The next course I selected for my Unschooled Master of Theology program was the KI course John Part 2, which covers the second half of the Gospel of John. Here are the Discussion Questions for the entire course along with my responses.
As a reminder, you can find all of my course assignments for the uThM here.
So, let’s get started….
What Do I Already Know?
I knew John as a mystic, the disciple Jesus loved, and the author of Revelation. I also knew that his letters have a much different tone than his gospel or his apocalypse. I know there were some rumors that he was going to live until Jesus came back, and that he was charged with caring for and supporting Jesus’ mother after he died. I knew he went to live with her in Ephesus and that he reportedly has a tomb there.
What Do I Want to Learn?
I want to know what he meant by the disciple Jesus loved. I would also be fascinated to know what the seven thunders actually said when they spoke, and he wrote them down but was not permitted to keep what he wrote. I would ultimately like to know where the Gospel of John differs from the others Gospels.
Session 11
Is there really a “hell”? How do you know?
I do not think “hell” is a very useful term because the English word is used as a catch-all for several different biblical concepts. The grave is physical: it receives bodies, can be plural, and can be owned. Sheol in Hebrew and Hades (ᾅδης) in Greek refer instead to the place of the disembodied dead. Luke 16 portrays Hades as a conscious existence after physical death, with an impassable separation between the place of torment and what Jesus calls Abraham’s bosom (or Paradise). Missler also distinguishes Tartarus (ταρταρόω), associated with the imprisoned fallen angels, and the abyss (ἄβυσσος) or bottomless pit. Finally, Gehenna (γέεννα) is associated with final judgment and the Lake of Fire. Unlike Hades, which is temporary and itself ultimately cast into the Lake of Fire in Revelation 20, this judgment is final. So I believe in the realities commonly grouped under the English word “hell,” but I think collapsing all of them into that single word obscures important distinctions the Bible makes.
Why do Christians have sickness, trials, etc.? Share a trial and how you are dealing with it?
On one level, sickness, suffering, and trials are simply realities of living in a fallen world in which death exists. But for believers, that does not mean they are meaningless. John 11 gives a striking example: Jesus deliberately allowed Lazarus’s situation to reach the point of death, telling the disciples that it would ultimately be “for the glory of God.” The lesson also discusses Mary’s grief in connection with Romans 8:28—the circumstances God permits must ultimately be understood in light of His purposes.
My present trial is having too much to do and not enough time to accomplish it. In the past, I have also dealt with situations in which people I tried to help turned against me and slandered me to others. My response is to recognize that being a believer does not exempt me from adversity, while trusting that God can use and orchestrate even difficult circumstances for my benefit and His glory.
Why are there two resurrections? Describe them.
I understand Scripture as describing two broad resurrections, although the first appears to occur in stages rather than as one simultaneous event. Missler likewise describes the two resurrections as categories rather than necessarily two isolated events and connects them with Revelation 20:4–15 and 1 Corinthians 15:22–24. Within the first resurrection, I distinguish the resurrection of Israel—connected with Ezekiel 37 and Israel’s restoration to the land—from the resurrection of Christians who have died. The dead believers will join the believers still alive and together be caught up to meet Jesus, as described in 1 Thessalonians 4. The course material specifically distinguishes the resurrection of Old Testament saints from the Harpazo, placing their resurrection at the Second Coming. I would place the resurrection of the Jews in the Dry Bones account before the resurrection and rapture of the church.
The second resurrection is the resurrection associated with final judgment. John 5 distinguishes the “resurrection of life” from the “resurrection of damnation,” while Revelation 20 links the latter to the Great White Throne. At that judgment, those whose names are not found in the Book of Life are cast into the Lake of Fire, the second death. I understand everyone ultimately to give an account before God at the Great White Throne: believers are themselves guilty of sin, but their guilt has already been paid for by Christ, whereas those without Christ have no such covering.
Give examples of our own “grave clothes”. What are you doing about it?
