Jay: We’ve been exploring the concepts of grace and judgment. We’re trying to understand if there’s an intersection between these two, as was suggested at our last meeting. One idea proposed was that grace might follow judgment. This leads us to consider their relationship in terms of timing and sequence. 

Additionally, we’ve discussed the idea of connectedness in terms of self-discernment and divine discernment, or self-evaluation and God’s evaluation. We’re pondering whether grace plays a role in divine evaluation, and if judgment relates more to self-evaluation.

This week, I’ve been looking at what others have said about this topic. I started with Paul, a key biblical reference. One verse that stood out to me is in First Corinthians 4:1-5. Paul discusses the relationship and timing of judgment. He says, “This, then, is how you ought to regard us: as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the mysteries God has revealed. Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful. I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart. At that time, each will receive their praise from God.”

Reflecting on this, I looked for additional references and found an article online that focuses on the biblical dichotomy of judgment, exploring the call to judge and the admonition against it. The author identifies two types of judgment: righteous judgment and hypocritical judgment. As we think about our previous discussions, even though the word ‘grace’ isn’t in the excerpt I’m about to share, consider if there’s an element of grace or any impression of grace in it. The article begins by introducing this dichotomy and cognitive dissonance around judgment, then delves into a section called ‘righteous judgment’.

The article starts with the idea that scripture is used to interpret scripture. While Jesus advises not to judge in Matthew 7, he suggests we should judge in Luke 12. Since Jesus doesn’t contradict himself, as stated in Matthew 18:16, it’s up to us to discern what he truly means. The author believes Jesus does want us to judge. In Matthew 7, where Jesus says “judge not,” he also says, “do not give what is holy to the dogs nor cast your pearls before swine” (Matthew 7:6). Identifying ‘dogs’ and ‘swine’ inherently involves judgment. 

Moreover, in Matthew 7:15-16, Jesus warns of false prophets, stating, “You will know them by their fruits.” This implies judging them based on their actions.

Jesus clarifies in John 7:24, “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” This suggests that Jesus encourages judgment, but it must be righteous. The Law of Moses in Leviticus 19:16 says, “In righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.” Righteous judgment involves judging not by flesh but by spirit (John 8:15), focusing on actions rather than motives, as we can’t discern others’ hearts or intentions – only God can.

The article then addresses hypocritical judgment. In Matthew 7, Jesus condemns judging others for faults we ourselves possess. Every time we hypocritically criticize someone, we condemn ourselves. This is exemplified in the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:7), where Jesus challenges those without sin to cast the first stone. Hypocritical judges often use their criticism to hide their own faults, thinking their own wrongdoings will go unnoticed. However, God sees through this facade, as highlighted in Romans 2:1-3.

The author concludes by contrasting righteous judgment with hypocritical judgment. He invites us to consider how these concepts relate to our ongoing discussions about grace and judgment. Specifically, he prompts us to think about how these ideas of judgment tie in with the sequencing of grace and judgment as discussed in First Corinthians 4. 

The question posed is whether the concepts of righteous and hypocritical judgment offer any insights into how grace and judgment are interrelated, and whether they help in understanding the sequence between the two. We’re encouraged to reflect on these thoughts.

C-J: When God confronted Adam and Eve after their disobedience, He asked, “What have you done?” He approached them; they didn’t approach Him, even though they realized their nakedness and vulnerability, indicating a break in their fellowship with God. Following this, we see the judgment of Cain after he killed Abel. His parents must have wondered how he could commit such an act, considering they were in a place where they lacked nothing. This story reflects that human nature hasn’t really changed much. 

When we judge through the discernment of the Holy Spirit, grace accompanies our judgment. When we judge based on our own righteousness, we often err. We’re reminded of the saying, “But for the grace of God, there go I.” We must acknowledge that not everyone has had the same opportunities in life. While the Bible commands “Thou shalt not kill,” it also contains narratives of God commanding to kill. This contrast suggests that with God, there’s a direct line to grace. We shouldn’t be overly concerned with the magnitude of our sins or our social status because grace is a straight line when we humbly seek a relationship with God.

Don: I believe the story of the woman caught in adultery teaches us that hypocritical judgment is a part of all of us. We all fall into the category of being hypocritical. I’m skeptical about the possibility of being non-hypocritical. Jesus’ question, “Whoever is without sin, let him cast the first stone,” implies that we are all incapable of non-hypocritical judgment. 

Therefore, I question the author’s distinction between hypocritical and righteous judgment. While we may strive for righteousness in our judgments and even believe ourselves capable of it, I doubt that this aligns with Jesus’ teachings. The concept of being able to judge righteously without hypocrisy doesn’t seem plausible to me.

Reinhard: To me, righteous judgment in our life, whether in the community or church, is akin to reprimand or correction. Those in authority, like church members or leaders, usually have a righteous motive. They aim to correct someone’s behavior, not to demean or worsen their position. In Jesus’ time, the Pharisees or scribes imposed burdens on others while failing to practice what they preached. This is an example of hypocritical judgment. 

In contrast, righteous judgment involves understanding God’s will and using it to correct others compassionately. This is where grace comes into play. The intention behind righteous judgment, aided by God, allows us to forgive and correct others. Similarly, when we repent and turn back to God, He accepts us, embodying the essence of grace. That’s how I see judgment, whether it’s our own or towards others.

Donald: Judgment can be seen from various perspectives: personal judgment and judging others. When judging others, we can only see their outward appearance and actions, not their hearts—only God can do that. It raises the question: can I judge myself accurately? Do I truly understand my own heart, or am I deceiving myself? 

So, there are two aspects to consider. When it comes to judging others, which we often do, the question is, what standard do we use? Is it a biblical commandment, like Micah 6:8, or something else? As a Seventh Day Adventist, do my beliefs influence how I judge others? Judging others and even ourselves is complex. It’s challenging to be objective and not mislead ourselves into thinking what is right or wrong.

Sharon: I heard of a church in Africa where students of a university affiliated with that church danced at a welcome party, and video of the event was posted online. A pastor of the same church in the US who saw the video objected that the students were not upholding the church’s values. 

It seems he saw his own actions as righteous judgment, a call for the church to maintain moral standards. This raises the question: Is there such a thing as righteous judgment on a corporate level?

Michael: I don’t think so. One might label it as hypocritical. This highlights the problem with judgment: it’s often based on a purely moral perspective without any acknowledgment of motives or context. But to judge the pastor’s judgment is to fall into the same trap of unfairness, and illustrates the complex nature of judgment and the challenges in determining what’s truly ‘righteous’.

C-J: The pastor could have approached the situation more graciously, asking for context or understanding the cultural differences. Were the children not simply enjoying themselves within their culture? Doing so doesn’t necessarily reflect on their spiritual life. I agree that God meets us where we are and that we should celebrate life and special events within our community. It’s unfortunate that the pastor failed to see this as a joyful occasion to be celebrated.

Jay: This story highlights the dichotomy we’re examining—the call for judgment, or perhaps more accurately, discernment, in the Bible. While ‘judgment’ and ‘discernment’ might be synonyms, they evoke different reactions. Judgment often implies a finality, a severity, whereas discernment feels milder, more about understanding or opinion. 

We’re tasked with discernment around the ‘fruits’ or outcomes of actions, yet we’re cautioned against judging motives, which we can’t fully understand. How do discernment, judgment, and grace relate to assessing both the fruits and motives of actions?

Donald: The media influence our judgment process in a manner similar to that of the pastor by publishing things out of context, leading to rash judgments by readers. This approach is harmful because it lacks consideration for the full story, relying on sensationalism rather than truth.

David: Indeed, it amounts to condemnation, which most certainly seems to contradict Jesus’ teachings. The pastor, in essence, was throwing stones, something Jesus explicitly advised against. I feel strongly that this type of judgment is not only unfair but also goes against the principles of understanding and grace taught by Jesus.

Don: There seems to be a nuanced aspect to judgment that involves analyzing the end product or outcome. Righteous judgment, as I see it, is when the judgment affects my own behavior or impacts me in some way. This is evident in the Garden of Eden story, where God questions Adam about his actions. In contrast, hypocritical judgment seems more about altering another person’s behavior or affecting their social standing. 

The end result of the judgment may determine whether it’s righteous or hypocritical. If it’s aimed at impacting someone else’s behavior or standing, we might be cautioned against it. If it affects my own behavior or standing, it could be seen differently.

Donald: What was the motive behind the pastor’s actions, what was he trying to achieve? Was it simply to point out that his church had lost its standards and was weakening? It seems he used this video as an example of his church’s declining values.

Jay: The critical question here is our capability to judge motives. As humans, we’re incapable of fully understanding or judging someone’s intentions. We might judge the outcomes or ‘fruits’ of actions, but good motives can sometimes lead to bad outcomes, and vice versa. It seems that grace might be more aligned with understanding motives, while judgment relates to the outcomes. 

The key might be to focus less on the character or intentions of the person and more on the tangible results of their actions. This approach aligns better with the concept of grace and judgment as separate yet interconnected aspects.

C-J: The issue with the pastor is that he came from a position of cultural power and influence, and he may have caused harm, especially to the African students. In my view, his actions damaged his own character. He might have believed he was protecting the church, but to me, that suggests he doesn’t truly understand God. 

David danced before the Lord with great joy, an aspect of God that this man, with his evidently ultra-conservative mindset, failed to appreciate. Watching children play is chaotic and messy, but it’s filled with joy. It’s a shame he couldn’t see that. Perhaps he should have sought counsel before making his judgment, which might have tempered his response.

Reinhard: The hypocritical judgment here seems driven by a desire to retain power and appear holier-than-thou. This reflects the Pharisees’ mindset in Jesus’ time. Righteous judgment, in contrast, aims to correct behavior. 

In the story of the adulterous woman, Jesus’ act of forgiveness illustrates the grace of God. Jesus’ teachings set a high standard, like considering even lustful looks as sin. However, He understands our inability to always meet these standards. This story shows that even when we fall short, God’s grace is there to forgive us. This is a powerful example of balancing high standards with compassion and forgiveness.

Donald: If members of a church start to believe that their church is losing its standards, parents might start to question the value of sending their children to a church-affiliated university that doesn’t seem to uphold church standards. This mentality can lead to a takedown of institutions that don’t meet certain rigid standards. 

The motive behind sharing such videos may be to validate the belief that the church is straying from its path, showing ‘evidence’ to those who already feel this way.

Kiran: I relate to that pastor’s actions because I behaved similarly for most of my Christian life. Initially, my goal was to achieve righteousness through strict adherence to certain practices like reading the Bible, evangelizing, praying, and dietary choices. I believed in an ideal church where everyone strove for this standard. When I saw others not adhering to this rigid approach, I felt angry and critical, partly because I struggled to meet these standards myself. 

However, I now understand that my righteousness is like filthy rags and that striving for perfection isn’t what God requires. Accepting God’s grace has brought me peace and a new understanding. I’ve made peace with my human nature and sympathize with others who struggle or don’t strictly adhere to the rules. This experience is common in churches that teach a high and strict standard of righteousness through evangelism.

Michael: I’m struggling to understand the connection between grace and judgment. To me, they don’t seem related.

Jay: The question I’m posing is: Are they entirely distinct, or do they intersect in some way? They are both concepts that we recognize as divine in nature, encompassing divine judgment and divine grace. But I wonder, are they opposites, like yin and yang, or are they somehow intertwined? Can they exist independently, or are they inseparable?

Carolyn: I’m curious about the difference between discernment and judgment. To me, discernment seems like a lighter form of judgment. Is discernment about observing without acting on it?

C-J: I see it as a cycle with God at the center. Our binary brain leads us to God through judgment, and then discernment emerges as God reveals the Holy Spirit, bringing balance. The story of the Garden of Eden metaphorically shows this: Adam and Eve didn’t understand their relationship with God until they sinned and felt separation, which was their discernment. The subsequent judgment – toiling the earth and experiencing pain – showed that discernment requires work and a relationship with God. Grace is experienced differently by those who have struggled compared to those who grew up comfortably. Judgment often comes from external sources, while discernment and grace are divine gifts.

Michael: Maybe it’s when I judge myself that I open the door to grace. But when I judge others, I close that door for myself. That’s the only context in which I see grace interacting with judgment. I don’t fully grasp the difference between discernment and judgment; for me, they seem to merge.

Donald: Our discussion initially stumbled over the judgmental response in one of the parables, particularly the harshness of the lender who demanded the return of gold or dismissed someone harshly. It’s this aspect of judgment in the parables that we’re trying to reconcile with our current conversation.

David: Our ongoing struggle stems from treating judgment and grace as singular, monolithic concepts, which they are not. Thomas Aquinas, in Summa Theologica, delineated multiple forms of grace and types of judgment. It is not a singular entity but comprises several categories. 

Similarly, judgment can be broken down into discernment and condemnation, among others. Understanding these concepts as multifaceted rather than singular might help us better grasp their complexities and interrelationships.

Don: The aspect of vindication in judgment is critical. Often, we associate judgment solely with condemnation, but vindication is a key component, especially in the context of divine judgment. This kind of judgment can be grace-filled. The promise of vindication, as given by Jesus, is an integral part of God’s judgment.

Sharon: Discernment might involve an assessment that leads to judgment. It seems more emotional, wisdom-based, and empathetic, triaging the context of a situation. It differs from judgment but is related. I appreciate the point about vindication in judgment, as it can be liberating in our spiritual journey, especially considering Jesus’ sacrifice on Calvary.

Michael: The idea that judgment can be a form of grace is intriguing but challenging to comprehend. Judgment typically carries a negative connotation, so the idea that it can also embody grace is a complex concept to grasp. This perspective shifts our traditional understanding of judgment and its implications.

Don: I’m emphasizing that grace is essentially judgment leading to vindication. It’s a concept where judgment, rather than being purely punitive or condemnatory, can lead to a positive outcome—vindication.

Reinhard: Discernment involves foreknowledge and thought before taking any action. Judgment, on the other hand, comes after an action has been executed, determining its nature as good or bad, leading to vindication or punishment. Condemnation is a type of judgment rendered for mistakes. 

In Paul’s teachings, there’s a kind of temporal judgment we as humans are involved in, making decisions about right and wrong actions. However, the ultimate judgment, like deciding who will be saved, is solely God’s prerogative. We have the authority to judge and correct behavior, but the final judgment is in God’s hands.

Donald: So, should we judge or not? It seems like a constant human action, yet we often hear phrases like “I’m going to withhold judgment.” Are we really expected to judge others or not?

Reinhard: Judgment depends on the situation and should be biblically grounded. If it’s about correcting someone based on biblical principles and the motive is not about displaying power or control, then it’s appropriate. 

However, issues arise when judgment is used to show superiority or control, as sometimes seen in ultra-conservative circles. The key is discerning when and how to judge, ensuring it aligns with righteous principles as outlined in the Bible.

Don: I believe our perception of judgment is skewed; we often see it as a measure of behavior, discerning right from wrong. However, the real judgment is about whether we accept God’s grace or rely on our own efforts. Jesus invites us to embrace His grace, moving away from the notion that we can earn God’s favor through our deeds. This idea aligns with the lesson from the Garden of Eden—humanity is not equipped to morally and forensically distinguish between good and evil.

C-J: Saying “I’ll reserve judgment” often feels like avoiding responsibility. It requires courage to be spiritually teachable and to guide others with grace, regardless of our role in the community. This includes instructing children, shaping church policies, and fostering open dialogue in various settings. We need community and guidance, reflecting the Holy Spirit’s activity in us. 

It’s crucial to approach these matters with a perspective of love, especially in decisions that might affect someone’s spiritual journey. We should seek counsel beyond our immediate circle to understand the broader impacts of our decisions. Today, amidst much chaos, it’s challenging to maintain a balance without swinging to extremes. The goal should be open dialogue with mutual respect, striving for a loving community that upholds cultural norms and expectations supporting this aim. It’s about setting a high bar for mutual understanding and respect, rather than clinging to rigid stances.

Donald: We constantly edit our communication, whether it’s describing our week or altering a photograph. We shape perceptions through editing, both orally and visually. When I describe someone’s behavior, I do it in such a way that leads you to the same judgment I’ve made. This process of editing and shaping perceptions is commonplace.

C-J: I agree to an extent but argue that this kind of editing limits growth. When we only hear half a story or a narrative shaped to a particular viewpoint, we miss out on authenticity and the full picture. True growth occurs when we can be authentic, expressing our struggles and fears, and receiving genuine feedback. 

In a safe community, where we can be open about our challenges, we receive guidance to tackle them. This is where spiritual community becomes vital. It should be a space for honesty and vulnerability, not just presenting a facade of having everything together. Addressing issues, whether in personal life or within a church, such as a pastor not being faithful, requires honesty and grace. Confronting such issues, while difficult, is necessary for maintaining integrity and well-being. 

In every aspect of life, from personal relationships to faith communities, discernment and honesty are crucial. Being a Christian or a person of faith is challenging, but it’s through community and grace that we navigate these challenges effectively.

Jay: I’m intrigued by the negative connotations often associated with the word ‘judgment’ and how it influences our conversations. The concept of judgment as vindication or grace offers a different perspective that could be worth exploring. 

The narrative of judgment being inherently negative might be clouding our discussions. I’m also interested in the reference to different types of grace.

Don: In the story of the prodigal son, we see the son’s editorial viewpoint of becoming a servant in his father’s house. However, his father has already made a judgment of vindication. This highlights the difference between man’s perspective and God’s judgment. It’s essential to discern between human judgment and divine judgment, as they often differ significantly.

Jay: As these thoughts are developed further, especially regarding the potential positive aspects of grace and judgment, it’s important to consider the liberating aspect of this concept. Understanding judgment in a positive light, as something not to be feared, is not only a valuable mental exercise but also a spiritually freeing one. Our discussions should aim to bring about this sense of relief and liberation, transcending mere academic inquiry into a more profound spiritual understanding.

