61 that the chief priests thought was conclusive evidence against him? Had Jesus actually said this? The high priest demands that Jesus answer the charge, but in verse 63, Jesus remains silent. Why do you think Jesus remains silent at this point? Throughout the centuries artists have contemplated how to portray Jesus during this show trial before Caiaphas. How do you think he should be portrayed? Is he stoic? defiant? cowed? confident? humble? steely? How do you envision Jesus here? The high priest then demands that Jesus answer under oath whether he is the Messiah, the Son of God (verse 63), and Jesus finally speaks up. Why do you think he decides to respond to this question? What would it have implied if he had remained silent to this question? There are times when we might get in trouble for speaking the truth but we can remain silent without causing problems, and there are times when silence would be wrong. Maybe the risk is not that you will lose your life, but there might be consequences. What are some examples of times when you should speak the truth even though you may suffer for it? How do you know when you should speak out and when you should be silent? In verse 64, Jesus says, “You have said so,” the same, seemingly enigmatic phrase he used with Judas in Matthew 26:25. When Judas asked, “Am I the one?”, if Jesus had responded with a “Yes” he would have had to quality the answer by adding, “If you persist in your plan; but you could change your mind.” Here, he had to say something more than just a simple “Yes” to avoid implying that he agreed with their mistaken ideas about the messiah. Have you experienced times when a simple “yes” or “no” is not sufficient in answer to a question? Jesus is not ducking Caiaphas’s question. After saying, “You have said so,” he follows it with a statement (verse 64) that is so clear that there will be no doubt in Caiaphas’s mind that Jesus should be executed. What does Jesus say about the Son of Man (i.e., himself), and what does it mean? What is he telling them? In verse 64, Jesus is partially quoting from Daniel’s apocalyptic vision in Daniel 7:13, in which a son of man comes with the clouds of heaven and is given dominion and kingship by God. But it also evokes Psalm 110:1, a verse Jesus used with the Pharisees in Matthew 22:44: “The LORD said to my lord, / ‘Sit at my right hand / until I make your enemies your footstool’” (NRSV). Both references make it very clear that he is stating that he is, indeed, the Messiah and the Son of God. Why is this statement so troubling to the members of the council? Why do you think Jesus decided at this point to speak so clearly and boldly? The high priest convinces the council to agree with him that Jesus has committed blasphemy and should be executed. The death sentence is based on Leviticus 24:16, which says that anyone “who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall be put to death” (NRSV). The Sanhedrin does not have the authority to execute anyone (the Romans had taken that power away from them), so they will have to hand him over to the Romans to try to achieve that goal. Once they have reached their conclusion – the conclusion they had already reached before the “trial” began – how do they treat Jesus (verses 67-68)? The Sanhedrin had 71 members, and a quorum of 23 was needed to conduct business. There is some uncertainly as to whether this was a trial or a preliminary investigation more like our grand juries, but either way, they violated their own rules of procedure. Criminal cases were required to be tried in the daytime, were not supposed to happen during Passover, and could not lead to a guilty verdict unless the case was held over for at least one day beyond the beginning of the proceeding. The Sanhedrin was required to meet for trials in its own meeting place, which was separate from the high priest’s house, and evidence could not be accepted unless it was provided separately by two different witnesses (Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, Volume 2 , pp. 389-391). Did the Sanhedrin follow proper procedures for properly determining guilt or innocence? How should they have conducted their investigation differently if they truly wanted the truth? Why do you think they did not follow their rules for a trial? They did not follow the rules because they had already decided Jesus’s guilt before they began and wanted to secure the outcome they had already decided was the right one. As you look back over the events from the arrest in the garden through this sham trial, who is in control? How does Jesus show that he is the one in control even as he submits himself to abuse? What does this tell you about how to think about difficult times in your own life? Once they had declared that Jesus is guilty of blasphemy, the members of the council subjected him to abuse. Why do you think they did this? Even people who are guilty of serious crimes retain their God-given human dignity, but they abused him. Are there ways that people in our society violate the human dignity of others by how they treat people who have been identified as guilty of some offense, whether in a court of law or the court of public opinion? How can we avoid, or even take a stand against, participating in such injustices and support efforts to treat with human dignity even people who have been accused of wrongdoing? Are there ways that we are at risk of joining in a bandwagon that declares people guilty of some criminal or social offense without giving them a fair hearing of the evidence? Are there ways that we are tempted or encouraged to join in the abuse of people who do things we don’t like, perhaps on social media? How can we make sure that our treatment of other people honors their God-given dignity, even if we think they have done wrong? Take a step back and consider this: Throughout history, Christians have placed an emphasis on the duty of governments and courts to act justly in their legal proceeding, and this concern has continued in our day. For example, the Catholic Church’s official compilation of social doctrine says: The activity of officers charged with establishing criminal responsibility, which is always personal in character, must strive to be a meticulous search for truth, and must be conducted in full respect for the dignity and rights of the human person ; this means guaranteeing the rights of the guilty as well as those of the innocent. The juridical principal by which punishment cannot be inflicted if a crime has not first been proven must be born in mind. (Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, paragraph 404, p. 174; italics in the original). Evangelical Christians have also been a voice for justice for the accused. For example, pastor T. D. Jakes is quoted in an article in Christianity Today , where he spoke out on behalf of a death row inmate who professed his innocence. Jakes said, “If Jesus acquitted the guilty, then surely he would advocate for the innocent” ( Randall ). The proceedings used against Jesus bear a similarity to biased trials in every age that convict innocent people to achieve political or religious ends. Knowing that this happened to our Lord and Savior has led many Christians to fight the unchecked exercise of judicial power and to be advocates for the rights of the accused. Jesus was falsely declared guilty and executed though innocent. The Old Testament stresses in many places the importance of standing for the truth in judicial proceedings. Are we doing enough to speak up for and ensure the rights of the accused in our own society? As of 2023, the National Registry of Exonerations had identified 575 cases of people in the United States being wrongly convicted since 1989 and later exonerated based on DNA tests, including 35 people who were on death row ( Shelby ). The Innocence Project has worked successfully to present DNA evidence leading to the exoneration of more than 200 people who were wrongly convicted. On average, these victims of judicial error and injustice served more than 17 years in prison before they were freed. The Innocence Project reports that 101 additional crimes were committed by the original attackers who had continued to roam free while innocent people were sent to prison in their place, and that 58% of the wrongful convictions were imposed on Black people, a percentage that is greatly disproportionate to their share of the population ( Innocence Project ). What might Christians do to honor their innocent Lord by being a voice for the protection of innocent people in our judicial systems? Bibliography See Matthew - Bibliography at https://www.faithexplored.com/matthew/bibliography . Copyright © 2025, Tom Faletti (Faith Explored, www.faithexplored.com ). This material may be reproduced in whole or in part without alteration, for nonprofit use, provided such reproductions are not sold and include this copyright notice or a similar acknowledgement that includes a reference to Faith Explored and www.faithexplored.com. See www.faithexplored.com for more materials like this. Previous Matthew Index Next

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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