I was initially unsure that I understood or agreed with the analogy, but Missler explains what he means fairly explicitly. Lazarus was first dead, then made alive but still defeated or “trammeled” by his grave clothes. Missler applies those grave clothes to things that continue to hinder someone who has already been made alive in Christ, specifically mentioning false ambitions and unnecessary appetites. Once Lazarus was freed from them, he became “dangerous” because his living testimony was something Jesus’ enemies could not easily dismiss. Understood that way, I can see the analogy. The question is not what keeps me from becoming alive—that is Christ’s work—but what continues to hinder me after being made alive. I need to examine my own life more carefully before identifying particular things as my “grave clothes”; I don’t want to manufacture an answer simply because the question expects one.
Summarize what you learned from each of the two Lazarus’s.
I was partially confused about the two men in my original answer. The Lazarus of John 11 is the man Jesus raised from the dead, the brother of Mary and Martha. His account demonstrates Jesus’ authority over death and gives concrete meaning to Jesus’ declaration, “I am the resurrection and the life.” Lazarus could do nothing to restore himself; Jesus called him to life. His subsequent existence also became a powerful testimony—so powerful that Jesus’ opponents eventually wanted Lazarus killed as well.
The Lazarus of Luke 16 is the poor beggar; the rich man is a separate, unnamed person. This account has contributed substantially to my understanding of biblical anthropology and what happens after physical death. Both men die but remain conscious; Lazarus is carried to Abraham’s bosom, while the rich man is conscious in torment, retains memory and desires, communicates, and understands that his brothers need to repent. The account therefore presents bodily death not as the extinction of the person but as continued conscious existence apart from the physical body.
Should Christians cremate? Why or why not?
I have no conviction against cremation. The material does show burial as the biblical practice surrounding Jesus—His body was wrapped in linen and placed in a tomb—but nothing in the material provided establishes a prohibition against cremation. More importantly, resurrection does not appear to depend on preserving the present body’s physical material. The resurrection material describes the present body as corruptible and the resurrection body as incorruptible, with God giving the resurrected person a body as He chooses. For that reason, I do not see cremation as presenting a theological problem. Whether the present body decomposes naturally or is burned does not limit God’s ability to resurrect. Personally, I also see cremation as a simpler and potentially better use of land in modern society, and it gives families considerably more freedom concerning where someone’s remains are ultimately placed.
K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.
Nothing to add.
Session 12
Give examples of “true worship” from your life.
Missler presents Mary’s anointing of Jesus in John 12 as one of Scripture’s clearest examples of pure worship. She takes something extremely costly, anoints Jesus’ feet, lets down her hair despite the social expectations of her culture, and disregards what everyone around her thinks. Judas criticizes her, but Jesus defends her. What makes the act worship is not simply the perfume or its monetary value. Christ is completely at the center of what she is doing, and she is willing to give Him something valuable without concern for appearances or personal gain.
I have experienced something similar, although obviously in much more ordinary ways. Some of my strongest experiences of genuine worship have occurred while spending time in nature or during private prayer and communion with God, when there is no audience and nothing to gain from anyone else. I have also seen something worshipful in acts of kindness performed by people who receive nothing in return—or even suffer some personal cost because of what they do. Those moments remind me of Mary: true worship seems to involve giving something of ourselves to God or to others without calculating what we will receive back.
Are there any passages comparable to Dan 9:25? What are they and how do they impact you.
Missler considers Daniel 9:25 extraordinary because he believes Gabriel gave Daniel a mathematical prophecy identifying the precise time when the מָשִׁיחַ נָגִיד—Mashiach Nagid, the Messiah the Prince or King —would present Himself to Jerusalem. According to Missler’s chronology, the decree to restore Jerusalem begins the countdown of sixty-nine weeks of years, or 173,880 days, terminating at the Triumphal Entry. What makes the passage especially significant to him is that Jesus then holds Jerusalem accountable for failing to recognize “this thy day” in Luke 19:41–44.