Don: This discussion has clearly provoked some thought. It’s intriguing how we often shift the focus of biblical judgment onto how we should judge others, even though the parables are primarily about God’s judgment. This redirection of the discussion raises interesting points about our understanding and interpretation of judgment and grace.

Michael: Yes, the discussion is thought-provoking. The Bible’s emphasis on the Last Judgment often gets reframed into our judgments of others, even though it’s really about God’s judgment. This shift in focus is insightful and challenges how we perceive judgment and grace.

Don: We tend to emphasize the negative aspects of judgment, contrasting it with the positive outcome promised by grace. It’s puzzling why some, like the elder son in the prodigal son parable, refuse to accept grace, which is like depriving oneself of life’s essentials. It’s as if we’re choosing not to partake in the offered grace.

Michael: It can be challenging to see this perspective directly from the Bible, as our interpretations are influenced by culture and personal beliefs. Understanding grace as an element of God’s judgment that is inherently positive can fundamentally change how we perceive judgment.

David: This difficulty in seeing things as Jesus did is central to our discussions. The parable of the prodigal son, as interpreted by Don, aligns (in my own view) with Jesus’ message, but it’s not the interpretation most people accept or discuss. We often overlook the refusal to accept grace, focusing instead on other elements of the story.

Michael: If we truly understand that God’s judgment is laced with grace, as Don suggests, it changes the nature of judgment. It removes the fear associated with judgment and allows us to view it in a more positive, grace-filled light. This understanding can transform how we perceive and respond to judgment.

David: Judaism views grace and judgment as a necessary balance. The Talmud speaks of grace, often termed as blessing or mercy, suggesting that without judgment, grace could lead to chaos as people would then feel free to act without restraint. 

This contrasts with the Christian view where grace is emphasized more singularly. It all boils down to faith and the acceptance of God’s grace, as exemplified by the elder son in the Prodigal story.

Don: It might be interesting to discuss the concept of grace in other major religions. The Qur’an, for instance, begins with phrases emphasizing God’s mercy, but some perceive that its teachings focus more on performance than on grace and mercy.

Michael: Yes, the opening phrase of the Qur’an is “Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem’ الرَّحِيْمِ الرَّحْمٰنِ اللهِ بِسْمِ (meaning, “In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful”).

David: The 12^th/13^th century Sufi mystic Ibn Arabi explored divine grace as a manifestation of God’s mercy bestowed without merit. This interpretation aligns closely with Christian understandings of unmerited grace. This might not be a widely held view, though—I don’t know.

Michael: I was hoping for more emphasis on the New Testament and Jesus’ teachings in our discussion. Maybe we can include that in our future conversations.

David: Next week I will share some insights gained with the help of ChatGPT about the different categories of grace described by Thomas Aquinas. Additionally, I’ll explore concepts of grace in other religions. It will be interesting then to see how these various perspectives on grace can be interwoven and related to our current discussion.

* * *

Jay: Last week we discussed the concept of grace as illustrated in the Kingdom of Heaven parables. These parables not only describe grace but also include elements of judgment. We struggled to reconcile grace and judgment, despite Jesus’ teachings seemingly bringing them together. The five parables in focus were the Ten Virgins, where the bridegroom denies entry to five; the Wedding Feast, featuring a man cast out for improper attire; the fishing net; the Talents, with one servant being punished for misuse; and the Wheat and the Tares, where weeds sown by an evil one are eventually separated and destroyed. Our goal has been to understand the relationship, if any, between God’s grace and judgment.

In the Wheat and the Tares, the workers ask if they should remove the weeds, but the master instructs them to wait until the end for separation. This parable, which the disciples asked Jesus to explain, is detailed in Matthew 13:36-40. Jesus describes the Son of Man as the sower, the world as the field, and the good seeds as the kingdom’s people. The weeds represent the evil one’s people, and the devil is the enemy who sows them. The end of the age is the harvest, with angels as harvesters. The parable concludes with the separation of good and evil, and the punishment of the latter.

Additionally, I want to discuss the connection between grace and judgment in the context of two more Kingdom of Heaven parables from Matthew 25—the Ten Virgins and the Talents—followed by the judgment scene of separating sheep and goats. This scene describes the Son of Man’s return and the ensuing separation of people based on their actions towards the needy.

Finally, Dr. Weaver suggested a potential link between grace and judgment through the lens of discernment or evaluation. The question is whose evaluation we use—our own or God’s. This concept of discernment, whether worldly or divine, may connect grace and judgment. I’m interested in your thoughts on how grace and judgment might be related and if discernment or evaluation plays a role in this relationship.

David: It seems clear to me that grace always follows judgment. We’re all inherently flawed, as the Bible repeatedly tells us—we’re the foolish virgins, we’re the miscreants in the parables, destined for punishment unless grace intervenes. This is reminiscent of the hymn “Amazing Grace”—that “saved a wretch like me”. However, I haven’t found a direct statement in the New Testament where Jesus explicitly says that grace follows judgment. Maybe it’s something I’ve overlooked.

C-J: I’d like to highlight Jesus’ final act of grace—his death. Before dying, he promised paradise to the criminals beside him. This act was a significant demonstration of grace, visible to all present. Grace was a constant in Jesus’ life, as seen in the feeding of the 5,000, his interaction with the woman at the well, and more. In these instances, societal judgment came first, followed by Jesus’ grace. Even in the Garden of Eden, God approached Adam and Eve after their transgression, which was an act of grace.

David: Jesus’ life was indeed a demonstration of grace. We seek written affirmation, but maybe it’s more about living a life of grace, as Jesus did, rather than talking about it. The Bible does show Jesus’ grace, but it’s not directly written that grace follows judgment. A document affirming that grace excuses our wrongdoings might send the wrong message. Perhaps it’s a truth that must be demonstrated through our actions, as Jesus showed in his life.

Donald: There’s another aspect to consider: the concept of earning salvation. It’s not just about being inherently flawed; it’s also about whether we can earn our way to righteousness. What motivates us to strive for the “good side”? Is it a selfish desire for salvation, or is it understanding that grace will prevail? The key seems to be our relationship with God, rather than the notion that we can save ourselves. This raises a challenge: how do we find ourselves on the right side? What responsibility do we bear with the “gold” we’re given?

Jay: The crux of discernment in our spiritual journey is: How do we know if we’re on the right path? This dilemma of discernment is crucial. Is it even possible to discern correctly, and if it is, does striving for it help or hinder us?

C-J: I’ll draw a parallel with addiction recovery. The saying, “relapse is part of recovery,” always bothers me because it presupposes failure. In faith communities, like the church, there’s a support system that encourages staying on the right path. Recovery, to me, is God’s domain. I’ve experienced moments of intense anger, and I realized it wasn”t about the immediate cause of anger but rather a lack of trust in God. When I trust God, I don”t succumb to anger. Last night, I experienced a relapse in my faith, driven by vulnerability and fear. This wasn’t a lapse in my actions but in my trust in God.

Carolyn: In my view, when we come to Christ and seek grace, we are enveloped by it. There’s a scriptural assurance that we won’t be forsaken – “I will not let you go.” This, to me, is the perpetual coverage of grace. Despite judgment and our deeds being scrutinized, the undercurrent of grace, established at the beginning of our relationship with Christ, remains with us. I believe we have an assurance from God that is unshakeable.

Michael: Referring to the parable Jay mentioned, the criteria for salvation or judgment seem to revolve around acts of social justice. It appears more as a declaration of social justice than a spiritual guideline. This raises the question – are these acts the basis for judgment, and do they precede or follow grace?

C-J: The Lord’s teaching, “Whatever you do, do it as unto me,” highlights the reciprocity of grace. Given much grace, we’re required to extend it to others. The concept of social justice reflects the chaos in a society lacking moral guardrails. Religions and the awe of natural phenomena, like earthquakes and famines, have historically shaped societal conduct. This relationship with the divine should be nurtured from youth, teaching children to see God’s hand in the world. As we grow, life’s chaos and injustices bombard us, but grace lies in trusting God in all circumstances, even in the mundane or challenging. This relationship with God is intensely personal, unique like a romantic relationship.

Jay: Michael’s point about the timeline of grace and judgment is intriguing. David introduced the idea of grace following judgment, while Carolyn mentioned grace being present from the beginning. This creates a sort of timeline dissonance. In the parable of the sheep and goats, judgment appears to start the process, with separation based on the criteria of good deeds. This separation is followed by surprise from both groups, neither knowing where they stand. This aspect of uncertainty is fascinating. As Donald suggested, we’re continually trying to discern our position. Could this uncertainty be a key aspect of the grace-judgment dynamic?

Carolyn: I wonder, when we are in a state of grace with God, is it possible to lose that grace?

C-J: No, I believe God’s promise is unbreakable – “I will never leave nor forsake you.” It’s about realizing who we are in God’s eyes. God’s grace differs from human forgiveness; it’s omniscient and predestined. People raised in the church might feel a sense of entitlement to grace due to their good deeds. In contrast, those who”ve struggled significantly, and know they”re undeserving, often exhibit a profound fervor for grace once they find God.

Don: Jesus indeed indicated that those deemed sinners, like adulterers, might enter heaven before the self-righteous Pharisees. This subverts our typical expectations.

Reflecting on John’s Gospel, the passage about preferring darkness to light is pertinent. It suggests a choice regarding grace. Embracing grace seems necessary for its effectiveness. It’s not merely about receiving it but actively engaging with it.

C-J: I liken sin to falling into a mud puddle. Repeated sinning can engulf a person like quicksand. But God’s grace can cleanse and renew. I recall my own baptism; emerging from the water felt transformative. This grace enables me to empathize with and support those struggling with sin, without judgment. It’s not something I earned or extended; it’s a gift from God. The process of restoration and accessing God’s grace is a lifelong journey. In God’s economy, nothing is wasted, and those who embrace His grace often go on to do extraordinary things in accordance with His will.

Grace is purely a divine gift. Understanding this helps us to approach others with compassion rather than judgment. My personal journey of faith, marked by moments of deviation and return, illustrates God’s unwavering grace. Each time I strayed, God’s grace guided me back. It reminds me of the rebuilding process described in the Book of Nehemiah, where not only physical walls and gates were restored, but also spiritual foundations. This journey of restoration and reconnection with God is long and ongoing. Nothing in our lives is ever wasted in God’s perspective. Those who have experienced and embraced this grace are often the ones who perceive needs and opportunities that others overlook. They are driven to act, inspired by the Great Commission and beyond, to places and tasks where their unique experiences and God’s grace can make a profound difference.

Donald: Our discussion seems to be centered on how we transition from one spiritual state to another, and it’s a complex issue. Reflecting on a recent conversation with a woman whose husband was diagnosed with a brain tumor, I was struck by her perspective of seeing God’s hand in this challenging situation. This reminds me of my own experiences with illness and how I’ve grappled with understanding why certain things happen. For instance, I was in Geneva instead of Jordan due to a war, which likely saved my life. This lady, like many of us, is trying to make sense of her trials, similar to Job’s struggles.

I’ve always believed that Earth is unique in its experience with sin. There might be other worlds created by God, where beings haven’t chosen the path of sin. They could be observing us, learning from our journey. This concept, possibly influenced by Ellen G. White’s teachings, suggests that our world is a singular example of a fallen state.

In this world of sin, it’s not so much about what happens to us—because we will face challenges—but rather how we respond to these challenges. It’s fascinating to consider that our world might be a kind of demonstration for other galaxies. How did God orchestrate this? He had a plan, culminating in His sacrifice, offering us salvation. Yet, here we are, trying to decipher the intricacies of this plan.

Michael: The criteria in the parable seem to be based on doing good or failing to do so. But another interesting aspect is whether people believed they would be saved. This belief or lack thereof is a different kind of criterion. It’s hard to gauge oneself purely on the basis of actions, as the boundaries can be ambiguous. But the mindset of expecting or doubting salvation is distinctly different.

Donald: I’m troubled by the notion that we can earn our way to salvation. Grace must be present both before and after our earthly experiences. We exist in a reality that was never intended to be – it’s more than just an experiment. We live in a fallen world, yet within this context, grace plays a pivotal role, enveloping our entire existence.

David: We seem to be talking about two types of grace. The parables may be referencing a sort of ultimate grace—a final, saving grace at the point of our greatest need, like being on the brink of exclusion from the Kingdom of Heaven. This contrasts with the grace we’re born with, the grace that we’re meant to cultivate and share with others, much like the Good Samaritan did. The grace we share is different from that saving grace at our lowest point, almost as if it should have a different name.

Carolyn: I agree that choice plays a crucial role. Like the criminal on the cross who chose to ask Jesus for grace, we too must choose to have a relationship with Christ. This grace is available from birth and throughout our lives, but it requires our choice to embrace it. This grace sustains us through tough times and sin, as Christ’s sacrifice on the cross has made provision for our faults.

C-J: About the two individuals crucified alongside Christ, their inquiry was about Christ’s identity. They wanted to know if he was the Messiah and what that meant. This reflects our own journey of seeking God, asking for revelation and guidance. This process of seeking is not about perfection but about engagement and growth in understanding God’s will. We are constantly learning, humbled by our missteps and guided by God’s loving patience. 

Grace, being unmerited, is always a process of growth and understanding. We seek to justify ourselves, avoid pain, and understand our Creator, but the essence of our relationship with God is about drawing closer to Him, trusting in His presence and provision, even when it’s not what we expect. God is always there, nurturing our growth, and inviting us into a deeper understanding and relationship.

Donald: The dichotomy between grace and judgment is a crucial aspect of our spiritual journey, and our human inclination to discern our spiritual standing. As has been pointed out, the act of discernment, of determining good and evil, right and wrong, is fraught with complications for us as humans post-fall. Our attempts to categorize and evaluate often lead us astray from the essence of our faith.

The parables and Jesus’ teachings seem to underscore this point. In the garden, Adam and Eve’s first act post-sin was to judge themselves—something God questioned. In the parable of the wheat and the tares, it’s the angels, not humans, who are assigned the task of separation, suggesting that discernment of this kind is beyond our scope.

Furthermore, when Jesus heals and forgives, he challenges the Pharisees’ notion of who is worthy of forgiveness, suggesting that their judgment might be the very sin that alienates them from God. This points to a profound truth: our preoccupation with where we stand—in the light or darkness, in right or wrong—can lead us away from the central focus of our faith.

The judgment scene is particularly telling. Those who are judged are surprised by their position, indicating that their own discernment was not the determining factor. The focus is not on a list of wrongs but on the presence or absence of goodness – a challenging notion for those of us who are so inclined to judge and categorize.

Jay’s conclusion brings us to a liberating perspective: letting God handle the judgment and focusing ourselves on embracing grace. This approach, while seemingly simple, is often undermined by our human tendencies to slip back into self-evaluation and judgment. Our challenge is to trust in God’s grace and leave the judgment to Him, freeing ourselves from the burdensome task of trying to discern our own righteousness. This trust in divine grace, rather than in our flawed discernment, seems to be the path that Jesus encourages us to follow.

Don: The conversation about judgment often focuses on the negative, but perhaps we should consider the positive aspect of vindication that comes with it. This could be a crucial aspect of grace.

Carolyn: Yes, that’s exactly what grace is about—vindication from judgment.

Don: Exactly, grace vindicates us from the negative connotations of judgment. So, in that sense, judgment can be good.

Michael: However, I wonder if grace is adequately represented in mainstream theology. If the crucifixion, seen as the ultimate act of grace, was truly understood and believed as such, wouldn’t our church sermons and teachings be different? There seems to be a gap between the theological understanding of grace and its practical application in religious teachings.

David: Discussing Jesus’s death as an act of grace is complex. I’m particularly troubled by Jesus’s words on the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” It seems to question the very existence of grace at that moment. This topic might warrant a separate discussion to fully explore its implications and our understanding of grace in relation to the crucifixion.

Donald: From a human perspective, consider the judicial system where judgment can lead to imprisonment. However, there’s also the concept of a presidential pardon, where, regardless of the judgment, a person is set free. This could be seen as a parallel to divine grace—after judgment, grace prevails, offering freedom irrespective of past actions.

C-J: It’s important to note that God’s agenda is not like human political agendas. While humans may pardon for various reasons, God’s objective is always the reunification of the Body of Christ, not based on what we’ve done to earn it, but on His own authority and love.

Donald: I understand the differences between politics and religion, but my point is to understand the process. After everything is said and done, it’s God’s grace that ultimately prevails, offering salvation and freedom.

C-J: But would we want a parent who holds the power of pardon over us as a means of control? True love, akin to God’s love, isn”t about deciding who merits a pardon. It’s about nurturing and maturing people. God’s grace isn”t conditional like human pardons; it’s a fundamental expression of His unconditional love and desire for our spiritual growth and reconciliation.

Donald: The analogy about a parent pardoning a child for wrongdoing demonstrates a crucial aspect of grace. When a parent forgives a child, it’s a demonstration of love and understanding. This act of forgiveness is akin to grace.

C-J: Exactly, that’s the essence of grace. It’s not our place to judge or determine right and wrong in the ultimate sense. That’s God’s domain. Human grace, like forgiving a friend or understanding their needs, comes from a place of love and wisdom. It’s about seeing the heart and intentions of others and choosing to respond with compassion.

Donald: I think Michael’s question earlier about grace in the church is significant. It seems like many churches focus more on aspects other than grace. Perhaps there’s a need to shift this focus.

Jay: Yes, Michael’s point ties into the idea of discernment versus grace. It’s challenging to find a religious organization that emphasizes grace over right and wrong. The focus often leans towards discernment, which is about judging good and evil, rather than being centered on grace. This distinction is important. A grace-focused approach would presumably shift away from judgment and towards compassion and understanding. This topic, along with the concept of judgment being perceived negatively, could be fertile ground for further discussion as we continue exploring these themes.

