Reflective Bible Study

Sometimes, Jesus responds to a question with another question. Usually He does this when being verbally attacked with a trick question.

Other times, Jesus responds to a question with a simple answer. Often, these responses are to questions from those who are hurting or from those who are confused.

However a few times, Jesus responds to a question with a somewhat unclear or cryptic response. It is such a response that we will focus on in this passage.

Jesus has just finished teaching about when He returns to the world, and while the disciples might understand that it will be “unexpected” and/or “business as usual” right up until that point, at least one of them was unsure about the where. The disciples ask Jesus, “Where, Lord?” (v. 37)

The prior passage is the big one people seem to attach to the rapture, and we have discussed that topic before. However, what if this mysterious response is actually a clue into another detail of this event?

What can we learn from the way Jesus responded?

This whole passage is primarily a caution about being caught up looking for His return or for another coming messiah after Him. He then describes His return as being like two other significant events – the flood, which was global and could not be missed by anyone; and the destruction of Sodom, which was visible from miles around. Both these events were destructive, visible, and unexpected. Jesus says His return will also be like this.

While this passage is Jesus describing His return, why bring references in about dead bodies? If rapture theory holds true, perhaps there would be corpses left behind of all those who had spiritually left, but there are enough other details in this response that challenge this thinking – i.e. the very visible nature of what Jesus is describing, specifically His appearance being like lightning.

A different way to understand this passage/response is along the lines of the destructive train of thought. Jesus’ return will be destructive, and if those who are taken to heaven with Him no longer are present, then the destruction that happened or shock from witnessing this event might have caused some, or perhaps everyone, who was left behind to be dead.

If this is the case, than not only is Jesus saying “everywhere” with this response, He is also describing what the post-second coming world would be like: scattered with corpses of those who were left behind – definitely a feast for vultures if these animals survived the event.

When Jesus returns, it will affect everyone. When Jesus returns, there won’t be any confusion about whether He is coming as King of the Universe.

Each of the gospels include Peter’s big denial on the night Jesus was arrested, but only the gospel of Matthew includes a number of ways Peter tried to hide his identity.

After being let into the courtyard, Peter is one of only two disciples even remotely close to Jesus, and though the other disciple is not named, most scholars believe it was John, the author of the gospel that bears his name.

However, while Peter followed Jesus to the place of His trial, it is likely only out of curiosity to learn what will happen, and perhaps a touch of pride to say that he was one of the ones who stuck with Jesus to the very end. But this decision actually opens the door for Peter’s discovery and his denials.

Something that has always intrigued me about this event relates to the denials themselves. In Matthew, we read that Peter makes an oath about not knowing Jesus, lies about it, and swears and curses as an additional way to separate himself from the Man on trial:

“When he had gone out to the gateway, another servant-girl saw him and said to those who were there, ‘This man was with Jesus of Nazareth.’ And again he denied it with an oath, ‘I do not know the man.’ A little later the bystanders came up and said to Peter, ‘Surely you too are one of them; for even the way you talk gives you away.’ Then he began to curse and swear, ‘I do not know the man!’ And immediately a rooster crowed.” (v. 71-74)

But Matthew also includes an interesting phrase that is hinted at in other gospels, but not framed in the same way: “A little later the bystanders came up and said to Peter, ‘Surely you too are one of them; for even the way you talk gives you away.’” (v. 73)

This leads me to the big truth that simply spending time with Jesus will change us. We might not notice it, but others will see the difference. After three years of spending time with Jesus, Jesus had rubbed off onto Peter, and it was noticeable. Even the way Peter talked gave him away. So Peter tries to revert back to his “sailor days” and curses and swears to even try to break that connection – that is until the rooster crowed and Peter woke up to what had just happened.

Peter could not mask the mannerisms that he had picked up from being with Jesus, and the way he talked, the way he walked, and his attitude had become more like Jesus and less like the world. Even though Peter tried to mask it by swearing, cursing, and making oaths to the contrary, Jesus’ character had clearly rubbed off onto Him.

And Jesus’ character will rub off onto us too, and the longer we walk with Him, the more visible it will be!

When the religious leaders arrest Jesus and bring Him to trial, we can read an interesting phrase in the gospel of Luke that helps frame why Jesus was rejected by the religious leaders of that time.

While the trial was happening, somewhat unsuccessfully, the religious leaders turn to Jesus an simply point blank ask Him: “Tell us, are you the Messiah?” (v. 67a)

This is important for our discussion because these religious leaders had a picture of who the Messiah would be, and what role the Messiah would take. Jesus seemed to act like “a Messiah”, but He wasn’t really acting the role of “the Messiah” they were looking for.