The other passage that immediately comes to mind for me is Isaiah 53. It affects me in much the same way because its description of the suffering servant seems so difficult to separate from Jesus. I struggle to imagine reading Isaiah 53 and not at least seriously wrestling with its relationship to Christ. Missler makes a similar apologetic argument in this session: Isaiah was written centuries before Jesus, yet contains remarkably specific Messianic material. Both Daniel 9 and Isaiah 53 strengthen my conviction that the Gospel did not simply reinterpret unrelated Old Testament passages after the fact; Christ appears within a prophetic framework already present in Scripture.
What happened on the 10th of Nisan and how was it significant?
The 10th of Nisan was the day the Passover lambs were presented and inspected for blemishes in preparation for Passover on the 14th. John 12 places Jesus’ Triumphal Entry on this same date. Jesus deliberately enters Jerusalem riding on a colt, fulfilling Zechariah 9:9, while the crowds proclaim Him King and cry, “Hosanna.” Missler’s point is that while Israel was inspecting its Passover lambs, God’s ultimate Passover Lamb was also publicly presenting Himself for inspection.
Missler also connects the date with Daniel 9:25, arguing that this was the precise day Gabriel had predicted centuries earlier. That makes the Triumphal Entry much more than a spontaneous celebration. Jesus had previously refused attempts to make Him king because His hour had not yet come; here He deliberately arranges the event because His appointed hour has arrived.
Who wrote Isaiah? How do you know?
I believe Isaiah wrote the entire book of Isaiah—one prophet, not two or three separate authors. Missler strongly rejects the Deutero-Isaiah theory that chapters 1–39 and 40–66 were written by different authors. His central argument from John 12 is unusually straightforward. John first attributes Isaiah 53:1 to “Isaiah the prophet,” and then immediately says, “Isaiah said again” before quoting Isaiah 6:10. John therefore attributes material from what scholars call “First Isaiah” and “Second Isaiah” to the same Isaiah.
Missler also points to the unified Isaiah manuscript among the Dead Sea Scrolls, shared vocabulary throughout the book, and numerous New Testament quotations attributing both portions to Isaiah. I agree with him here. For me, John 12 is particularly difficult to get around if I accept John as authoritative Scripture. John does not treat two Isaiahs as a possibility; he quotes chapters 53 and 6 and explicitly identifies the speaker in both places as Isaiah.
Who wrote the Torah? How do you know?
According to Missler’s position in this session, Moses wrote the Torah. He rejects the documentary theories that divide the Torah among later hypothetical sources and treats those theories in the same general category as the multiple-Isaiah theory. His larger principle is that we should not accept academic theories simply because they sound sophisticated; they must survive comparison with the testimony of Scripture itself.
I would distinguish, however, between saying that Moses wrote the Torah and saying that God physically wrote the entire Torah with His own finger. The material we have studied supports God as the ultimate source of revelation and specifically describes the commandments/tablets as being written by the “finger of God.” It does not state that God physically inscribed the entire Torah that way. So I would say that Moses was the human author of the Torah under divine revelation, while God is its ultimate Author. That preserves what the material actually says without extending the “finger of God” language beyond what the text supports. But as a caveat: I don’t think it really matters in the end who actually “penned” the first five books of the Bible (or any book in the Bible for that matter). Whoever did write it, they wrote it, and it was important enough to be copied, translated, and passed down through the generations. It has shaped societies and our world. I don’t know how, but I am convinced that those who say “I wrote this” did write it. It may not be who we think it is. But it does not lie. But an interesting example: the gospel of Mark. Did Mark write it? Did he write what Peter said? If so, is the Bible being disingenuous? It’s an interesting question to ponder.
Why is Israel “blinded”? For how long?
Missler connects Israel’s blindness directly to John 12:37–40 and Isaiah 6:10. He argues that they first “would not believe,” and eventually “could not believe.” Repeated rejection of the light hardened them until judicial blindness followed. Jesus announces this blindness after the Triumphal Entry when Jerusalem fails to recognize the appointed time of its visitation. Missler therefore does not present the blindness as arbitrary. Israel rejected the evidence God had given, and persistent rejection eventually resulted in a condition in which their eyes were blinded and their hearts hardened.