* * *

Jay: We’ve been exploring Jesus’ parables, comparing and contrasting them. So far, we’ve delved into the Mustard Seed, Yeast, Pearl, Hidden Treasure, Net, Virgins, and the Bags of Gold (or Talents). 

A couple of key insights have emerged from this study. Firstly, Jesus’ ministry emphasizes change. One significant change is the concept that the Kingdom of Heaven is present here and now. It’s not a distant future reward but a current reality. Secondly, these parables seem to underscore the concept of grace over the more traditional religious focuses of obedience and law prevalent at the time.

As I’ve been reviewing these parables, five in particular stand out. Three we’ve already discussed, and two are new: the Parable of the Wheat and Tares and the Parable of the Wedding Banquet. Each of these parables starts with the theme “The Kingdom of Heaven is like…” I’ll briefly review them, focusing on their commonalities and hopefully sparking further discussion.

Let’s start with the Parable of the Net, from Matthew 13:47. It likens the Kingdom of Heaven to a net that catches various fish. The good fish are kept, while the bad are discarded, symbolizing the separation of the wicked from the righteous at the end of times.

Next, the Parable of the Ten Virgins, found in Matthew 25. It describes ten virgins awaiting a bridegroom; five are prepared, while five are not. The unprepared ones miss the bridegroom’s arrival, illustrating the importance of readiness for the unexpected.

In both parables, there’s a clear demarcation between being prepared and unprepared, reflecting on the broader theme of grace. As we discuss these parables, let’s consider whether they highlight a specific aspect of grace or various facets of this concept.

Next is the Parable of the Bags of Gold, also known as the Parable of the Talents, found in Matthew 25. It describes a man going on a journey who entrusts his wealth to his servants. He gives five bags of gold to one, two to another, and one to the last, each according to their ability. The first two servants invest the money and double it, while the third hides his bag in the ground. Upon his return, the master praises the first two servants for their diligence and reproaches the third for his inaction, ultimately taking his bag of gold and giving it to the one with ten bags. This parable emphasizes the importance of using the gifts and opportunities we are given.

Now, I will add two more parables to our discussion: the Parable of the Wedding Banquet and the Parable of the Wheat and Tares.

The Parable of the Wedding Banquet is found in Matthew 22. It tells the story of a king who prepares a wedding banquet for his son and invites many guests. However, the invited guests refuse to come, prompting the king to send his servants out to invite anyone they can find. The hall fills with guests, both good and bad. Notably, the king expels a guest who isn’t wearing wedding clothes, symbolizing the importance of being prepared and worthy for the kingdom.

In each of these parables, there’s a theme of preparedness, accountability, and the selective nature of the Kingdom of Heaven. These stories challenge us to reflect on our readiness, our use of resources, and our response to God’s invitation. They all hold a deeper meaning about the nature of grace, responsibility, and the Kingdom of Heaven. As we discuss these parables, we can consider how they collectively contribute to our understanding of these themes.

The final parable in our discussion is the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares, which is another vivid illustration of the Kingdom of Heaven. In this parable, found in the Gospel of Matthew, a man sows good seed in his field, but an enemy sows weeds among the wheat. When the wheat sprouts and forms heads, the weeds also appear. The man instructs his servants not to pull out the weeds, to avoid uprooting the wheat. Instead, he orders them to let both grow until the harvest, when the weeds will be collected and burned, and the wheat gathered into the barn.

This parable, along with the others you’ve mentioned, indeed introduces a judgment component. In each, there’s a clear division: the fish are sorted, five virgins are excluded, a servant is cast out for burying his talent, a guest is expelled for improper attire, and the weeds are separated from the wheat for destruction.

The observation about these parables tying together grace and judgment is thought-provoking. On the surface, grace and judgment may seem contradictory. Grace is often seen as unconditional love, mercy, and forgiveness, while judgment implies a separation based on merit or actions. However, these parables might suggest a deeper, more complex relationship between the two.

In the context of these parables, grace could be interpreted as the opportunity given to all: the chance to be part of the Kingdom of Heaven, to use one’s talents wisely, to be ready for the unexpected. Judgment, then, is not the antithesis of grace but a component of it—a necessary process of discernment and decision-making that respects the integrity and purpose of the Kingdom.

Jesus, through these parables, could be illustrating that grace is not merely about leniency or unconditional acceptance. It involves responsibility, preparedness, and a response to the gifts and opportunities provided. The judgment aspect underscores the seriousness and significance of these opportunities.

In this light, the judgment in these parables might not be contradicting grace but rather affirming it, emphasizing the importance of how one responds to the grace that is offered. This interplay between grace and judgment invites deep reflection on personal responsibility within the context of divine grace and the Kingdom of Heaven.

David: It struck me that in all these cases, the people are judged for being foolish, essentially. The virgins are called foolish specifically. Being condemned to outer darkness for merely being foolish seems excessive.

Jay: Judgment does seem harsh, that’s for sure. It’s why I find these two concepts—grace and judgment—so polar opposite. It’s a real struggle to reconcile them in any context. And yet, Jesus combines them five times.

David: Were any of those actions truly evil, though? Were the virgins evil? You’d think only evil warrants banishment to outer darkness, but they were just called foolish. This extreme response to mere foolishness is troubling.

Donald: I thought the same thing. In each parable, there’s a separation: the fish, the virgins, etc. But the response is extremely harsh, not gentle, for those cast aside. It’s hard to reconcile this with grace, which you’d think would cover such situations. Even with the bags of gold—the one with the least was probably less confident in investing, yet look at their harsh treatment. In every case, the response is severe, which is hard to understand.

C-J: Perhaps the issue is a lack of understanding, not necessarily willfulness. In the wheat and tares, for example, someone might have sown tares out of spite or misunderstanding. Desperate people do desperate things when they lack an understanding of grace. But what about the harsh response to these actions?

Donald: Exactly, what about that harsh response? It doesn’t seem to align with grace.

C-J: I believe that’s the narrative of the culture of that time. It was used to highlight the concept of grace and God’s daily provision. My relationship with God is one of compassion, love, and grace, even if I don’t understand it at times. He’s working on something in me. The narrative then was that God punished sin harshly, but in reality, my experience is one of a compassionate God.

David: What I find perplexing is the lack of compassion for the foolish workers or the man who buried the treasure. If grace is central and includes compassion, these parables present it in an odd way.

C-J: It wasn’t God lacking compassion, but humanity. God provided the means, like food at the wedding. It was humanity that lacked compassion, not God.

David: But what about our response to those in need? If you see a beggar who’s already eaten, do you deny them further help? Would you subject them to severe punishment for their request?

C-J: Yes, the cultural narrative might not reflect an understanding of God. Life was harsh, and the narrative reflected that. But Jesus, throughout his ministry, consistently offered compassion and a vision of a kinder kingdom, different from a wrathful and punitive God. Look at the thief on the cross—granted paradise without earning it.

Donald: I consulted GPT on the relation between grace and God’s Kingdom. It highlighted values like love, justice, compassion, and righteousness, with grace allowing us to align with these values. It transforms us to live according to God’s will. But if we overlook the harsh responses in the parables, the connection makes sense. Yet, it’s difficult to ignore such severity, especially when it’s repeated.

Jay: That’s the crux of it. It’s challenging to overlook the harshness. The parables start with inclusion—good and bad fish, wise and foolish virgins, wheat and tares, lazy and productive servants. The Kingdom of Heaven initially includes everyone. But then, these endings, with their harsh imagery, make you wonder. If Jesus’s ministry is about change, is he trying to change the view of grace, judgment, or both? It’s interesting to consider which aspects he aims to reinforce and which to transform.

Carolyn: I believe that with the Kingdom of Heaven being now, we choose grace. Grace is like a stepping stone that empowers us to continue our lives. We’ll still face daily trials until Jesus comes, but grace gives us an advantage over those who don’t have it. This is our way of getting our ducks in a row: we come to Him, we have grace, and this grace empowers us to be ready for Jesus.

C-J: There seems to be an expectation from God, and one we should have for ourselves: to do more than just show up. God wants us to lean in and produce good fruit. However, those lacking understanding might feel challenged. They might feel threatened by others’ faith and try to undermine it. God deals with the heart, not the temporal. Life’s hardships, like scarcity or societal devaluation, are tough. That’s why these parables tell us to examine our hearts. Should someone have to beg, or should they be welcomed with dignity? The message in these stories is to value everyone, regardless of societal standards. Those struggling, like with addiction, should know they have great value in God’s eyes.

Reinhard: These five parables consistently show separation and judgment—deciding who will be saved. In three parables, human actions affect their fate—the bags of gold, the wedding banquet. Grace is given to everyone, but some don’t make the right choices. They fail to prepare or use their talents wisely. The other two parables, with wheat and tares, and fish, show God’s separation. In all these stories, judgment isn’t random. It’s about how people respond to the grace given at the beginning. Happiness in the Kingdom of Heaven comes to those who make right decisions, while those who make wrong decisions miss out on this experience. This, to me, is the crux of our discussion.

C-J: If you’re constantly facing hardship, being hungry or mistreated, you’ll see yourself as unworthy. You adapt to survival. The separation we see is often created by humans, not by God. Even in the midst of suffering—like those born into war or sickness—I believe God has a special grace for them. My own experiences, as a runaway and working with refugees, have shown me how people can be misjudged. People often don’t understand the struggles of those outside their protected communities. When you’re constrained by physical and spiritual limitations, it shapes your beliefs and expectations. This, to me, is about God’s grace. It’s about humanity’s ignorance and not understanding the importance of inclusion and sharing. God is always there, offering grace and wanting to multiply our spirit, wisdom, and truth.

Donald: I was raised in a family where God and biblical values were central. What if that had not been my experience? There are many who don’t have these spiritual reference points. They’re setting their life’s clock without knowing the correct time. Their actions, driven by selfishness, lack a spiritual context. The harsh language in these parables seems to contradict the concept of grace. It feels overly severe, not aligning with the gentleness typically associated with grace.

Jay: It is definitely harsh, there’s no question about that. The beginning of these parables is inclusive—everyone is part of the Kingdom of Heaven. But then, there’s this harsh judgment. Is Jesus making a mistake with his choice of words? But it’s not just one or two parables; it’s a repeated theme. It suggests that Jesus is intentionally making a point, perhaps trying to convey something beyond the immediate harshness of the language.

David: So, these parables begin with ‘the Kingdom of Heaven is like…’ and then describe scenarios that seem almost hellish, with good and bad people, foolishness, wickedness. Is that really what the Kingdom of Heaven is like?

C-J: No, I don’t believe that’s the message. The narrative we perceive is influenced by our place, time, culture, and our own experiences. For someone like the man on the corner with amputated legs, understanding grace can be a struggle. Painting the divine as harsh is a reflection of our dynamic planet, with its natural disasters and challenges. Humanity is meant to express the same creativity as God, which can get messy. We’re meant to be dynamic, evolving even as we face death. Our experiences, our interactions with the world, and our growth are all part of this dynamic process. God is about movement and change, not a binary, static existence.

Jay: We generally have negative associations with the word ‘judgment.’ Perhaps Jesus is trying to change our perception of both the Kingdom of Heaven and judgment. He seems to be redefining judgment, tying it to grace. Is he trying to shift our view of judgment from something fear-inducing to a concept tied to grace and discernment?

C-J: With judgment comes introspection, like a child drawn to a parent, seeking understanding rather than punishment. Sin itself is its own punishment. The narrative in many belief systems is about consequences, but the Judeo-Christian God offers a different relationship. It’s not based on history or punishment but on a new understanding, a desire for a connection with something greater. When we’re separated from God, there’s darkness. The important thing is not to let any darkness come between us and God. It’s not about the fear of punishment, but about the desire to be close to God, to change and grow in His presence.

Don: It seems all these parables start with inclusiveness, but end in exclusivity based on self-judgment or division from the whole. It’s frightening to be away from God, and to be a recipient of grace but not accept it. It appears the judgment in these parables is more about self-separation from grace than divine condemnation.

David: But these people wanted to be close to God. The virgins wanted to attend the wedding; the man who buried the treasure wanted to please his master, the wedding feast intruder must have wanted in, else why was he there? They’re all seeking God, yet in these parables, it seems like God is the one saying ‘no.’ It doesn’t align with the concept of grace, especially when it’s people who are seeking God.

C-J: But why didn’t the man at the wedding feast accept the garment offered to him? He wanted to maintain his dignity. He lacked understanding of God because all he knew was scarcity. Can you really know God in such a state of lack?

David: So is the refusal of a wedding garment a sin worthy of hell?

C-J: No, dignity is not a sin. It’s about knowing your worth in God. The man did not understand this due to his life of scarcity.

Donald: I think we’ve hit a conundrum. The concepts of judgment and grace seem hard to align. Grace should overpower judgment. Those in the parables didn’t intend to do wrong; their failures were due to misjudgment or lack of understanding, which makes the harsh response difficult to reconcile with grace.

Jay: Discernment is key here. We’re seeing both grace and judgment in these parables, but perhaps we’re missing the element of discernment. It’s not just about being inclusive or exclusive; it’s about understanding and making wise decisions. In the parables, those who discern correctly seem to embody the balance of grace and judgment. Let’s continue to ponder this overlap and revisit it next week to find more clarity.

* * *

Jay: We’ve been exploring the idea that the Kingdom of Heaven is here and now, a change in thought, action, and perception that Jesus aimed to establish throughout history. As we examine the parables where Jesus mentions the Kingdom of Heaven, we ask ourselves: What characteristics of this kingdom are being revealed? What perceptions of God or God’s grace is Jesus trying to change or reinforce? Are there actions associated with the Kingdom of Heaven revealed through these parables? 

We’ve begun to associate the Kingdom of Heaven with God’s grace, treating them synonymously. In our ongoing discussions, we’ll consider these aspects: the characteristics of God’s grace, the potential change in our perception or thoughts about God’s grace, and specific actions that might be associated with it.

Last week, we introduced two more Kingdom of Heaven parables from Matthew 25: the parables of the Ten Virgins and the Master who leaves bags of gold for his servants. Today, I’ll briefly recap these parables, and as I do, keep in mind our three key questions: What characteristics of God’s grace are revealed here? Is there a change in thought or perception about God’s grace that these parables are trying to effect? And are there specific actions related to God’s grace that we should consider?

Let’s start with the Ten Virgins. Briefly, there are ten virgins, five wise and five foolish. The foolish ones don’t bring extra oil while waiting for the bridegroom and, as a result, are locked out of the feast when they leave to buy more oil. In contrast, the parable of the bags of gold features a master who entrusts his servants with varying amounts of gold. The servants who multiply their gold are rewarded, while the one who buries his gold is cast out.

I’d like us to compare and contrast these two parables. Do they share similarities in characteristics, thoughts, and actions? Or do they present different aspects? And considering last week’s discussion about focusing on one overarching message, should we view each parable as part of a larger story, rather than the complete picture?

In the parable of the bags of gold, particularly in Matthew 25:28-29, there are interesting verses to note: “Take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.”

Let’s spend some time today exploring these two parables in the context of our questions. What do you see in each parable regarding the characteristics of God’s grace, the potential change in thought or perception that Jesus might be trying to convey, and any actions related to grace that humanity should consider? Do you find the parables of the Ten Virgins and the bags of gold disheartening, or do they offer a different perspective?

Donald: Revisiting these parables, I find new angles to consider. Calling the virgins ‘foolish’ seems harsh, different from simply being unprepared. Why were they virgins, often seen as bridesmaids waiting outside? In the parable of the gold, the oil is being used up, while the gold is meant to be multiplied. It’s almost the opposite direction. 

What if the parable was reversed, with the one who had ten bags burying his gold? The wealthy often have more opportunities to grow their wealth, while the disadvantaged might be more cautious. These observations might add a new dimension to our understanding.

C-J: These virgins were likely very young, possibly prepubescent, often dismissed as children in adult settings. We might be misjudging them by adult standards. As for the wealth measured in currency, it’s a temporal value agreed upon by society. God’s view of wealth is spiritual, not monetary. He’s talking about the responsibilities that come with spiritual gifts. 

God’s light can’t be hidden; even a candle under a basket shines through. The Holy Spirit is the ever-present light, unlike temporal things that decay. Truth and wisdom are eternal.

Jay: Both parables have a figure in charge—the bridegroom and the master—and a substance everyone possesses, whether it’s oil or gold. The outcomes are similar too, with exclusion being a common theme. The handling of the substance, however, differs between the parables: multiplication in one and consumption in the other. Do these similarities and differences help reconcile or cause more cognitive dissonance in understanding the Kingdom of Heaven’s characteristics?

David: The details in these parables are often confusing and contradictory, leading me to believe Jesus intended us to look beyond them. Calling the virgins ‘foolish’ and focusing on their virginity seems irrelevant. The underlying message might be about being prepared and not wasting what God has given us. 

We risk getting lost in details and moving away from Jesus’ fundamental, simple message. I also wonder if substituting the word ‘life’ for what God has given us might offer a new perspective. “Our lives on Earth are not to be wasted.” Just a thought.

Reinhard: The commonality between these parables is a lack of preparation and a neglect of responsibility. In both, there’s a failure to utilize the grace or opportunities given by God. Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 13 suggests that parables are for those outside the faith, to help them understand the Kingdom of Heaven. For those who have accepted Jesus, the parables serve as reminders to maintain our responsibilities and not fall into complacency.

Donald: The point about getting lost in details resonates with me. What is the core message of these parables? Reinhard’s mention of ‘playing it safe’ is striking. The parables seem to contrast each other: in one, playing it safe is rewarded, while in the other, it leads to loss. The message about grace and decision-making seems mixed. Have we really identified a consistent message in these parables?