Jesus’ response to these leaders is amazing. He responds by saying, “If I tell you, you won’t believe me. And if I ask you, you won’t answer. But from now on, the Son of Man will be in the honored position—the one next to God the Father on the heavenly throne.” (v. 67b-69)

Jesus was not the Messiah that the Jewish leaders expected to see, and Jesus responds by telling them that if He admits to being the Messiah that God had promised to their ancestors, they wouldn’t believe Him anyways – and they wouldn’t be open to a discussion about it either.

Claiming to be the Messiah was certainly something Jesus could have done, but it would serve no point when these religious leaders only had one picture of the Messiah that would come, and their picture was flawed when compared with the Messiah God was sending into the world.

So to these religious leaders, Jesus was not the Messiah; He didn’t fit the role they had created for their messiah to fit into. But Jesus was a Messiah – Jesus was the Messiah that God had promised would come from the point where Adam and Eve sinned and were kicked out of the Garden of Eden.

There was no way for Jesus to convince these leaders He was the Messiah, because they were only open to a messiah role that Jesus wouldn’t fit. So Jesus doesn’t even try to make that claim. Instead, He leans on His relationship to God the Father, and He focuses on this instead.

This also challenges me to ask myself if I am trying to make Jesus fit a role He was never meant to fit in my own life. If so, it would be wise to open my mind to the role He was meant to play.

Sometimes, when I read about an event or look into the details of a parable, I wonder what the broader context is. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus – the focus of this passage – is one place in the gospels that seem to bring more questions than answers.

For this journal entry, let’s focus not as much on the illustration, but instead focus on what we can gather from the context – and what are some ways we can view this teaching:

1. The first thing that jumps out at me that relates to the context is that this teaching does not start in typical parable fashion. Most parables begin with “The kingdom of God is like . . .” and then go from there, but not all parables do this. The most well known parable that does not start this way is the parable of the farmer and the four types of soil he spreads seed on (Matthew 13:1-23; Mark 4:1–20; Luke 8:4–15), and the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37).

   This tells me that Jesus did share stories that taught truth beyond just looking at God’s kingdom, and this illustration was likely one of those.

2. The next thing we should look at is what the surrounding passage/teaching sounds and looks like. Are there illustrations/parables before this one, and if so do they start in typical parable fashion? And are there illustrations/parables after this one, and if so, do these ones start any differently?

   Looking at the teaching included in the surrounding chapters, we have the parable of the lost sheep, the parable of the lost coin, the prodigal son, the illustration of the unrighteous steward, and then a brief teaching on trust, greed, and the unchanging nature of God’s Law (Luke 15 and the first portion of Luke 16). After this illustration, Jesus teaches on the subject of not being a stumbling stone, on unconditional forgiveness, on increasing faith, and on being humble regarding our role in life (Luke 17:1-10), before the narrative shifts to another healing.

   The surrounding verses tell me that while this passage is not tagged as describing God’s Kingdom, neither are any of these half dozen or so teaching topics.

3. The third thing we should look at is whether this illustration is meant to teach us something about the present world, or if it is meant to teach us something else.

   It has been said (or speculated) that Jesus took a famous parable of the religious leaders and flipped the conclusion. This theory says that in the original version of this teaching, the rich man goes to Abraham while the poor man continues to be punished.

   While this makes for a good explanation for some of the unique qualities of this illustration (i.e. This is one of the only, if not the only, time Jesus includes a name in a parable), looking from the broader context seems to challenge this thinking. Luke wrote his book as a letter to someone who wasn’t present for any of Jesus’ life, teaching, or miracles. The recipient of the letter could have heard or known the original parable, which might have prompted Luke to include Jesus’ opposite version, but this is speculation – especially if the letter was being sent to someone outside of the region of Israel.

   What is less speculative is that Jesus used anything/everything He could to teach truth, and it would not be unlike Him to use a well known, but inaccurate, parable and change it into teaching truth – but nothing in this passage or the context suggest this or that He is teaching about anything beyond the choices we make in our current life being important after our life has ended.

In the broader context of this specific passage, Jesus is teaching us about something bigger than any of the details of any specific parable/illustration: Our lives on earth matter to God, and our choices in this life determine our destiny. Each parable/teaching hints at one or both truths, and Jesus wants to get this truth through to us in as many ways as He can.