I, on the other hand, would argue that the blindness was not a two-step process, in that: 1. They could have believed but chose not to believe; then 2. They could not believe. I would say that the Jewish people were destined not to believe, to reject their messiah, and to be cut off. This was all part of God’s plan from the beginning. We humans are the only ones who get hung up on the necessity of volition and free will. Because, in the light of the predestination of the Bible, our minds immediately echo Romans: Then why does he find fault? But this misunderstands the concept of, and the division between, creation and the supernatural realm. Missler likes to say that God is outside time, but I would prefer this idea and more, for God is outside of his creation. It is not just a time problem; it is a cosmical geospecial problem. If creation were a sphere, and everything within it carried free will and made choices, then they would be ultimately accountable. But, outside of that sphere (somewhere), God exists and has mapped out every moment of every day of our lives. Psalm 139:16 says, not as we are doing it, but before he did anything. Before he created anything, including us. He did not create us and then map out his plans. He did the opposite. He wrote everything out, then created us to fulfill that specific roadmap. We are choosing within creation and within our cosmic context, but God designed us from the beginning to make only those choices. If we have choices A, B, and C in front of us, and we ultimately choose A, that means we were always destined to choose A because we were hardwired to choose only A and never B or C. Free will still resides within the human and his context. There are actually 3 viable choices. But the guardrails placed upon him from his inception guide his steps.
But Missler also emphasizes that this blindness is partial and temporary, appealing to Romans 11:25: Israel is “blinded in part” until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. That qualification matters to me. I would not describe Israel as permanently rejected or as having simply lost the promises of God. The blindness serves a larger purpose in God’s program, during which the Gospel goes out among the Gentiles, but Missler expects that blindness to be lifted ultimately. So I agree with the basic framework: Israel’s present blindness is neither total nor permanent, and it does not erase God’s continuing purpose for Israel.
K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.
Nothing to add.
Session 13
Do you know any contemporary leaders that exemplify the lessons of this session? Give actual examples.
No, unfortunately, I do not know of any contemporary leaders I could confidently point to as examples of what Jesus models in John 13. Missler emphasizes that Jesus’ model of leadership is not the usual top-down structure of authority, but an “enabling chart” turned upside down: the leader serves those under him, gives them what they need to succeed, and demonstrates humility rather than demanding status. Jesus, although their Lord and Master, takes the position of a servant and washes His disciples’ feet. Missler says this was an example of humility and a rebuke to pride, not an ordinance that Christians are required to reproduce literally.
That standard makes it difficult for me to name a contemporary leader without knowing enough about the person’s actual character and conduct. Public leadership can look humble while still being driven by power or self-interest. The lesson I take from the passage is therefore less about identifying a particular modern leader and more about evaluating leadership by Jesus’ standard: Does the person use his position to serve and enable others, or primarily to elevate and protect himself?
Do you know of any personal examples of the different types of washing today?
Missler distinguishes two kinds of washing in John 13. The first is the complete bath, represented by the Greek λελουμένος (leloumenos), which he connects with regeneration: the believer is washed once for all through Christ’s blood. The second is the more limited washing represented by νίπτω (niptō), the cleansing of a particular soiled area such as the feet. Missler connects this second washing to the believer’s daily walk: although the believer’s position in Christ is already settled, we become defiled as we move through the world and require ongoing cleansing through confession and the Word. He connects this specifically to 1 John 1:9, Psalm 119:9, and Ephesians 5:25–26.
I understand that second kind of washing through correction and consequence. I may already belong to Christ, but that does not mean everything I think, say, or do is right. Sometimes Scripture exposes something in me that needs to change, and sometimes God lets the consequences of my actions make that correction impossible to ignore. I would connect those experiences with the daily cleansing Missler describes: not being saved again, but having my walk corrected.
Could Judas not betray Christ? Did he have a choice (since it was prophesied)?