Carolyn: Regarding the Kingdom of Heaven being grace, I saw an analogy this week between an orchestra and its concertmaster. The orchestra tunes to the concertmaster’s note, much like we must tune our lives to Jesus. Like a violin that goes out of tune quickly, we need to frequently retune ourselves to Jesus. Some of us may need this more often than others. 

Whether you’re like the wise virgins or the servant who multiplies his wealth, it’s about staying in tune with Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

David: It has been implied that those who believe in Christ don’t need the parables, and I agree. If you have God inside you, why do you need the Bible? Tuning your life to Jesus, as Carolyn mentioned, could be as simple as listening to the Holy Spirit within you, rather than adhering strictly to church doctrines and Bible readings.

C-J: A tree cannot deny its own nature, just as we can’t deny we are God’s creation. Our relationship with God is spiritual, and He meets us where we are. Like the two thieves crucified with Jesus, it’s a revelation of grace that brings understanding. Separation from God, like a crocodile taken out of its natural habitat, leaves us disoriented. We learn through parables, experiences, and guidance, but ultimately, God is the keeper of our time. Grace is like an artesian well – open to all, irrespective of our earthly achievements or circumstances.

Don: The key might be to consider where the elements of the Kingdom of Heaven, which we interpret as grace, originate from. Parables often focus on what is done with what God provides, like the pearl or the leaven. The critical question is, what do we do with the grace God gives us? The focus should be on our response to God’s provision, not on the provision itself.

David: We’ve all been given varying amounts in life, just like in the parable of the bags of gold. Some people are born into war or difficult circumstances, while others have more favorable beginnings. The key question seems to be: what do we do with what we’re given?

The message is clearly that we must do something with what we’re given. What have we been given by our Creator?—Life! The important point is what we do with it, and acknowledging that we all start from different places.

Carolyn: I also feel the Kingdom of Heaven as grace involves a change in attitude. It’s not just about the amount of grace we receive, but how our attitude transforms once we accept this gift. The process of sanctification, which is a work of a lifetime, begins with accepting God’s grace.

Don: If the bridegroom had delayed further, even those with extra oil would eventually run out.

C-J: If we consider the scripture that says, “I knew you before the foundations of the earth,” it suggests that our lives have a specific, intentional purpose. I believe God chooses each person for a unique role in the grand narrative. The richness of God is most apparent in those who face profound hardship yet demonstrate grace and compassion. Every person, regardless of their circumstances, is an essential element of God’s story, embodying grace through adversity.

Jay: It seems we’re discussing the different ways in which grace manifests and is perceived in our lives. The parables might be guiding us to reflect on how we respond to the grace we’re given, regardless of our circumstances.

David: God has given us varying amounts, just like in the parable of the bags of gold. We each have different starting points in life. It’s about what we do with what we’re given. That seems to be the crucial message.

We’ve been given life by God (even as an evolutionist, I believe it all ultimately comes from God). The question isn’t about fairness in our unequal beginnings but what we do with our life. That’s what matters to God.

Carolyn: It’s about the transition time we have until Jesus returns, accepting grace and moving forward. It’s a learning process of changing attitudes and doing something with the grace we’re given.

Don: What one needs to do is simply let grace be grace. Don’t stifle or hoard it. Like leaven in dough, let it do its work. Grace, if allowed to act, will either grow or diminish, but it won’t remain stagnant.

Jay: So, the question of what to do and how much to do with grace arises. There seems to be a distinction in the parables between those who understand the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven and those who don’t, affecting the actions required of them. This aspect of more for some and less for others is something I find unsettling.

David: Acceptance is key. Some can understand the Kingdom of Heaven, some can’t. Don’t worry about it. Rather complain about your lot in life, do something with it. You’re supposed to use your life to help give life to others, to serve as much as you can. Whatever your situation, there’s something good you can do with your life.

Donald: It’s notable that the three servants didn’t question their differing amounts of gold. They just acted according to what they were given. The contrast is interesting: the virgins’ story is more about preparation, while the servants’ story emphasizes action with what’s given.

Don: Grace should be allowed to work naturally. The problem arises when we try to manipulate it to our desires or suppress it. Like a mustard seed, even the smallest amount of grace can grow into something significant if left to its natural course.

C-J: Interfering with grace can lead to codependency and stagnation. As mentioned, God grows us in the soil we’re in and moves us when it’s time.

Donald: Observing nature, like different types of trees in a forest, each serves its purpose in the ecosystem of life. This diversity reflects the various roles and purposes we each have.

Jay: What about the idea that not everyone has to do the same thing with their given grace?

Sharon: Like the body of Christ, we all have different roles to play. Diversity in action is necessary for social harmony.

Jay: We’ll continue this discussion in future sessions. Our goal isn’t to reach a specific conclusion, but to explore these questions and find nuggets of insight in our conversations. It’s about understanding God’s grace and how we operationalize it to benefit others.

* * *

Jay: We’ve been working through the idea that Jesus’ ministry is about change, particularly in terms of perception, ideas, and actions related to the Kingdom of Heaven being present here and now. This contrasts with the traditional view of the Kingdom of Heaven as something belonging to the past or future, or existing elsewhere.

The human brain tends to conceive the Kingdom of Heaven as not being in the here and now, but as something to be attained one day, in the afterlife or at the second coming. Jesus seems to be challenging this thought process and the actions associated with it. We’ve examined some of Jesus’ parables through a different lens this time, considering the idea that the Kingdom of Heaven is here and now, and how Jesus might be resolving this cognitive dissonance.

One teaching methodology we’ve observed is the use of parables to compare and contrast the idea of this change, where the Kingdom of Heaven is either somewhere else or right here, in the present. So far, we’ve discussed about five parables in this context. We’ve tried to create a graphic to represent this, and it was suggested in our last meeting that we add another column to include a verse, a parable, an actor, and a result.

For example, in the parable of the mustard seed, a man plants the seed which grows large enough to provide shelter. In the parable of the leaven, a woman adds yeast to dough, which then permeates through it. These parables seemed passive, without much active intervention.

In contrast, the parables of the hidden treasure and the Pearl of Great Price appear more action-driven. A man finds treasure and sells all he has, and a merchant seeks and sells everything to purchase the pearl. The parable of the net, where a fisherman casts his net and catches various fish, was suggested to be more passive.

The questions we’ve been pondering are: If the Kingdom of Heaven is in the present, what changes in perception, thought, or action is Jesus’ ministry trying to convey? And if there is a change in action being advocated, what kind of action is it? Are we talking about human actions, divine interventions, or examples of grace?

We’re going to delve into two other parables specifically related to the Kingdom of Heaven, examining them through the lens of the Kingdom being in the present. Last week, I mentioned two more parables in Matthew 25, which we will read and discuss in light of the questions we’ve raised.

In Matthew 25:1-13, the parable of the Ten Virgins describes them taking their lamps to meet the bridegroom. Five were foolish and didn’t bring extra oil, while the wise ones did. The bridegroom was delayed, and when he arrived, only the wise virgins who were prepared could join him. The foolish ones were left out when they went to buy oil.

Following this, Matthew 25:14-30 tells of a man who, before a journey, entrusts his wealth to his servants. He gives five bags of gold to one, two to another, and one to a third, each according to their ability. The first two servants double their gold through work, while the third hides his bag. Upon his return, the master rewards the first two servants but reprimands the third for his inaction.

These parables offer a new perspective on the Kingdom of Heaven. There’s a clear relationship between the actions of individuals (the virgins and the servants) and the response of the authority figures (the bridegroom and the master). With these stories, we’re exploring the same questions: If the Kingdom of Heaven is indeed in the present, what changes in thoughts, perceptions, or actions might Jesus be indicating? Are these actions human, divine, or demonstrations of grace?

David: Before addressing those questions, I feel there are many inconsistencies and contradictions within the parables that make them challenging to interpret. For instance, in the parable of the treasure, the man hides it after finding it, whereas in the parable of the talents, the servant who hides his gold is reprimanded. This creates cognitive dissonance, making it difficult to derive clear answers from these parables.

Michael: I agree. It’s difficult to define the Kingdom of Heaven because of these inconsistencies. For example, the kingdom is likened to a treasure in one parable, and in another, it’s illustrated through a detailed story. The actions and themes in these parables are not the same, making it hard to decipher their true meaning.

Jay: That’s a valid point. The initial parables are more item-driven, focusing on things like yeast, mustard seeds, and treasure. As Jesus’ ministry progresses, these parables evolve into more complex stories with room for character analysis and interpretation. The shift from tangible items to narrative allows for a deeper exploration of themes and motives.

C-J: Considering the harsh times in which these stories were set, I wonder if Jesus is challenging the reliance on material possessions and human efforts. If all provision comes from God, shouldn’t the focus be on divine provision rather than human endeavors? Jesus seems to be shifting the focus from cultural norms to a broader perspective, emphasizing the temporal nature of our earthly existence and the importance of understanding our role in God’s grand design.

Donald: The parables, especially the last two, appear to emphasize personal responsibility. They speak to the need to be prepared and to utilize the gifts we’ve been given. However, the consequences depicted in these parables are quite severe, which is unsettling. They seem to underscore the importance of readiness and responsible stewardship.

Jay: Focusing on the first parable about the ten virgins, if the Kingdom of Heaven is here and now, as Jesus suggests, what does it mean to be ready for something that is already present? This seems to be a key theme, especially in the context of Jesus’ ministry.

C-J: When God says, “Depart from me, I know you not,” it’s like saying in a relationship, “I don’t know you because you haven’t trusted me.” You may claim to have obeyed all the rules, but the relationship isn’t just about what you do; it’s about what you hide. In counseling, we refer to this as the shadow self. We can’t truly hide any thoughts or behaviors from God. 

When we come to God, He reveals the lies we’ve clung to. We need to surrender to God in all our relationships, whether it’s with people we marry, befriend, or work with. Our relationship with the divine guides us to properly navigate these human connections, as God knows us completely. When we understand our role as creators, made in God’s image, and join in relationship with the divine, we can truly appreciate the beauty of God’s work.

Reinhard: The two parables stress the importance of preparation and readiness. It’s not about when the second coming will happen, but our attitude and preparation for whenever God might enter our lives. Jesus’ teaching that the Kingdom of Heaven is among us refers to His presence and the qualities He embodied – compassion, mercy, love, and peace. This is the ‘mini heaven’ He brought to the world, a precursor to the eternal life promised for the future.

Carolyn: I still believe that the Kingdom of Heaven is about accepting Jesus and His grace. We must be ready and prepared, surrendering our will to Jesus. It’s in this acceptance that we find the joy and peace of the Kingdom of Heaven. It’s fundamentally about our relationship with Jesus and embracing His grace.

Michael: I want to highlight the differing attitudes in the two parables. The five prepared virgins had oil but were unwilling to share, displaying a certain suspicion and lack of generosity. On the other hand, in the parable of the talents, the focus is on being proactive, using what’s given to you. There’s a contrast in responsibility and attitude between these parables, which complicates our understanding of what the Kingdom of Heaven demands from us.

Donald: ChatGPT says that Jesus spoke of the Kingdom of Heaven as a spiritual or metaphysical reality, experienced within oneself and the community, manifesting values like love, compassion, justice, and righteousness. That’s insightful, summarizing our conversation well. Yet, my childhood understanding of the Kingdom of Heaven was a future place with golden streets. Where did this simpler, more concrete notion come from, and why didn’t I learn the more complex interpretation earlier?

C-J: As a child, your brain couldn’t fully comprehend such abstract concepts. You were still figuring out your place in the world. As we mature and experience more of life, we start questioning and understanding these deeper, existential ideas. Our significance becomes apparent in relation to God, not just through our actions but through God’s guidance and provisions, even in challenging times.

Carolyn: There was a time in my life when grace wasn’t emphasized as much. Now, I understand that the Kingdom of Heaven requires us to decide to have a relationship with Jesus, guiding us through this transitional phase. It’s not just about the eventual promise of streets of gold.

David: I don’t think understanding God is dependent on brain development. Listening to Carolyn, it seems she’s experiencing the Kingdom of Heaven right now by accepting everything and finding joy in her relationship with God. It’s that simple, really.

Don: One might argue that the fault of the virgins without oil wasn’t a lack of preparation, but their desire to take matters into their own hands. They could have entered the feast with minimal oil, but instead, they ventured into the darkness to secure more. This contrasts with accepting God’s grace and letting Him take responsibility.

Donald: We often try to structure spirituality, which might not be the best approach. We learn to create rules and boundaries for everything, including our spiritual lives. This structured approach, learned in childhood from family and religious organizations, may not align with the free-flowing nature of grace. It’s challenging to live without clear rules, but perhaps we’ve incorrectly structured spirituality, much like the Pharisees.

Don: Jesus is trying to undo exactly what we’re discussing. But are we any better? Are we behaving like Pharisees ourselves?

Donald: I remember when I was in my 30s and 40s, we had rules for the Sabbath that resembled Pharisaical laws. You could do certain activities slowly but not others. It was an attempt to create structure and make sense of things for ourselves. I’m not sure how this fits into the Kingdom of Heaven and grace, but it seems we try to organize and structure everything.

C-J: Our brains are binary; we need structure and order. Most people instinctively try to create order out of chaos. This isn’t a defect; it’s a necessity for functioning in society. Whether in government, faith-based communities, or families, rules help establish order. However, when we grow older and start questioning these structures, we realize the importance of individual growth and creativity. There’s often pushback when you challenge the established order.

Reinhard: Attitude is a key factor here. The parable of the talents shows how the servant’s negative view of the master led to his downfall. If we align ourselves with the master’s will and accept his grace, our responsibilities become less burdensome. The preparation of oil symbolizes readiness and responsibility towards the master’s return. The second coming could happen at any time, but it’s our attitude of preparedness and acceptance of God’s grace that truly matters. When we fully embrace God without reservation, we align ourselves with His will and are counted among the redeemed.

Don: The parable of the talents suggests you can’t hoard grace or keep it to yourself. It’s meant to flow and work. Grace is like a mustard seed that grows into a shelter or like yeast that leavens a large amount of flour. To appropriate grace for oneself or to hoard it, preventing others from receiving it, is what leads to being cast into outer darkness. In any guidelines or beliefs we set up, we must do so gracefully, ensuring we don’t hoard grace like the servant who buried his.

Carolyn: Grace was evident when Jesus asked His disciples, “Who do they say I am?” He was with them, embodying the Kingdom of Heaven. It’s His grace that envelops us, but it’s our choice to accept it.

David: I read recently that University Hospitals in Cleveland have added a layer of love on top of their clinical approach. If this merged approach succeeds, it seems to me they will be achieving the Kingdom of Heaven here on earth. In my visits to the Oakwood Seventh-day Adventist church, I’ve felt an atmosphere of love alongside the preachers’ clinical analysis of Scriptures. It’s a balance that works well and doesn’t need fixing.

C-J: The clinic’s approach isn’t new. Decades ago, there was recognition that patients fare better when they feel genuinely cared for. We emit energy when we interact with others, especially in healing contexts. This is evident in the way a mother holds her sick child. Although we can’t measure this energy, it’s a real and powerful force. We are spiritual beings, and God’s grace and love are fundamental to our existence. God doesn’t punish us; instead, He guides us to learn from our choices and grow from them.

Jay: This is a good closing thought for today. As our conversation continues, we’re seeing a stronger correlation between the Kingdom of Heaven and grace. Consider the cognitive dissonance mentioned earlier about hidden treasures leading to different outcomes. Perhaps our brains want to simplify these parables into one specific message, but maybe they’re showing different aspects of grace. Think about this as pieces of a puzzle, each revealing a part of a larger picture. Let’s ponder whether these parables are highlighting various facets of grace and how they fit together. We’ll continue this discussion next week.

* * *

Jay: We’ve been discussing some of the teaching methodologies in Christianity, particularly focusing on establishing prior knowledge. A significant theme we’ve delved into is the concept of change, notably the transformative nature of Jesus’ ministry, which emphasizes a shift in thinking. 

This change revolves around the understanding that the kingdom of heaven is not distant or future-oriented but present here and now. This perspective contrasts with the common belief at that time that the kingdom of heaven was elsewhere or yet to come. At the onset of their ministries, John the Baptist and Jesus asserted that the kingdom of heaven exists in the here-and-now.

In our discussions, we’ve pondered whether this immediate kingdom is about grace or a specific type of change. Last week, we shifted focus to five parables, using them for a comparative analysis. We looked at the differences between viewing the kingdom of heaven as distant, either in the past or future, and seeing it as immediate and present. To recap, we discussed the parables of the Mustard Seed, the Leaven, the Hidden Treasure, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Net, all found in Matthew 13.

These parables are brief yet profound. The Mustard Seed parable (verse 31) likens the kingdom of heaven to a small seed that grows into a large tree, offering shelter. The Leaven parable (verse 33) compares it to yeast that permeates through a large quantity of dough. The Hidden Treasure (verse 44) is about a man finding a treasure, hiding it, then selling all he has to buy the field where it’s hidden. The Pearl of Great Price (verse 45) tells of a merchant selling everything for a valuable pearl. Lastly, the Net parable (verse 47) describes a net catching various fish, with an implied sorting at the end.

As we continue our conversation, we’ll examine the actions within these parables. For example, if the kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed or a hidden treasure, what actions do these metaphors imply? It’s crucial to consider these narratives through different perspectives: one where the kingdom is remote, and another where it is immediate, as Jesus suggests. This approach may offer insights into contrasting these viewpoints. I’ve prepared a chart to help us analyze these actions further: 

For each parable, certain actions are attributed. In the Mustard Seed parable, the notable action is its growth into a large shelter for birds or other animals. In the Leaven parable, the yeast permeates through 60 pounds of dough. In the Hidden Treasure parable, the merchant finds and hides the treasure, then sells all he owns to buy the field. Similarly, in the Pearl parable, the merchant sells everything to purchase the pearl. Lastly, the Net parable shows a net capturing various fish, which are then brought to shore. We also discussed last week how this parable ends with a scene akin to judgment, where the good and bad are sorted.