Missler’s answer is explicit: “Foreknowledge is not causation.” Judas did not betray Jesus because Scripture predicted it; Scripture predicted it because Judas would betray Him. Missler even says that, earlier in the process, repentance was still available to Judas and that he had repeated opportunities to turn back. According to the material, Judas progressively yielded to covetousness and finally made what Missler calls his “fatal and final choice.” Jesus knew what Judas would do, but that knowledge did not force Judas to do it. I disagree with the idea that Judas made a final choice at some point along the way that somehow solidified his fate. His fate was already sealed and predestined before he was born.
I agree with Missler that prophecy did not cause Judas’ betrayal, but my understanding of human choice goes farther than his explanation in this session. I believe Judas really did have two legitimate possibilities before him—betray Christ or do not betray Him—but I also believe God created each person so completely and knows us so perfectly that the course of our lives is already encompassed within His purpose. Psalm 139:16 describes our days as written beforehand; Ephesians 2:10 says God prepared good works for us to walk in; and Philippians 2:13 says God works in us both to will and to do for His good pleasure. So I would say Judas chose voluntarily and according to what he genuinely wanted, yet God knew with certainty what he would choose and had already incorporated that choice into prophecy. I would therefore disagree with any implication that divine foreknowledge requires an open or genuinely uncertain future from God’s perspective. The prophecy was true because the betrayal would happen exactly as foretold, not because the prophecy compelled Judas to act. Likewise, God does not wait for us to make a decision, act in some way, or exercise our own volition in a situation. God is not limited by our rebellion. We plan our steps (free will), but God guides our steps (predestination).
In what way was John 13:34 a “new commandment” (vs. Lev 19:18)?
My first thought was that it was “new” because Jesus required them to live out love rather than merely profess it. The transcript supports the importance of lived-out love: Jesus says the identifying mark of His disciples would not be doctrinal correctness, but that they would love one another. Missler emphasizes ἀγαπάω (agapaō) and points to 1 Corinthians 13 as the standard, even suggesting that a person substitute his own name into the passage to expose how far short he falls.
But the wording of John 13:34 gives an even more precise reason for its newness: “as I have loved you.” Leviticus 19:18 says to love your neighbor as yourself; Jesus now gives His own love as the measure: love one another as I have loved you. That is a significantly higher standard, and the foot washing immediately preceding it supplies the model. His love is self-emptying, serving, sacrificial, and ultimately goes all the way to the cross. So I would refine my original answer: it is not simply new because Jesus finally required people to obey an old command; it is new because Christ Himself becomes both the pattern and measure of that love.
What are the lessons we can draw from Peter’s denial(s)?
Peter certainly becomes an example of what not to do, but Missler makes the lesson more specific. Peter’s problem was not cowardice as a general character weakness. In fact, Missler emphasizes that Peter was probably the most courageous of the disciples: he walked on water, spoke boldly at the Transfiguration, and drew his sword in Gethsemane. Yet Peter denied Christ precisely in what appeared to be his strongest area. Missler’s conclusion is: “Peter failed in his strong suit. Our lesson: Have no confidence in the flesh.”
That is more useful to me than simply saying Peter failed. We tend to guard our obvious weaknesses while assuming that our strengths are safe. Peter shows that pride and self-confidence can make supposed strength dangerous. His statement, “I will lay down my life for thy sake,” was sincere, but sincerity did not make him strong enough. The lesson is not merely “do not deny Christ,” but do not assume that determination, personality, courage, experience, or any other natural strength is sufficient apart from dependence on God.
What was the effect on the future of Peter, because of his denial(s)?
I think Peter’s denials profoundly humbled him. The Peter before the crucifixion is strikingly confident: he insists he will follow Jesus even to death. Missler describes his denial as “a moment’s weakness and lifetime’s regret.” Yet the denial did not end Peter’s relationship with Christ. Missler points ahead to John 21, where Jesus gives Peter three opportunities to affirm his love, corresponding to his three denials, and restores him to service. The Matthew notes similarly emphasize that Peter did not lose his salvation; his failure affected his discipleship and required restoration.
I therefore see a significant difference between Peter before and after the crucifixion. Beforehand, he often seems convinced of what Peter is capable of doing for Jesus. After his failure and restoration, that confidence has been broken. His future ministry is not built on never having failed, but on failing dramatically and then being restored by Christ. That likely made him a more humble and useful shepherd, because he now knew from experience both the weakness of the flesh and the grace of restoration.
K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.
Nothing to add.
Session 14
Is the concept of the “Rapture” Biblical? Prove it.
Yes. The concept is biblical even though the English word “rapture” comes through the Latin rather than directly from the Greek text. In 1 Thessalonians 4:17, Paul says that believers who are alive at Christ’s coming will be “caught up” together with the resurrected dead to meet the Lord in the air. The Greek verb is ἁρπάζω (harpazō), meaning to seize, snatch, or carry away by force. Missler also points to John 14:1–3, where Jesus says He will come again and receive His own unto Himself, and to 1 Corinthians 15:50–55, where Paul describes the dead being raised incorruptible and living believers being changed “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye.” Missler further notes other biblical examples of supernatural catching away or translation, including Enoch, Elijah, Jesus, Philip, Paul, and John.
I agree that the Rapture is biblical, but I disagree with Missler on its timing. Missler presents it as an imminent, pre-wrath event distinct from the Second Coming. I currently hold a mid-tribulation position. I understand the resurrection and catching away of the Church to occur together at the sounding of the “last trump” in 1 Corinthians 15:52, and I connect that with the trumpet sequence in Revelation rather than separating Paul’s trumpet from those judgments as Missler does. In my view, the Church is resurrected and caught up around the midpoint of the Tribulation rather than before it begins.
What are the alternative viewpoints to the one presented in this session? What are their strengths? Their weaknesses?
Missler’s position in this session is that the Rapture is a distinct event from the Second Coming; it involves believers being translated and taken to heaven; it precedes the period of divine wrath; and it is imminent, meaning no prophetic event must occur before it. Alternative views include denying a separate Rapture altogether, identifying the Rapture with the visible Second Coming at the end of the Tribulation, placing the Rapture somewhere during the Tribulation, or interpreting many Second Coming passages in a more preterist manner as already fulfilled in some sense.
The strength of Missler’s position is that he takes seriously the differences between passages describing believers being caught up to meet Christ in the air and passages describing Christ coming to earth in judgment. He also builds his argument from multiple texts rather than a single verse. Its weakness, in my view, is the doctrine of imminency and the assumption that the Rapture must occur before the Tribulation. I think Scripture gives identifiable prerequisites before the resurrection and catching away of the Church, including the apostasy, the appearance of the man of sin, and the Temple context connected with the abomination of desolation.
What occurs between vv.5 & 6 in Revelation 12?
Revelation 12:5 says that the woman gives birth to a male child who is to rule the nations with a rod of iron and that “her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.” The verb translated “caught up” is again ἁρπάζω (harpazō). Missler says the normal interpretation is that this refers to Christ’s ascension, but he also mentions the possibility, associated with G. H. Pember, that it may contain a double reference involving Christ and His corporate body, the Church.
Missler also emphasizes a chronological interval between verses 5 and 6. Verse 5 reaches from the birth of the Messiah to His being caught up to God, while verse 6 suddenly moves into the Tribulation period. I agree that the immediate reference in verse 5 is to Jesus being caught up to God and His throne. I am less convinced that the verse itself directly teaches the Rapture of the Church, although the use of harpazō is certainly significant.
What are the alternative views of the “Doctrine of Immanency”?
Missler defines imminency as the belief that Christ’s return for the Church is the next expected prophetic event and therefore requires no intervening event. He argues that New Testament believers were taught to expect Christ at any moment, using the Jewish wedding model as an illustration: the bride waits without knowing when the bridegroom will return. Missler therefore believes the Rapture could occur at any time and that no prophetic prerequisite must be fulfilled first.