For today’s discussion, I’m curious about the impact of viewing these parables through different lenses: one where the kingdom of heaven is a distant concept, and another where it’s immediate and present. How might changing this perspective affect an individual’s thoughts, perceptions, and actions, as suggested in the parables?

Additionally, I’d like us to consider the agents of the actions described in the parables. Are these actions human acts, divine interventions, expressions of grace, or a combination of these? This ties into our ongoing conversation about the kingdom of heaven as a manifestation of grace. 

So, as we compare and contrast these parables, consider how they might influence your thoughts, actions, and perceptions, and who you believe is responsible for the actions they depict.

David: I wonder about the sequence of actor, act, and result in each parable. For instance, in the Mustard Seed parable, the actor is the person with the seed, the act is planting it, and the result is a large tree. Similarly, in the Yeast parable, a cook adds yeast to bread, which is the act, and the bread rises. The other parables also involve actions like finding and hiding treasure or fishermen casting nets, each leading to specific outcomes. Is there a deeper meaning—for instance, does the Mustard Seed parable suggest that a seemingly insignificant seed can lead to significant change? I think it’s crucial to record the actor, act, and result correctly to grasp these parables’ meanings.

C-J: These parables might be pointing to God’s desire to showcase His generosity and intent. Everything in these parables is about multiplication, yet it all hinges on a relationship. Take the 60 pounds of flour in the Yeast parable; it’s a lot of bread, possibly indicating a woman entrepreneur in the marketplace. Each parable requires an action, followed by God’s amplification. Good conditions are necessary for growth, like soil and water for the mustard seed or the right environment for the fish. 

These stories highlight God’s generosity and patience. The growth of a mustard tree or using 60 pounds of flour happens over time, not all at once, symbolizing gradual growth.

Reinhard: I see these parables as revelations of the Kingdom of God within us. Jesus embodies the Father and presents heaven’s attributes through these stories. He taught the Pharisees and others that the kingdom was within their grasp if they followed Him. This offers a message that we’re made in God’s image and can cooperate with His grace to realize the kingdom. 

Jesus’ teachings suggest that embracing His goodness and practicing it in life is key to understanding and living in the Kingdom of God.

Don: The actions in these parables seem rather passive. You can plant a seed, water, and fertilize it, but beyond that, there’s little you can do to force it to grow. Similarly, with fishing and using leaven, the actions are not forceful or highly intentional. It almost seems accidental how these actions occur.

Reinhard: That’s the challenge. These teachings were meant to revolutionize their mindset. It was a gradual process for the disciples and the next generation to accept these teachings, which included difficult concepts like forgiveness and caring for the sick.

David: Don’t they boil down to faith? The person planting the mustard seed must have faith that this insignificant seed will yield significant results. Similarly, the fisherman must have faith that his net will be filled with fish, and the woman making bread must trust that the yeast will work. Faith seems to be a central theme.

Carolyn: The same goes for the parables of the pearl and hidden treasure. The element of faith is evident when the man finds the treasure and decides to sell all he has. There’s a need to act to realize this faith.

Jay: Mention of passive actions raises the question of whom we attribute these actions to in the parables. The actions like planting a seed or adding yeast seem passive, with minimal human intervention. Do you see these passive actions as attributable to humanity, divinity, grace, or something else?

Don: I’m not entirely sure, but I see the actions of planting and leavening as passive, leading to more active responses. The pearl parable suggests a different angle—that grace, if that’s what we’re calling the Kingdom of Heaven, requires complete divestment of all possessions.

C-J: The idea of dispossession might not be about tangible things but rather about surrendering preconceived notions of God. Each parable invites us to view God in a childlike way, to question and redefine our understanding of His presence and role in our lives. It’s about seeing God’s presence with wonder and acknowledging His role as our creator and provider.

Chris: In these parables, an action occurs, initiated by faith. We’ve discussed how faith leads to action and then to results, over which we have no control. This brings up the concept of control. Acting in faith means relinquishing control of the outcome. For example, we can’t control how many fish we catch, how a plant grows, or how yeast causes dough to rise. Trying to control these outcomes often leads to failure. Instead, what we’re doing is giving up control and allowing God to determine the result, which is contrary to our human nature to control the outcome of our actions.

Anonymous: After reflecting on last week’s discussion, I summarized my thoughts as: Do, Be, and See. Starting with ‘Be’, I imagine myself as a seed or leaven, which is within my control. I can choose to be a seed in God’s hands, letting Him sow me where He wishes, or be leaven for His purposes. This is my action and choice, but the results, like a mustard bush growing or bread rising, are God’s work, not mine. My role is to willingly place myself in God’s hands. 

Then there’s the ‘Do’ part, also under my control, where the grace of God and the effect of the Kingdom of Heaven come into play. By choosing to be a seed or leaven, God’s grace works within me, like a growing seed or working leaven. 

This leads to the ‘See’ part, where I recognize the treasure or pearl and respond by giving up everything for it, realizing that the Kingdom of God is within me, not a distant hope. This realization compels me to act, to fish in various environments, drawing people to God. However, it’s not my work to judge who is good or bad; that’s God’s role. My response is to be ready and accept the call to work in His field, whether early or late in the day, and to let the Kingdom of God grow within me, like a mustard tree. 

Michael: I believe it’s crucial to be specific about the parables. There’s a lot of action, but we need to emphasize that the kingdom of heaven is likened to the seed in the parable. This shifts the focus to the seed as God’s property and business, as the kingdom of heaven is the seed itself.

David: I am reminded of the Good Samaritan. This story, whether created by Jesus or based on a real event, is like a seed planted 2000 years ago. A simple act of kindness on a dusty road to Jerusalem has grown into a vast tree—an act “nested in” (analyzed, discussed, revered) by millions of Christians worldwide, perhaps because we “see” that the story embodies the kingdom of heaven, where doing good and treating others as we wish to be treated is the norm.

Anonymous: I’ve always struggled with understanding how the kingdom of God could be like a mustard seed. But I’ve come to realize that I am the seed in God’s hand, and His kingdom works through me. That’s why Jesus said the kingdom of God is within you. 

The kingdom of God is both the seed and me in His hands, manifesting through me as I willingly become a seed or sacrifice everything for the kingdom. Thus, the kingdom of God is present here and now and also awaits us at Jesus’ Second Coming.

Carolyn: When we talk about giving everything, what does that encompass?

C-J: I believe it’s about trust and obedience, recognizing that our earthly experiences are transient. No matter the hardships, they’re fleeting compared to eternity. In this journey, God asks for our trust, even when His hand isn’t immediately visible. Like metaphorically experiencing plagues in the desert, we gain a body of experiences and a consensus understanding. There’s a rhythm to life, a time for action and a time for rest, reflection, and dreaming. In these moments, we ponder how God might use us. The key is to be present and open to God’s work, which often manifests in ways that only He could orchestrate.

Michael: I think we need to take seriously the transformative nature of the kingdom of heaven, as understood in Christianity. If it is here and now, but we don’t see a significant change, it prompts us to think the transformation will come later. However, if we accept its immediate presence, it should cause cognitive dissonance, prompting us to see things differently and expect visible changes in our lives.

Jay: That’s a good point. If the kingdom is here now, as Jesus’ parables suggest, it should instigate a change in us. This ties back to our focus on prior knowledge. Are these parables describing one aspect of the Kingdom of Heaven or several characteristics? For instance, the parables of the hidden treasure and the pearl seem similar but depict the kingdom differently—one as the treasure, the other as the merchant. This may indicate multiple facets of the kingdom being portrayed, even in seemingly similar parables.

C-J: I believe Jesus’ parables are foundational. He always spoke from a foundation because our growth in relationship with God depends on factors like good soil and environment. In these parables, things are added to us, symbolizing growth and enrichment. However, contrasting this with stories like Daniel in the lion’s den or the furnace, we see a process where impediments are burned away, leading to transformation and refinement. This purification leaves behind what is good and reveals God’s presence in us, marked by complete surrender and wisdom beyond common sense. 

The Old Testament, with its commandments and history, continually reveals foundational lessons about God’s teachings and our often stubborn, self-centered nature. It’s about realizing that God sees beyond our limited perspective and letting go of our impediments.

Anonymous: Giving up everything means letting go of anything that stands between us and God, no matter how deeply we cherish it. This process is challenging and goes beyond human reasoning. It’s by God’s grace, when His kingdom dwells within us, that we recognize the value of this treasure and understand that nothing is worth more than our relationship with God. 

Jesus’ call to deny ourselves, take up our cross daily, and follow Him reflects this idea of surrender. It’s about prioritizing our love for God over everything else, understanding that clinging to anything more than God hinders our complete devotion to Him. 

C-J: Every day, we go to sleep, surrendering the day and accepting that we can’t change our past choices. Each new day is an opportunity to reassess unfinished business and evaluate the quality of our work. We often think concretely, but the parables offer parallel analogies. If I only evaluate what I produce daily by human standards, where is God in that? God’s perspective is transcendent, and over time, He reveals lessons learned and growth achieved. As we age and perhaps face challenges like dementia, God’s intention is always to grow us in spirit and truth, to make us lanterns of His light. We don’t have to be missionaries or leaders to serve God effectively; our impact can be as simple and profound as the widow’s mite. It’s about our perception of God and our place in that relationship. God is continually transforming us, even in our dreams. These moments of storytelling in the twilight hours are unique ways God guides us, and we should be receptive to see what God is doing differently.

Kiran: I notice that the parables of the sower, weeds, mustard seed, and leaven were told to the crowds, while the parables of the treasure, pearl, and fishing net were told to the disciples. This distinction might offer insights into the different messages meant for the crowds and the disciples.

Michael: This might be indicating that the change, the effect, and the actions in the parables are primarily spiritual. We often expect physical manifestations, but focusing only on the physical aspect might cause us to miss the point.

Jay: That touches on one of the key questions: are these changes or actions spiritual (divine) or physical (human)? Understanding the nature of these changes and the environment they occur in is crucial. 

Looking ahead to Matthew 25, Jesus presents similar parables about the kingdom of heaven with the 10 virgins and the talents. This continuation invites us to ponder if the ministry of Jesus is about a singular change or a multifaceted transformation. Are these parables guiding us towards a specific change in thought, perception, action, or a combination of these?

Carolyn: Could the required change be our acceptance of grace?

Jay: That’s an excellent question to close with. Understanding the nature of this change, whether it’s about accepting grace or something else, is essential to our discussion.

* * *

We’ve been discussing cognitive dissonance and prior knowledge in relation to the ministry of Christ. We’ve explored how Christ’s teaching methods help navigate through cognitive dissonance. 

Over the last two weeks, our focus on prior knowledge has led us to the idea that Christ’s ministry is centered around change. This change implies a new way of seeing things, particularly that the kingdom of heaven is present here and now, rather than being in some distant time or place.

As I contemplated this theme this week, I was drawn back to the concept of moving from concrete to abstract thinking. The idea of the kingdom of heaven, being abstract in nature, becomes more tangible when we think of it as existing in our current reality. This shift between concrete and abstract thinking can be aided by applying and analyzing our current knowledge.

A teaching strategy that often aids in this analysis is the compare-and-contrast method, which helps students to analyze their knowledge base by comparing two different concepts. Reflecting on Christ’s ministry, a prime example of this is found in Matthew 13, often referred to as the ‘parable chapter’. In this chapter, Jesus presents several parables that serve as compare-and-contrast examples, each starting with ‘The kingdom of heaven is like…’. This framing sets the stage for understanding through comparison.

Let’s examine these parables with a new focus, considering what they reveal about change and urgency, based on our recent discussions. The first parable is that of the mustard seed (Matthew 13:31-32): ‘The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of all seeds, when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds come and perch in its branches.’ Jesus then presents the parable of the leaven (Matthew 13:33-34): ‘The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into about 60 pounds of flour until it worked all through the dough.’

Following these, in Matthew 13:44, Jesus says: ‘The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.’ This is immediately followed by the parable of the pearl of great price (Matthew 13:45-46): ‘Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.’

Finally, the last of the compare-and-contrast parables is the parable of the net (Matthew 13:47-50): ‘The kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets but threw the bad away. This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

These parables, delivered in a rapid sequence, create a compare-and-contrast lesson, emphasizing the kingdom of heaven as an immediate reality and prompting a change in perception and thought. As we review these parables, let’s consider the nature of the change they illustrate and any sense of urgency they might convey.

C-J: I see a process with a beginning, a middle, and an end. The focus is often on the end, but it’s important to recognize that throughout this journey, various events can occur—nets may get tangled, storms may arise. However, every step of this process contributes to gaining wisdom and knowledge, preparing us for the transformation at the journey’s end. Take fishing, for instance: understanding when, how, and where to fish is a process that extends beyond mere faith; it’s experiential.

Donald: Some of you might not appreciate what ChatGPT might say about the kingdom of heaven, but let’s consider its view: “The kingdom of heaven, as mentioned in various religious teachings, especially in Christianity, refers to a spiritual realm or state where God reigns supreme. It’s where those aligned with God’s will find ultimate fulfillment, peace, and eternal life after death. In Christianity, teachings of Jesus Christ describe the kingdom of heaven as embodying righteousness, love, mercy, and justice. It’s portrayed as both a present reality in the hearts of believers and a future realm where God’s sovereignty is fully realized. This concept encompasses different interpretations, from a literal place after death to a metaphysical state experienced in life through spiritual awakenings. It’s interesting that it can be perceived as both a present and future entity, like the separation of fish in the net parable, suggesting a choice to be part of God’s kingdom now, in mindset and behavior, rather than waiting for an afterlife.”

Michael: What exactly are we contrasting here?

Jay: The contrast could be between viewing the kingdom of heaven as a current reality versus a future event. Another contrast might be our perception of the kingdom of heaven versus Christ’s portrayal of it. Does this give us a different understanding of the kingdom of heaven, temporally speaking? Is it something immediate rather than futuristic? This is particularly relevant in the context of the Jewish expectation of a Messiah who would usher in the kingdom of heaven at a specific future time. 

The contrast here might be this change in understanding—that the kingdom isn’t just a switch from earthly to heavenly realms at a future date but something we are actively part of now.

Michael: It’s interesting because the expectation of Christians mirrors that of the Jews in some ways. The anticipation for Christ’s return for the realization of eternal life seems similar to the Jewish expectation for the Messiah’s arrival.

C-J: Let’s consider this: if Christians believe our work is done on Earth and heaven is a vacation, that seems off. When we look at other beings God has set to minister to humans, it seems we might have roles in heaven too. It doesn’t align with God’s nature to not use His vessels, perhaps in other dimensions, or even to return to this dimension. Maybe in heaven, we’ll have different levels or capacities of what we can do.

Carolyn: In my understanding, the thief on the cross represents a pivotal moment. It signifies that each of us will face a decisive moment for Christ, leading us towards the promise He has given. This decision is a contrast between immediate gratification and future promises. We all face this choice, as God separates the wheat from the tares. 

The kingdom of heaven, though, comes to each of us at a certain point in our lives. It’s not a one-time event. God is always there, inviting us, but there’s a special moment when the kingdom of heaven becomes a reality for us, allowing us to choose to be with Him both here and in heaven.

Jay: Michael’s point is well-taken about the Jews of Jesus’ time waiting for a Messiah to improve their lives, and Christians awaiting the Second Coming for a better life. This notion of waiting for something transformative is common, not just in spiritual or religious contexts. 

Are these parables in alignment with this idea of waiting for change? Is Christ suggesting a different approach to this mainstream thought process? Does He propose a shift in perspective through these parables?

C-J: Revisiting the point about Jesus’ ministry being short: Most place it around three years. However, considering the story where Jesus, as a child, was teaching in the temple, it’s clear that God had always been present in Him. Jesus had a deep understanding of His purpose and mission. He wasn’t just knowledgeable about the scriptures; He was intentional about teaching others to look beyond the temporal, beyond what the Roman Empire had done. He wanted people to focus on something greater, to prepare spiritually, to seek a relationship with the divine, and find community within their faith.

Don: A few weeks ago, Michael introduced the concept of the kingdom of heaven being synonymous with grace. He suggested that if the kingdom of heaven is equated with grace, it should be more about divine intervention than human effort. 

How do these parables illustrate the balance of responsibility between us and God in relation to grace and the kingdom of heaven? Jesus seems to be steering us from concrete interpretations towards a spiritual understanding.

David: There’s an apparent contradiction in the idea of selling everything for a treasure or a pearl. It implies that attaining the kingdom requires a sacrifice, yet the kingdom is within our reach. Our responsibility seems to be to relinquish everything in order to grasp this treasure. However, as we’ve discussed, this is often a difficult step to take.

Carolyn: It’s about accepting grace. We all have the opportunity to receive it, as it is offered by God. Dr. Weaver highlighted the contrast well. We’re presented with an opportunity by God, and we also have the prospect of heaven at the end. But it’s our choice to accept the kingdom of heaven when it’s offered to us and when our eyes are opened to it.

Donald: The concept of size seems significant in these parables. Consider the mustard seed and yeast: small in size, yet immensely powerful. Grace, akin to the pearl in the parable, changes everything once it’s accepted. It’s small in form but permeates all aspects of life once a relationship with Christ is established.

C-J: I would replace ‘size’ with ‘potential.’ I believe God sees us as vessels of potential, not in equal measure, but each uniquely capable. Like the Samaritan, who, despite his condition, had great potential to inspire grace in others. Potential isn’t just material wealth; it can be as humble as the widow’s mite, representing complete trust in God. God has endowed each of us with unique potential to be used in various ways. It’s not about the portion we receive but the intention behind it.