I disagree with that conclusion. I believe Scripture does contain a doctrine of imminency, but that the conditions surrounding it changed after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. The New Testament imminency statements were given while the Temple still existed and a Temple-based sacrificial system was functioning. I believe prophetic imminency becomes applicable again once that environment is restored. In my view, several events must precede the Rapture: the rebuilding of the Temple, the restoration of sacrifices, the falling away, the revelation of the Antichrist, and the abomination of desolation. I also believe the resurrection described in Ezekiel 37 may occur near the resurrection and Rapture of the Church. Modern Judaism is primarily rabbinic, rather than Temple-centered sacrificial, so I do not believe the prophetic circumstances required for an imminent Rapture presently exist.
How is the Doctrine of Immanency relevant to our priorities today?
Missler argues that imminency should directly affect Christian conduct. If someone truly believes Christ could return today, he says that expectation should produce a “victorious and purified life.” He also warns against using the Rapture as an excuse for inactivity. Christ’s command is to “occupy till I come,” so expectation of His return should produce obedience, service, and kingdom-focused priorities rather than passivity.
I disagree that imminency itself should be necessary to produce those priorities. Christians should obey Christ because He is Lord, because we love Him, and because obedience is what He calls us to—not because we think He might appear tomorrow. I also do not believe the Rapture can occur tomorrow under present conditions. In my understanding, the Temple must be rebuilt, the apostasy must occur, the Antichrist must be revealed, and the prophetic sequence leading to the midpoint of the Tribulation must unfold first. Whether Christ returns tomorrow or years from now should not fundamentally change how faithfully I live today.
How should we deal with unanswered prayer?
Missler makes an important qualification to Jesus’ statement, “If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it.” He argues that praying “in Jesus’ name” does not mean merely attaching the phrase in Jesus’ name to the end of a prayer. It means praying in Christ’s standing, on His merits, for His glory, and in identification with Him. The surrounding context also connects prayer with love and obedience: “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” Therefore, an unanswered prayer does not necessarily mean God has failed to keep a promise; it may mean that what was requested was not actually being asked according to Christ’s character, purposes, or glory.
My practical response is still to leave it with God. I can pray honestly, ask for what I believe is right, examine whether my request is consistent with Christ’s will and character, and then surrender the outcome to Him. If He does not answer in the way or timing I expect, I do not need to force an explanation. The responsibility for the result belongs to God; my responsibility is to pray, trust, obey, and accept that He understands what I do not.
K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.
Nothing to add.
Session 15
How does Isaiah 5:1-7 impact us here today?
Isaiah 5:1–7 establishes the Old Testament background for Jesus’ vine imagery in John 15. In Isaiah, God identifies the vineyard explicitly as “the house of Israel” and Judah as His pleasant plant. God planted, protected, and provided for the vineyard, expecting good fruit, but it produced wild grapes instead. As a result, He says He will remove its hedge, break down its wall, and allow the vineyard to be overrun. Missler emphasizes that this is the source of the vine imagery Jesus develops in John 15, while also insisting that Israel and the Church must not simply be identified with one another.
This is what happened to Israel, and we are still seeing its effects today. God specially planted and protected Israel, but privilege carried an expectation of fruit. The application to us is similar without making the Church Israel: God is also concerned with whether our lives produce fruit. John 15 shifts the focus to Christ as “the true vine,” the Father as the husbandman, and believers as the branches. Our ability to bear fruit therefore comes from abiding in Christ rather than merely possessing a privileged religious position.
Why are both barren and fruit-bearing branches pruned?
Missler explains that the husbandman deals with both kinds of branches, but for different purposes. Barren branches must be dealt with because they are not producing fruit and can affect the health of the rest of the vine. However, he points out that the Greek behind “taketh away” can carry the sense of taking up or lifting up, and he favors the picture of a vinedresser lifting a branch so that it can receive sunlight and have an opportunity to become fruitful. He therefore cautions against automatically reading John 15:2 as condemnation or loss of salvation.