Donald: I still believe size matters here. It’s about recognizing our own insignificance in comparison to God’s greatness. We are small, yet He sees great potential in us.

C-J: But consider the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Was one life more valuable than another? Christ’s message was that all would be welcomed, regardless of their past. His promise was equal, not based on merit but intended to demonstrate grace. It’s about learning from His sacrifice, understanding the grace of God, which is given in equal measure to all.

Jay: Dr. Weaver raises a crucial point. Depending on whether we view the kingdom of heaven as a present reality or a future promise, does our spiritual responsibility change? Does the parable suggest a different role for us in the kingdom of heaven, whether it’s now or in the future? Through both lenses, do the parables convey different messages or reinforce the same concept?

Carolyn: I firmly believe that when we accept the grace of the kingdom of heaven, regardless of the parable, our decision is for the now. We might not know what tomorrow brings, but our kingdom of heaven starts with our decision today. However, this decision also prepares us for the eventual kingdom of heaven we’ve accepted through grace.

Jay: That introduces another key word often associated with the kingdom of heaven: preparation. Can we prepare for something happening now, or is it always about preparing for the future? And how do these parables address preparation in the context of the kingdom of heaven being a present or future reality?

C-J: Preparation is always necessary; it’s about realizing our potential. We may have the potential to be a leader, but we need training in leadership skills, tools, and language. Daily preparation, like making your bed or driving to work, is essential for success. Anticipating needs is crucial. When I first moved into my apartment, I assembled a toolbox. Basic tools can accomplish a lot. This concept of preparation is emphasized in the Bible, from the Exodus to Joseph and Mary’s journey to Bethlehem. 

Preparation is a natural sequence in life, like giving birth. From planting the seed to nurturing a baby into a responsible adult, every stage requires learning and adapting to change. Whether you’re a shepherd, Pharisee, or carpenter, becoming a lifelong learner is vital to cope with inevitable change.

Donald: I’ve been contemplating a life timeline. After accepting Christ, grace changes your life and behavior. But as life progresses, your influence and focus shift. In your productive years, you can make a significant impact, but as you age, your focus turns inward, and your capacity to influence diminishes. The ‘kingdom of heaven is at hand’ seems to change with each life stage. It’s something to ponder – how our life’s timeline impacts our experience of the kingdom of heaven.

Don: Do you see the change we’re discussing as primarily self-driven, based on personal decisions and viewpoints, or as a divine effort?

C-J: Humans are like adolescents who know right from wrong but sometimes need guidance. I believe that’s how God interacts with us. There’s no expiration date on our lives. Even in death, there’s something to learn—about the person, a good death, or life’s unpredictability. There’s always learning, even when we’re incapacitated. God uses us as instruments, teaching those who care for us or our loved ones. My relationship with God has been transitional, constantly adjusting to stay on the right path.

Donald: A 97-year-old woman of my acquaintance is unable to form new memories but chooses to be happy and thrives on routine. Her nightly prayers are a profound expression of her faith, deeply affecting her caregiver. Even in her advanced age, she makes a difference. So yes, we can make a difference at any stage of life, though the nature of our journey and our ability to influence change over time.

Reinhard: The parable about the mustartd seed is about good people. God placed a good man on Earth, and like the seed growing into a big tree that helps birds perch on its branches, I think this symbolizes predestination. Some people are born to worship and become ‘good people’, growing into big trees that share love and benefit others. There’s mutual benefit among God’s people. The field represents the Earth. 

The other parable talks about the weeds that Satan planted, indicating the presence of bad people destined for destruction. Considering these parables, our efforts must start from within, but God will assist us through the Holy Spirit. Regarding grace, as mentioned in 2 Timothy, it was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began but revealed through His coming. Grace prepares and completes us as followers of God, helping us overcome shortcomings and fulfill our destiny in God’s kingdom.

Michael: The first four parables could be interpreted in various ways. But the net parable seems to have a clear interpretation. When you view all the other parables in the light of this one, it seems they’re all about the judgment, about the separation of the good and the bad.

The net parable is about the separation of good and bad. We don’t read it neutrally; we read it from a heavily biased standpoint, thinking of it as a judgment parable. It makes us focus on being among the ‘good’ by doing certain things.

Jay: That parable is indeed a bit more complex, as it seems like two parables in one. The focus should be on the net, but we often see mainly the angel part at the end. The kingdom of heaven is compared to a net, not the angels deciding who’s good or bad. Yet, we focus on the dividing part, because we want a final point, a black and white distinction. 

Each parable has an item and an action associated with it. For example, in the seed parable, the action is growth; in the leaven, it’s working into flour; in the treasure, it’s finding and selling; in the pearl, seeking and selling; and in the net, casting and retrieving. These actions might provide new insights into the nature of change and who’s driving it. 

We can explore these actions in more detail next week.

Michael: When Jesus compares the kingdom of heaven to a mustard seed, treasure, or a net, I think it’s clear we can’t create any of these ourselves. They represent God’s prerogative. The question for me is, do I grow the tree from the seed, or does God?

Carolyn: I believe we have a choice, as the kingdom of heaven is at hand. With grace, I’ve accepted God and His Holy Spirit to guide me through each of these parables. When it comes to judgment, it’s about constantly aligning our lives with God, as we can’t do it alone.

Donald: It’s about the potential within. A mustard seed by itself can’t change; it has potential because God instilled it with the capacity to do so. Each element in these parables has potential only because of what God has gifted.

David: The parable of the pearl and treasure seem to require action, unlike the others. For example, the net just picks up good or bad fish, and the mustard seed and yeast just exist and things happen. So, it’s confusing; I think we still have a lot to unravel about these parables.

C-J: I noticed that too, especially with the money and selling aspects. It made me think of commodities and market value. Desperate people might undersell due to urgency, while those with abundance can wait for the right time. I don’t think God views us as commodities; it’s more about how humans think. The other parables are driven by grace, but the treasure and pearl involve human will. It’s an interesting contrast.

Don: That ties into Carolyn’s interpretation about finding the pearl by accident, a gift of grace. Then, there’s the effort to keep it. Grace is extended to us, but there’s also a part we play in accepting and keeping it.

Jay: If we consider the items in the parables as the kingdom of heaven or grace, what are the corresponding actions? Are these actions human-driven or divine? It seems both perspectives could apply. We’ve identified some parables that stand out, like the treasure and pearl. Next week, we’ll add three more parables—the laborers in the vineyard, the ten virgins, and the unforgiving servant—and continue exploring this theme.

Carolyn: Here’s a thought: when considering the good and bad fish, does it bring fear out of grace? Over grace? in grace?

Reinhard: Maybe Jesus’ encouragement to sell everything for the kingdom of heaven is a call to do whatever it takes to obtain something so valuable. It’s about prioritizing the kingdom above all else.

Don: This might suggest that we need to let go of everything we can generate and everything we’re responsible for, to fully receive God’s grace.

* * *

Jay: Last week, we explored the teaching methodology of Jesus Christ and His ministry. A foundational element in education, we noted, is establishing or recalling prior knowledge. We spent time discussing this, particularly the prior knowledge Jesus might have been trying to establish as a foundation for his teachings. As the conversation evolved, a theme emerged: the anticipation of change.We linked this theme to the concept of prior knowledge and the onset of Christ’s ministry. 

The idea of impending change is evident in John the Baptist’s introduction in Mark and Matthew 3, and the early stages of Jesus’ ministry in Matthew 4, leading up to His first significant teaching in the Sermon on the Mount. We examined the precepts Jesus might have invoked and noticed a recurring motif of change.

Consider, for instance, Matthew 3:10, where John the Baptist proclaims, “The axe is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.” This metaphor signals change, as does his statement in Matthew 3:12 about the winnowing fork, threshing floor, and the separation of wheat from chaff.

Following this, in Matthew 4, we find the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. Though details are sparse until the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 4:17 hints at transformation with Jesus’ message, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” This suggests a shift is underway. 

Additionally, when Jesus begins calling his disciples in Matthew 4:19, His invitation to “Come, follow me, and I will send you out to fish for people” indicates a change from their usual ways to something new, symbolizing the advent of the kingdom of heaven.

Operating under the premise that Jesus is heralding change, using prior knowledge as a basis for this shift, I spent time researching change. I came across an article by Rosabeth Moss Kanter in the Harvard Business Review titled “Ten Reasons People Resist Change.” It’s a fascinating read. The reasons she gave are:

1. Loss of Control: Change can lead to a perceived loss of control, where individuals feel they can’t make their own decisions.
2. Excessive Uncertainty: In times of change, the uncertainty of what comes next can be overwhelming.
3. Surprise: Change often brings surprises, leaving little time to process what’s happening, resulting in a series of unexpected events.
4. Everything Seems Different: As creatures of habit, we resist change because it makes everything seem unfamiliar.
5. Loss of Face: Change can lead to a reassessment of the past, highlighting its faults, which can result in a loss of face or blaming those who were part of previous methods.
6. Concerns About Competence: There’s a fear that current skills may become irrelevant after change.
7. More Work: Change is often perceived as requiring more effort and being more challenging.
8. Ripple Effect: One change can lead to another, creating a domino effect that people prefer to avoid.
9. Past Resentments: New methods or changes can revive old resentments.
10. Real Threats: Sometimes, the fear of change is justified, as it can bring real pain and struggle.

Change is universally acknowledged as difficult, often unwanted, and typically resisted. Despite its potential benefits, many are hesitant to embrace it. In our exploration of teaching strategies and the theme of change in the context of Jesus’ ministry, we have two key questions:

1. Nature of Change: What does Jesus mean when He says, “The kingdom of heaven is near”? What specific change is He referring to?

2. Timelessness of Change: Is there a timeless, universal aspect to the change Jesus is introducing at the beginning of His ministry? How does this continuous change manifest itself?

These questions aim to understand the nature of the change Jesus heralds and its enduring relevance.

C-J: I believe Jesus is addressing the nearly 100 years of Roman oppression over Israel, signifying the people’s longing for relief and a return to normalcy. He’s prompting a paradigm shift from the temporal to the eternal. 

Our existence is defined by moments of consciousness, memories of the past, and expectations of a somewhat predictable future. When confronted with change, we embrace positive shifts—like the initial excitement over computers and their vast resources. However, as complexities and challenges emerged, stress replaced enthusiasm. 

The rapid evolution of technology, especially post-COVID, has forced us to continually adapt to a world changing not over generations, but in mere weeks. This fast-paced transformation leaves many feeling unprepared and overwhelmed, struggling to keep up and protect themselves in an increasingly complex world.

Donald: I’ve often wondered why people seek change in their leisure time, like going on vacation, which is a significant shift from their comfort zone. Before embarking on a vacation, I’d research extensively to understand the potential changes I might encounter. 

In the Bible, Christ’s responses to these complexities of life often seem obscure and brief. We’d likely feel confused and reluctant to embrace these changes, which aligns with some of the 10 resistance factors Jason mentioned. 

Another aspect is the contrasting attitudes towards change at different ages. Children often crave change and new experiences, constantly asking, “Are we there yet?” But as we age, our comfort in familiarity grows, and we prefer things to remain constant. 

The Bible, while concise in its depiction of these themes, presents a challenge: to get on board with changes we may not fully understand or feel prepared for. Just as the disciples in John 7 grappled with their expectations and hopes for change, we too face similar dilemmas.

C-J: I often hear the disciples asking, “What must I do?” and I find myself echoing this lately. They were accustomed to tangible acts like temple visits, sacrifices, and good works. Jesus, however, was introducing a responsibility in the spiritual realm, beyond mere obedience. He emphasized the importance of understanding the spiritual world, which is eternal, unlike the temporal physical world. 

God seeks a relationship with us, which is always evolving and requires adaptability. Life’s unexpected events, like a flat tire, remind us that nature and our lives are in constant flux. Jesus encouraged adaptability and engagement without expecting transformation. Being ‘born again’ is more than obedience; it’s about learning from life’s experiences and building a relationship with God. 

Jesus represented a shift from the expectation of a temporal Messiah to the reality of an eternal one, a significant leap for his followers and even for us today.

Jay: Those are insightful thoughts. If we interpret “The kingdom of heaven is near” as a sign of impending change, what exactly is changing? Was the kingdom absent before? Is this change specific to that era, or does it carry a universal, timeless quality? It’s challenging to grasp this concept, especially when we consider the constancy of goodness.

David: The change Jesus spoke of is spiritual, not mundane; and individual rather than societal, though it can lead to social change. Being “born again” means shedding our worldly views on good and evil and embracing God’s perspective. The kingdom of heaven is always present, offering each individual, throughout all of human history, the potential for this transformative change.

Carolyn: I reflect on our discussion this morning about grace. Before Jesus, there was a focus on actions like sacrifices and adhering to do’s and don’ts. Jesus introduced a shift to emphasize grace as a crucial element.

Donald: We marvel at the disciples’ inability to understand Jesus, thinking we would grasp it better if we were in their shoes. We struggle with concepts like the kingdom of heaven and eternal life. As Adventists, we turn to additional texts for clarity. If we only had the phrases “kingdom of heaven” and “eternal life,” it would be challenging to grasp their full meanings. Who are we to define these truths for others?

C-J: Jesus said the kingdom of heaven is always with us—past, present, and future. It’s a state of being, not a physical place like streets of gold or choirs of angels. It’s about experiencing God’s presence, like feeling immersed in nature, free from daily distractions. 

We see this in Moses’ life. Despite his privileged upbringing, he faced challenges and only truly understood God’s presence during his burning bush experience. This encounter transformed him, teaching him that his role wasn’t to be a father or god to his people, but to trust and follow God’s guidance. 

Like Daniel, who thrived and gained wisdom through his trust in God, we too face walls and challenges. These obstacles aren’t to stop us but to teach us patience and trust in God’s timing. Moses, for example, thought he needed to change his people, but God had a different plan, separating those faithful from those who weren’t. 

Our understanding of God’s word and grace comes through humility, not through asserting our interpretations.

When engaging with those outside the Christian faith, I use inclusive language like “divine” or “spirit” rather than potentially divisive terms. This approach allows God to reveal Himself in His time, drawing us closer despite our different life paths. The real paradigm shift and change come when we let God, not our flesh or our interpretations, take the lead.

Michael: I wonder if the change Jesus introduced has truly stuck. As Christians, we believe we’re different, but when it comes to spiritual change, the difference between Christianity and Judaism seems minimal, except in rituals. What does being a believer in Jesus really mean? It appears that fundamental change isn’t as evident as we might think.

Don: We often fail to embody the radical changes Jesus spoke of. How many of us actually go to the back of the line, turn the other cheek, or go the extra mile? The kind of rebirth Jesus calls for is so radical it seems almost impossible. It’s a complete reset. He links commandments to spiritual conditions, not just operational ones. This brings us back to Carolyn’s point about grace. It’s a remarkable and seemingly impossible change.

C-J: Reflecting on Jesus at the well, he’s always there, offering the living water of spiritual life. We, like the Samaritan woman, can be judged and separated, yet God is there, waiting. Personally, I don’t always actively read the Bible, but I walk and pray with God daily. I’m not always ‘drinking from the well’ because I think I know the Scripture. The stories are repetitive but consistent in their message of grace, forgiveness, and walking in the Spirit.

Jay: Michael mentioned the challenge of making change stick. It’s true, sometimes we do embody these changes, like going to the back of the line or turning the other cheek, but they don’t always last. Last week, we discussed how change should ideally lead to improvement. Yet, in spiritual matters, we often see change as black and white: bad before, good after. Why is it so hard to maintain this “good” side? 

Perhaps we need to reconsider our perspective on change, as Carolyn hinted. With grace, what does change really mean? As humans, understanding the purpose of change intertwined with grace is a challenge.

C-J: I view it as a toolbox. Jesus teaches us to use the discernment of the Holy Spirit to choose the right tool for each job. The same tool can serve multiple purposes, like driving a screw, propping open a window, or digging a hole. It’s about understanding God’s intention in each situation. Without discernment, we feel stuck and weary, but grace helps us see beyond the task to the intentional purpose of God. 

For example, writing a check can be a mundane task, or an opportunity to observe and appreciate the skill of writing, something a younger generation might not experience. I recently had a fall, and it made me rethink and see things differently, pondering the purpose of these experiences. It’s about letting go and trusting God, much like a child learning to walk. We’re all vessels for God’s mission in this dimension.

Donald: Combining this with Michael’s point about change, it raises the question: Are we really different as Christians, or are we deceiving ourselves? When we invite Christ into our lives, it’s a commitment similar to marriage—it inevitably brings change. We gather weekly because we want to be part of each other’s lives and grow from that interaction. 

It’s inevitable that inviting Christ into our lives will influence and change us. However, the challenge lies in whether we’ve grown enough to see ourselves as different people, or if we’re becoming the person God wants us to be. There’s often a feeling of guilt about not living up to what we believe God expects of us.

Carolyn: That’s precisely where grace comes into play.

Donald: Indeed, grace is central to our conversation. It’s something undeserved, a gift. Amen.

C-J: In counseling soldiers with PTSD, we use a book called The Beauty of Imperfection. These soldiers, seen as broken when returning to society, struggle with heavy burdens. The first step for them is accepting their present state: who they were, who they became, and who they are now. This acceptance is also crucial in our approach to God. 

The Beauty of Imperfection teaches that imperfection can lead to unique paths. Daniel, for example, was imperfect after his castration and becoming a ward of the state. Yet, he focused not on what he lost but on what his experiences allowed him to achieve. Being the clay in the potter’s hands involves shedding parts of ourselves, but it also shapes us into unique vessels for God’s purposes. 

When people see themselves not as broken but as evolving, they can serve in ways previously impossible.

We are in a unique time in history, each with our own challenges, but God calls us to be ambassadors. This role involves not just our actions and words but also the unspoken ways we reflect God’s presence. Vulnerability is a strength as it allows us to connect with those who struggle to find words for their inner pain. Grace, in this context, is more than a light word; it’s a powerful force that lifts us when we are unable to rise on our own. It transforms and strengthens us, helping us realize our dependence on God. This realization, this dependence, is where we find the ability to “stick” to our faith, especially in times of complete reliance on God.

Michael: When we hear commands like going to the end of the line, or going the extra mile, they seem intuitively possible. But when compared to the concept of being born again, like Nicodemus pondered, it feels impossible. If both statements are equally challenging, then maybe the change Jesus talks about isn’t about the rational actions like going the extra mile, but a different type of change.

Carolyn: Using change gives us credibility. It’s through grace that we know change is possible for our betterment.

Reinhard: The word “impossible” seems to be our burden to overcome. Jesus’ interaction with the rich young ruler shows that nothing is impossible for God. The paradigm shift Jesus introduced, like his conversation with the Samaritan woman about worshipping in spirit and truth, was revolutionary. 

We should adapt to situations, growing spiritually closer to God. As Seventh-Day Adventists, we may know the truth, but there’s always room for tuning up our beliefs based on new experiences and learnings. The key is to remember that the kingdom of God is within us, and God is close, only a heartbeat away. We should remain humble, allowing the Holy Spirit to guide us in our spiritual journey.

Kiran: Reflecting on the disciples and Paul, I realize their transformation wasn’t entirely voluntary. Despite their best efforts, it was only after receiving the Holy Spirit that significant change occurred. This change often came involuntarily, sometimes gently, other times forcefully. Like when Jesus called them to follow Him, their acceptance was their only choice. After that, change happened beyond their control, often leading to difficult paths. This underscores the importance of trust. 

Paul’s journey, too, was unexpected, especially facing opposition from his own Pharisees sect. His agreement to follow Jesus on the road to Damascus was his only voluntary act. After that, everything that happened was out of his control, underscoring that change is inevitable once we accept Jesus. The key to coping with this change is trusting God, believing that everything will work out for the best.

Donald: People often resist following Christ and becoming born again due to their apprehension about change. They’re content with their current state and hesitant to alter it. We’re most open to change when we’re vulnerable and recognize our need for help.

David: While many are reluctant to change, some do manage it. The practice of canonizing saints in the Catholic Church highlights those who’ve achieved extraordinary feats in their lives, such as martyrdom. These acts show that it’s indeed possible to embody Christ-like behaviors such as turning the other cheek or going to the back of the line. The kingdom of heaven is within reach, though it’s challenging to grasp.

Jay: Next week, we’ll delve deeper into Jesus’ teaching strategies and change management.

* * *

Don asked me to contribute a short series building on Michael’s recent exploration of cognitive dissonance. Michael covered themes such as grace and judgment. Don specifically requested that I examine the teaching methodologies Jesus might have used during His ministry.

As Michael eloquently discussed, cognitive dissonance frequently appears in Christ’s ministry, exemplified by phrases like “the first will be last” and “love your enemy.” This concept also extends to actions, such as offering the other cheek if struck or giving one”s cloak if asked only for a shirt.

At the start of Christ’s ministry—in the Sermon on the Mount—we see an immediate dive into cognitive dissonance as a teaching tool. The Sermon begins with the Beatitudes, presenting paradoxical blessings that challenge conventional understanding, such as “blessed are those who mourn.” These teachings seem designed to create a mental struggle, forcing us to reconcile seemingly contradictory ideas.

Over the next few weeks, I aim to discuss these teachings from an educational and instructional perspective, seeking your input on their effectiveness. A critical aspect of education is not just to introduce cognitive dissonance but to resolve it. Unresolved, it can lead to instructional frustration, where learners become overwhelmed and disengage.

This situation is akin to teaching calculus to a second grader or expecting someone unfamiliar with Spanish to learn from a Spanish-only textbook. Such approaches create excessive cognitive dissonance, leading to frustration rather than fruitful learning.

So, the question arises: Did Jesus, in His ministry, not only cause cognitive dissonance but also provide ways to resolve it? If so, what were these methods or insights? Understanding this could help us address our own cognitive dissonance and avoid reaching a point of educational frustration. In essence, can we identify and apply Jesus’s strategies to enhance our own instructional methods?

In a previous class, we delved into the concept of seeing and understanding God, a journey that involves moving beyond cognitive dissonance. As a recap, and to set the stage for our upcoming discussions, we examined the transition from concrete to abstract thinking. This shift takes us from basic knowledge and memorization to more sophisticated levels of learning, such as analysis, evaluation, and creation. This progression is vital in education for resolving cognitive dissonance, moving learners from concrete facts to abstract concepts to facilitate deeper understanding.

A crucial step in this educational journey is establishing prior knowledge. This foundation forms the basis for further learning, helping students navigate through cognitive dissonance. Once a common understanding is established, we progress through Bloom”s Taxonomy, advancing from basic memorization and understanding to application and analysis. These stages in learning help resolve cognitive dissonance.

A key educational strategy as we ascend through Bloom”s Taxonomy is to solidify prior knowledge. This concept is also evident in Christ’s ministry. We must ask: What tactics did Jesus use to establish prior knowledge, and how did he lead from knowledge to application and analysis to address cognitive dissonance?

Our focus today is on identifying and understanding the prior knowledge that Christ established in his teachings. To do this, let’s turn back to the beginning of His ministry. We’ll examine three pivotal elements that contributed to establishing this prior knowledge: the ministry of John the Baptist, the Temptation of Christ by Satan, and the healing spree Jesus undertook before the Sermon on the Mount.

John the Baptist’s role before Christ set a foundation of understanding. Next, the Temptation of Christ presents specific insights, potentially pivotal for grasping subsequent teachings. Finally, Jesus’ healing actions before delivering the Sermon on the Mount might have been instrumental in setting the stage for the cognitive dissonance that follows.

After reviewing these three aspects, I invite you to consider what prior knowledge Christ might have been aiming to establish through these events. How do these foundational experiences inform our understanding of His ministry and teachings?

We start with John the Baptist”s ministry. In Matthew 3:1-13, John the Baptist is depicted preaching in the wilderness, urging repentance for the coming kingdom of heaven. His message, as foretold by Isaiah, is to prepare for the Lord’s arrival. John, known for his ascetic lifestyle, wearing camel hair and eating locusts and wild honey, attracted crowds from Jerusalem and Judea, baptizing them in the Jordan River.

A critical moment in John”s ministry is his encounter with Pharisees and Sadducees. He challenges them to show “fruits worthy of repentance,” emphasizing that lineage to Abraham isn’t enough for righteousness. John foretells the coming of one greater than him, who will baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire, separating the wheat from the chaff. This narrative sets a foundation for understanding Jesus’s ministry and can be viewed as a starting point for establishing prior knowledge.

Next, let’s consider the Temptation of Christ. Before beginning His ministry, Jesus faces three temptations in the wilderness, each countered with scripture. His responses: “Man shall not live by bread alone,” “You shall not tempt the Lord your God,” and “You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve,” lay a foundational understanding of His teachings.

Lastly, before the onslaught of cognitive dissonance in Jesus”s ministry—illustrated in the Sermon on the Mount and various parables—there’s a phase of healing and casting out demons. This period of miraculous activities possibly sets the stage for the challenging teachings that follow.

Reflecting on the opening of Jesus”s ministry, I invite you to consider how these events—the ministry of John the Baptist, the Temptation of Christ, and the initial healing miracles—serve as the groundwork for the cognitive dissonance to be addressed later. What prior knowledge, do you think, was Jesus establishing through these actions, before we dele into the more complex aspects of His teachings?

David: Jesus’s ministry certainly induces cognitive dissonance, but only if you think about it. To me, it induces the very opposite: Spiritual harmony. Take the Beatitudes, for instance. They may be cognitively perplexing, but they evoke a profound sense of Truth and spirituality that transcends cognitive analysis. Jesus’s teachings repeatedly urge us to listen not to our intellect but to our inner voice—the heart, soul, the Holy Spirit, call it what you will. This is not at all a cognitive process. The directive to live “not by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” seems to me to underscore this. In Jesus’s time, the New Testament did not exist; so the Word of God as Christians understand it today had to be discerned internally, through the Holy Spirit. Therefore, I argue that it is not a matter of cognition, but of spirituality. This, to me, concludes the debate.

Jay: I don’t believe it concludes the debate. Reaching a state of harmony from cognitive dissonance requires a foundational principle or prior knowledge. In an educational context, prior knowledge is essential for this transition. My question then is: Do the examples given—John the Baptist’s ministry, the temptations, and the healing—provide that foundational basis for moving from dissonance to harmony? 

Michael: Jesus often prefaced his teachings with “You have heard x, but I say to you y.” This, to me, is where he established prior knowledge and then introduced cognitive dissonance. He acknowledged existing beliefs before presenting his radical reinterpretations. It seems the prior knowledge Jesus was establishing hinted at imminent change, challenging the existing religious teachings. This notion of impending change is echoed in John the Baptist”s message and the miraculous healings.

Donald: My foundational question revolves around the nature of spiritual matters. Are they inherently obscure, a test of faith? If spiritual truths were clear and concise, one could simply learn, understand, and live by them. But it seems we are often incapable of fully grasping these truths and must accept them on faith. I recently attended a service focused on peace, which resonated with the idea of a utopian world, like the one depicted in the Sermon on the Mount. Yet, contrasting this with the often violent narratives of the Old Testament, I’m left contemplating the disparity between utopia and reality. Is heaven meant to be a utopia, something beyond our cognitive understanding? Such discussions are challenging and meaningful, but they also leave us pondering unanswerable questions, which I believe is the essence of this class.

Don: What Michael and Donald have pointed out is insightful. It’s not just about cognitive dissonance but a radical shift in thinking and understanding something spiritual. Donald seems to suggests that Jesus’s teachings imply that the way we’ve learned things might be completely wrong. If our prior knowledge is flawed or erroneous, that’s pretty significant! It’s not merely about resolving cognitive dissonance but recognizing that our deeply held beliefs could be fundamentally incorrect. That’s a profound and somewhat disturbing realization.

David: The concept of prior knowledge has always been present. For instance, the directive to “turn the other cheek” might not always seem logical or appropriate, but when we read it in the Bible, we find it profoundly beautiful. How could we do so, without prior knowledge of the Truth? This isn’t just about cognitive dissonance; it’s about recognizing an inherent truth within us. We instinctively know that teachings like turning the other cheek are True. This prior knowledge resides deep within us. But if we try to intellectualize these teachings, try to comprehend them solely with our minds, we fall short. As Donald suggests, some things may simply be beyond our intellectual grasp.

Carolyn: One thing that has really struck me is the notion of becoming like little children. Children don’t possess extensive prior knowledge; they have innate truths written on their hearts. They’ve had limited schooling. This aligns with the admonition to adopt a childlike approach in understanding spiritual matters.

Donald: Spot on. We’re attempting to reach understanding intellectually, but perhaps that’s where we falter. This isn’t a mere academic exercise with clear learning outcomes; it’s about regressing to a more fundamental state of understanding, which in itself is a form of cognitive dissonance. We’re conditioned to always move forward, yet here we are asked to go backwards.

Sharon: I wonder if the term “cognitive” might be somewhat misleading in this context. Could what we’re experiencing be more accurately described as emotive or relational dissonance? It seems broader than just rational or cognitive elements.

Donald: That”s why I used the term “obscure.” It’s straightforward if taken at face value, but attempting to intellectualize it makes it blurry. Perhaps the more we learn, the blurrier it gets.

Reinhard: Reflecting on John the Baptist’s role, he heralded the coming of Jesus and emphasized repentance. The prior knowledge held by the Jewish people from Moses to the Pharisees was challenged by Jesus’s teachings. Jesus came to revolutionize and correct their religious practices, which was a significant cognitive dissonance for them. Their established beliefs and practices were deeply ingrained, making Jesus’s teachings about a closer, more personal relationship with God difficult to accept. This was the conflict that led to Jesus’s crucifixion.

David: Building on Reinhard’s point about repentance, it’s not just about remorse or regret; it’s about changing perspectives and ways of thinking. John the Baptist’s call for repentance was a directive to abandon traditional interpretations and embrace a new understanding; it was a call to go beyond mere remorse. This represents a profound and deeper shift in thinking.

Jay: Two concepts have emerged from our discussion. The first is the notion of impending change, suggesting that our foundational thought processes are evolving. Accepting this change could be a key element of prior knowledge. The second concept is the idea of an innate, higher knowledge within us, something beyond technical learning, which Christ’s ministry might tap into. In the examples we’ve discussed, do we see evidence of this innate knowledge? And what specific changes do we see being alluded to? Don mentioned that our prior knowledge could be flawed or erroneous. How do we identify this change and the innate understanding that might be being hinted at here?

Don: A question that arises for me is whether change is normative. Is this concept of change specific to the first century with Jesus and His ministry, or should we expect and manage change in the present as well? Is change a constant factor in our spiritual journey?

Jay: Shifting from a teaching to a learning perspective, I’ve noted that we often approach spiritual development with linear thinking. We envision growth and understanding as a straight path, adding more knowledge incrementally. However, this linear approach doesn’t seem to accommodate much change—it’s more about accumulation. Instead, I’m considering a different model, perhaps not exactly circular, where the journey seems repetitive, perhaps more like a spiral, where one revisits themes at a deeper level. This might better represent the nature of spiritual growth, which is not simply binary or black and white. Spiritual matters are abstract, not confined to concrete, linear thinking. We might need to embrace a non-linear approach to truly understand the spiritual journey and the changes it entails.

Michael: I’d like to suggest that the “innateness” David referred to might be better termed “spiritual knowledge.” While cognition relates to cognitive knowledge, innate understanding should perhaps be considered in a spiritual context. This distinction could help us better grasp the concept we’re discussing.

David: I see Jesus”s teachings on spiritual matters as very binary. It’s a clear choice: Turn the other cheek, or don’t. There’s no halfway. It’s unequivocal. This binary nature is evident in the spiritual realm, but becomes complicated when we apply cognitive processes to try to understand it. And we don’t need to do that because, deep down, we know that turning the other cheek is the right thing to do. The choice between good and evil is stark.

Carolyn: Could someone provide a definition of “cognitive” as we are using it today?

Jay: In our discussion, “cognitive” refers to the thought processes we engage in. Cognitive dissonance arises when we encounter a new way of thinking that conflicts with our existing thought processes. This dissonance creates a tension that needs resolution. However, as our conversation evolves, it seems we”re exploring a different kind of dissonance, perhaps one that goes beyond mere cognitive conflict.

Donald: “Becoming like a child” appears to be more circular than linear. Linear growth implies aging and maturation, but returning to a childlike state suggests a circular journey. The more we try to fit spirituality into a linear model, the more we limit it. Christ’s teachings often challenge us to think in opposite terms, which is difficult for our linearly trained minds. This raises the question: does change continue in heaven, or do we achieve a state of harmony where change is no longer necessary?

Michael: Jesus aimed to overturn two significant aspects with his teachings. Firstly, the societal norm that “life isn”t fair” and the idea of equivalent retaliation—”an eye for an eye.” Secondly, he challenged the religious understanding and application of law at the time. His teachings were revolutionary, not only in altering religious perceptions but also in reshaping societal norms about maturity and adult understanding. This was no small task; it required a profound shift in thinking.

Jay: A final question to ponder as we continue this discussion is whether Jesus was causing what might be termed “spiritual dissonance” as opposed to cognitive dissonance. Is this a valid categorization, or is it something different?

David: In my view, Jesus wasn’t creating dissonance at all; he was offering spiritual harmony. However, our own cognitive processes often disrupt this harmony. We create our own dissonance. Jesus presents a beautiful, harmonious spiritual vision, which I think can be seen in other great religious teachings as well. The challenge is not the dissonance; it’s our struggle to comprehend and accept this harmony without over-intellectualizing it.

Reinhard: Certainly, Jesus”s teachings were a direct challenge to the religious establishment of the time, especially his claim to be the Son of God, which contradicted their prior knowledge. The coming of Christ fulfilled many Old Testament prophecies, such as the concept of the ultimate sacrificial Lamb, changing the need for ceremonial and civil laws. His teachings about loving your neighbor and showing forgiveness introduced significant societal changes, challenging the existing norms and laws. This indeed created a kind of cognitive dissonance, as his teachings differed greatly from the long-held beliefs since Moses. The early Christian Church, as seen through Paul’s teachings, grappled with these changes, such as the issue of circumcision, highlighting the ongoing struggle to reconcile new spiritual understandings with traditional beliefs.

Donald: I’m hesitant to say this, but the Beatitudes sometimes feel to me like a Hallmark card—beautiful but somewhat disconnected from our reality. When we leave the sentimentality of a Hallmark moment and face the world, there’s a stark contrast. Are the Beatitudes calling us to be different from how we currently are, to think in ways we ordinarily would not?

David: That’s an interesting perspective. While Hallmark cards evoke emotion, the Beatitudes go deeper, touching something more spiritual. We can track emotions neurologically to some extent, but spirituality lies beyond our full understanding. This distinction is crucial.

Donald: So, you’re suggesting spirituality is not an academic subject?

David: Exactly. Spirituality transcends academic analysis. It’s much more profound than that.

Donald: Then, our discussions, while stimulating, are more academic, not necessarily transformative or deeply meaningful?

Jay: I would argue that while spirituality cannot be reduced to an academic exercise, academic exploration of spiritual matters can still be valuable. Contemplation, even in an academic context, can lead to valuing, and what is valued can become meaningful. Our conversation is a part of this process.

Don: I would add that if we applied Jesus’s teaching methods today, we might see a more effective church. It’s not just academic—it’s practical and relevant. It raises the question of whether our current teaching methods effectively convey our understanding of God.

David: This is similar to what Michael mentioned about Bethlehem removing Christmas decorations in sadness over the suffering in Gaza. Such actions reflect a genuine Christian response, it seems to me.

Carolyn: Amen to that.

Michael: Jesus used cognitive dissonance as a tool to teach us about spirituality. He utilized a knowledge-based approach that paradoxically challenges our understanding. We’re trying to decipher this method and its impact on our spiritual perception.

David: I cannot agree that Jesus was engaged in an academic exercise or used cognitive dissonance deliberately. He was simply conveying the Truth. Any cognitive dissonance we experience is our own creation, an academic construct we use to rationalize our understanding, but Jesus’s teachings were straightforward. Everybody “gets” them—in their hearts. But ask the mind to “get” them, and the trouble starts.

Donald: Jason has certainly sparked an engaging discussion. It’s hard to stop pondering these ideas.

Jay: I’m glad to hear that. Let’s continue exploring these concepts, focusing on the idea of prior knowledge. I also want to delve into two specific teaching techniques—compare and contrast, and modeling—which I believe Jesus employed in his ministry. These methods might help us transition to more abstract thinking.

* * *

Jay: We’ve been talking about what shapes our view of God and grace—starting with the effects of our modern educational experiences followed by the effects of the life and ministry of Jesus. We discussed Bloom’s taxonomy, which posits that we progress through stages our cognitive development: Recall and understanding of knowledge, its application, analysis, and evaluation, and finally creativity. We noted that in this process our thinking starts out as concrete but transitions into abstract thinking, which is where the spiritual realm is. 

Last week, we began our consideration of the effects of Jesus’ ministry with a look specifically at the parables he used to teach. We will continue to review the ministry of Jesus as a whole with a discussion of the miracles of Jesus and then his crucifixion and resurrection as the concluding part of his ministry. 

We determined that the parables—storytelling—enables us to place ourselves in the story and thus gives us a concrete way to think about and relate to abstract aspects of the Spirit such as sacrifice and forgiveness and value and judgment and acceptance and salvation. The parables do not offer much to explain themselves, lending a sense of timelessness or universal principle. They rely on the concrete actions within the story to get their abstract messages across. 

Today, I want to transition to another component of the ministry of Jesus: His miracles, of which there were 37. Some Bible scholars divide them into seven categories, but I would categorize them into four: Healing (25 miracles), providing for physical needs (six miracles), power over nature (three miracles), and resurrection (three miracles). 

The healing miracles clearly comprise the vast majority and range from blindness to leprosy to bleeding to demon possession to mental health to paralysis and more. The power-over-nature miracles include Jesus’ calming the waves in a storm, walking on water, and withering a fig tree. The providing-physical-needs miracles include the feeding of the 5000 and the 4000, turning water into wine, enabling the disciples to net a large catch of fish, and paying temple tax with money from the mouth of a fish. The resurrection miracles were raising the widow’s son, Darius’ daughter, and Lazarus from the dead. 

What can we glean from these miracles? How do they help us to develop our view of God? What do you see as the result of those miracles? Do the four categories help us to move from a concrete way of thinking about God to an abstract way? What attributes of God do they help us to see a little bit better? 

Donald: it seems to me that those four categories can all be summed up as taking care of people’s needs, and caring is pretty foundational, at the base of Bloom’s pyramid—something concrete. The parables seem to be more abstract, harder to follow, than the miracles. “Take up your bed and walk” does not need a whole lot of background to understand what’s going on, whereas the parables can make you work to glean their meaning. The miracles provide a clear understanding of what Christ was about and help build our mental picture of what Christ looks like. The miracles are pretty foundational.

C-J: When I think of Christ’s ministry, I see that ministry and mission as being synonymous. And when you are in a place of leadership, transitional leadership—because Jesus was really speaking to the Jews about “Don’t get so caught up in the letter of the law, you have a relationship with God that is outside of the temple” and I think that’s what he was always doing through each of those caveats that you mentioned, that this is a relationship, it’s an important relationship, and he was constantly demonstrating leadership and dominion over all things. 

I think that we see miracles as out of the ordinary, but for me, I see miracles every day, in the most common places. I go: “Oh, my God, I could have done that. But where was God in that moment?” I see it completely different. I see him coming with a very distinctive beginning and end game. He had a limited amount of time. He had a time of foundation work—learning the Word of God, being an example to others. 

Leadership is dependent on who you’re talking to. You’re always a leader, but how you demonstrate that depends on your audience. He knew how to speak to the children, who were very foundational and concrete. He knew how to speak to the people who had walked a long time in spirit and truth. The miracles were to remind them that in chaos, God does not exist. It is peace that God brings. The peace is knowing that there’s something beyond this temporal realm. So I always see Christ coming with a mission. And his role was to be a leader.

David: I think it’s important to remember that Jesus’s mission and ministry were fundamentally spiritual. The danger of the miracles is that we want to apply them to the physical world. We want to think that he showed that the physically blind can be healed any time, but the point of the miracle was to was to illustrate that the spiritually blind can be healed any time. 

I certainly take Donald’s point that the miracles reflect the great care that Jesus had for us. We can learn from that and apply the lesson in the real world, in the physical realm. But fundamentally, Jesus’ ministry was about spiritual matters, not physical matters. The great danger of the miracles is that people want them to apply in the physical world. 

It is true that we see what seem like miracles all around us. We see all sorts of signs that God is active—somebody’s heart is moved to do some good work and we take that as a little miracle. It is indeed wonderful when that happens but it’s not the impossible kind of miracle we associate with Jesus.

Robin: The Commandments were concrete in the sense of being written in stone and they have foundation. But sometimes they have limited success. “Thou shalt not…”, they say; but we’re probably going to do it anyway. But the parables are intriguing because their meaning is not just spoon fed to us. To find a Pearl of Great Price, you’re going to look for it. Parables maybe were designed to get us to think, to discuss, to study the Word of God, and to pray to God to open our understanding so we can perceive the meaning and see how to apply it for others.

Don: The underlying story of almost all the miracles is one of forgiveness of sin, which amounts to a very concrete illustration of healing by highlighting the forgiveness of sin and the accentuation of God’s grace. I think the spiritual nature of these healings is important. Whether or not one receives physical healing is not as material as whether one receives God’s grace. I think when we look at the miracles, particularly the healing miracles, we have to look at them in the context of the time, which was that Jesus was not only healing but—primarily—forgiving sin.

Donald: Miracles are doing whereas parables are saying. The creation was spoken into action. So God was doing and saying. He just didn’t do it—he said it. Maybe this connects to Christ who spoke things, such as “Pick up your bed and walk.” He didn’t just walk by somebody and all of a sudden a miracle happened. Miracles start by saying something, they are not just a response to something seen.

How does that connect to praying for a miracle? We all have done that. I’m not sure what we’re really are hoping for positive outcomes, but does that change God’s mind or Christ’s mind?

C-J: I’m not sure. I think it’s intention and purpose. When you speak something, there’s intention and purpose in it. And for me, I always see the stone being cast into the pond, and it will make its ripple. Now, some things are definitive: “Let there be light,” as an example,  There wasn’t, then there was. But most of what we experience in time and place is a ripple. 

And there’s intention in it, so the one that’s closest to the shoreline, the one that’s the furthest distance from where the stone was dropped, indicates as to how much had to happen before things come in alignment. And then there is calm again, and you would never know the stone had been dropped. But I really believe that God is all about intention and purpose in a very specific time and place with people who are supposed to be present. They’re in consciousness and spirit, ready to receive the message. And I just see that everywhere. Everywhere in Scripture, I see it everywhere. When I look out my window. Nothing happens by chance. Everything is in God’s perfect timing. And am I paying attention to why I’m viewing it at this point? It’s a whole different way of gathering and propagating a relationship with the divine.

Jay: I can get my mind around the healing miracles (the majority). They seem to be very much tied to forgiveness, the thought at that time being that if you had a physical or mental ailment there must have been some kind of sin either in your life or your parent’s life to cause it. Eradicating the ailment would also mean that the sin was eradicated along with it. Therefore, seeing the healing miracles as an expression of what God is and helping us to understand the abstractness of forgiveness and the abstractness of grace helps me get my mind around that.

There are two kinds of healing miracles: One where somebody is brought and asks for it; the other is the kind that people just get it. They reach out and touch Jesus, who doesn’t do anything but they get healed. So I think there’s things to be said about forgiveness and grace for those things also. But what about these other ones?  I can see that the healing miracles help me to see the abstract concepts of forgiveness and grace, but what about the other categories? Are they the same? Was it revealing the same attributes in your mind? Are there different attributes there that you see?

C-J: I see them as a continuum. Just because I received the grace of forgiveness, that isn’t the end of the story. What does God say?—“Go out and be a witness, go out and greater things than these shall you do.” His time was limited. But the message was, if you’ve received, your responsibility is to be a witness, a testimony of that restoration process. And all of those things that you just ticked off are about restoration. Whether I get it just by being in the room, I reach out for it, all those things, being taken away from adversity. It’s always about restoration, God is always about taking us back spiritually to the garden, to the place where we can walk with understanding and continue to grow in that relationship. 

We’re not as needy in the garden. It seems to be like a partnership. “Go freely, experience it, talk to me.” It’s like a parent watching a child play, when the child runs back and puts their head in the lap of the parent. “Go play, get to see what your environment is about, touch it, smell it, experience it. I think that’s the way God is with us. “Go and see all that is there so that you can grow and become and use that medium as a reflection of what you’ve received in Revelation, and transformation”.

Reinhard: I see the comparison between parables and miracles. In the parables, Jesus talks mainly about the character of God the Father, about how we have to behave, about the plan of salvation, and about love, mercy, things like that. The parables, I think, were intended primarily to teach his disciples, while the miracles were to show the general population both how powerful is a God who can defy Nature and how compassionate is a God who cares for people in distress. It shows the character of God. When Jesus calmed the stormy sea for the terrified disciples he grew their faith and trust in him. 

So all in all, the parables and miracles were part of Jesus’ mission to complete the plan of salvation, as was his crucifixion—he died to save humankind, as planned by his Father. The plan of salvation teaches us that God wants to take us back, that he forgives us, and that though judgment will come someday, God is love.

Donald: Actions speak louder than words. I wonder how that applies here. Was it necessary for Jesus to provide miracles, or could Christ’s ministry have been conducted through words? Did the actions in the miracles speak louder than the words in the parable? That is who Jesus was—he wanted to care for those he was confronted with.

C-J: I think those miracles were provision. When Jesus said to the people who were closest in his inner circle: “Greater things than these shall you do,” he knew they knew that he was in trouble with the Romans. If they could put their hands on him, he’d be crucified along with all the other people that were considered rebels. I want to believe that God’s purpose was to empower us to live not to be magicians, as in “If you’re truly a believer, if you truly have the hand of God, you will be able to do these things,” but that God was making provision through faith and demonstrating “Greater things than this shall you do.” 

Some of that is being still. When you’re in a battle and chaos, sometimes the best thing and only thing you should do is to pause. And in that moment of pause, there’s a brief evaluation of “What is my place and purpose, here and now? What is the most effective thing that I can do for the people around me so that we aren’t casualties?” 

I think Jesus really recognized that all eyes were on him because they had put a label on him. “Are you the Messiah? Are you the one that has been prophesied? Are you going to bring peace? Are you going to wipe out these Romans? Are we going to go back to our normal life? Are you going to create a world where there’s prosperity and we don’t need to wonder if it’s going to rain and our harvest will grow? All that shall be behind us?” 

The checkboxes for a Messiah were many and profound, but Jesus was saying: “What I’m trying to show you here is that you have the authority to affect change where you live, here and now, I don’t care if you’re living in the country, in the city, if you’re rich, if you’re poor, if you’re sick, if you’re healthy, you have the authority within you to affect change.” That’s an incredibly important message. Because where does real change begin? In the spiritual world, that transitioning from being having no value, to having great value. 

I believe that once we experience salvation and grace and truly come to a place like: “Me? You looked at me and saw value in me?” that it is a profound sense of gratitude that never leaves me. Sometimes I’ll just start praising God through the day, because I’m just overwhelmed with gratitude. “Go and do what has been given to you.” That’s profound. I don’t always do it. Well, sometimes I don’t even know what’s happening. But I believe this what Jesus’s message was: Recognize the gift that you’ve been given in this time and place and go out with authority over this dominion. It’s just transformational.

David: I was curious about whether other religions have any beliefs in miracles and examples of  miracles, so I asked ChatGPT. It seems that most religions do, even Buddhism, though Buddha himself counseled against them. Mystical miracles, as opposed to healing and caring miracles, seem more common. 

But then I wonder: What about all the people who did not have the benefit of Jesus’ ministry? People who are not Christians, basically. We know that God is the God of all people, so how does he convey to the whole world all the messages Jesus conveyed to the Jews, which later filtered down to the Romans and Greeks and other non-Jews, but never took hold in (most of) China or India? 

Jay: I’m trying to stretch us to look beyond the miracle as simply a healing miracle or a providing physical need miracle, to ask: What does it say about God? What does it say about the deity itself?

Don: One way of looking at the four categories of miracle is that these really all are the same thing. They’re all restoration events, whether they are restoring health or restoring the life or restoring good weather or restoring needs that one has, you could argue that they really all are classified under restoration. 

Anonymous: Miracles in general are demonstrations of God’s power over everything. Jesus was trying to show his listeners that God is so powerful, he can do everything and he has control over everything. Maybe his listeners were not sure. They did not experience it in their lives so they had doubts about whether God can or cannot, or will or will not heal. But Jesus came to show them that God is over everything, has control of everything, and is so powerful. He’s calling on them to trust in him and to have faith in him even if they don’t see very much, and that’s why he came to show them. Because it’s so abstract about God that many people just cannot get it. 

Miracles, I’m thinking, are a “shake up” call for people who have seen the glory of God, have seen the miracles of Jesus, yet still don’t get it, like the disciples in the storm, who had just witnessed the miracle of the fishes and the loaves. It just went right over their heads. They didn’t get it and they didn’t have faith. The miracle of the calming of the storm was to shake them up, like: “Come on now. Can’t you see it?” I mean, you couldn’t forget it or other miracles, like the resurrections of the little girl of the Centurion and of Lazarus. 

It was a shake-up especially for the Pharisees, who heard everything about him yet kept on unbelieving. The healing miracles went down well with people who already had a lot of faith—that’s why they came to him for healing. He rewarded them for their faith in coming to him for healing but he wanted them to know that he had power not just over the sickness, but over their sins as well. That’s a good message for believers. 

Parables, I think, are for those who don’t understand anything, who have eyes but don’t see, ears but they don’t hear. Jesus would say after a parable: “The one who has ears, let him hear.” (e.g., Matthew 13:9,43) The parables are down to their level. hoping that one day when they when they experience something similar to a parable it will click and then they will understand. They are for people who don’t believe, who don’t understand, who have no idea. 

And of course, in general, they’re all to restore the image of God in the people and to help them look toward that, see more of him, and understand the abstract a little bit more. But it starts with the concrete.

Donald: I would concur that it’s the power of God that we’re really talking about here, and while we are focusing today on the 37 miracles in Christ’s ministry, the power of God, the Bible itself, and all of creation are miracles of God. The parting of the Red Sea was quite a different type of miracle in that it saved thousands of people at one time. It would be interesting to compare Christ’s miracles with the other miracles in the Bible. 

Jay: Indeed. We will look at what that comparison might reveal, such as the power of the Word, the  power of God.

Michael: I have said that Jesus did not seem to be a successful teacher with his parables in his time and place, but of course Christianity—the movement that resulted from his teaching—is one of the most successful movements in history. I wonder if the miracles were more influential than the parables in getting the disciples to carry the torch forward. 

Scripture is silent about whether any of the disciples tried to reinterpret any of Jesus’s parables, though Peter spoke of people changing and talking in tongues and believing in Jesus. It seems to me that only Paul, later on, was able to really capture what Christianity and Jesus were about—better than any of the disciples.

Jay: Paul was another one who had to experience a miracle. It is very interesting that he was the only one who got it.

C-J: I think if we truly understood that we are sons and daughters of God, which means we are spirit beings first, and we can just slough off the temporal, it’s much easier to be able to receive and I think that’s why Paul was able to receive. People having that encounter, that Damascus experience. It wasn’t about him being able to see again—physically see the world around him. He said: “Lord, Lord.” Jesus didn’t speak first: “Lord, Lord” and I think that we cannot manifest that within our psyche, within our reality, if you’re mentally healthy. 

That is something that is a reconnection of the Divine, with the creation in us. We got separated, our spirit beings got separated, you can say it’s through sin or over-intellectualizing things; I don’t know. I think the Damascus experience is very personal, it isn’t about Gideon saying, “Well, I believe if I put this down, and this happens.” Speaking for myself, I don’t need a miracle. I have miracles. But I don’t base my life on those miracles. It’s just a profound sense of the Divine everywhere and in everything, even if I don’t understand. And that I believe is that cord being reconnected. Only God can do that. In any faith, at any time or place.

Jay: Next week, Donald will talk a little bit about photography and the image of God. Can the abstract be portrayed through picture? Can we can get a sense of or a feeling for the abstract, from photography? Can God be revealed through what we see.? Does it tie in with the miracles of Jesus and how they reveal some things about God? 

One of the aspects of God that’s come out in today’s conversation is his power as revealed by the miracles of Jesus.

David: Perhaps we could also see if there’s anything to be gained from a look at the post-Jesus miracles—statues of the Virgin Mary weeping blood and so on.

Donald: The whole concept of “miracle” may be worth discussing. Sometimes it seems quite different than the 37 miracles of Jesus. A patient healed by a physician might call it a miracle, while the physician says it’s just science.

* * *