Fruit-bearing branches are also pruned, but precisely because they are fruitful. The Father cleans or prunes them so that they will produce more fruit, eventually leading to the “much fruit” of John 15:8. Missler connects this cleansing with the Word in verse 3, and with the trials God can use in the believer’s life. The objective in both cases is fruitfulness: the barren branch needs help toward fruitfulness, while the fruitful branch is pruned so that it becomes even more productive.
Why were “vines” chosen?
The vine was chosen because it was already an established biblical symbol for Israel, particularly in Isaiah 5:1–7. Missler also notes that a golden vine appeared on the Temple gate. When Jesus therefore declares, “I am the true vine” in John 15:1, His disciples would already have understood the imagery’s significance. Israel had been God’s vineyard, but Jesus now identifies Himself as the true vine, with the Father as the husbandman and His followers as the branches.
Missler also emphasizes the peculiar usefulness of a vine: its principal value is its fruit. He even notes that vine wood itself was considered so inferior that it was not permitted as fuel on the Temple altar. A branch separated from the vine therefore has essentially no usefulness. That makes the analogy particularly appropriate: the branch does not manufacture grapes through its own effort. It bears fruit because it remains connected to the vine. Likewise, Jesus says, “without me ye can do nothing.” The believer’s fruitfulness depends entirely upon abiding in Christ.
What are the various interpretations of the branches being “taken away?”
Missler actually presents several interpretations, rather than simply Israel versus the Church. One is the Arminian interpretation, in which a genuine Christian who fails to abide in Christ can apostatize and lose salvation. Missler rejects this view. A second, associated with eternal security or Calvinism, interprets the fruitless branch as someone who merely professed Christianity but was never genuinely united with Christ. Missler notes a difficulty with this interpretation because Jesus describes the branches as being “in me.”
A third interpretation—and the one Missler appears to favor—is that fruit-bearing rather than salvation is the issue. The Greek expression translated “taketh away” can mean lifting or taking up, so Missler pictures the vinedresser lifting an unproductive branch rather than immediately destroying it. Later, in John 15:6, he presents additional interpretations of the branch being cast out and burned: loss of salvation, false profession, loss of reward, or even premature physical death of an unfruitful believer, comparing the latter possibilities with Lot, Ananias and Sapphira, 1 Corinthians 11, and the “sin unto death” of 1 John 5. Missler does not claim to resolve every aspect of the debate, but he clearly separates salvation from fruitfulness and reward.
Which is your view of the branches being “taken away?”
I think we need to distinguish Isaiah 5 from John 15. In Isaiah 5, I understand the hedge as God’s special protection surrounding Israel as His chosen people. When Israel failed to produce the fruit God expected, He removed that protection: “I will take away the hedge thereof… and break down the wall thereof.” That fits Israel’s subsequent judgment and the consequences that followed.
In John 15, however, Jesus changes the imagery by identifying Himself as the true vine and believers as the branches. Based on that context, I would not identify the branches themselves simply as Israel. I agree more closely with Missler that John 15 is primarily about fruitfulness and abiding rather than losing salvation. A believer’s position in Christ rests on what Christ accomplished, while his fruitfulness depends upon continuing to abide in Christ through obedience and communion with Him. The Father’s treatment of the branches is therefore directed toward producing fruit rather than repeatedly determining whether someone remains saved.
What was the most impacting lesson in these two chapters?
The strongest theme running through both chapters is probably the believer’s complete dependence upon Christ and the Holy Spirit. Jesus says, “Without me ye can do nothing.” Missler emphasizes that branches bear grapes but do not produce them; the life and ability to produce fruit come from the vine. Abiding, therefore, is not the same thing as simply being “in Christ.” Being in Christ describes the believer’s position through the new birth, while abiding involves continuing fellowship, dependence, vigilance, and obedience. Fruitfulness is the result.
John 16 then explains how that life continues after Jesus’ departure through the Holy Spirit. He will indwell believers, guide them into truth, glorify Christ, show them things to come, and sustain them while they live in a world that may oppose them. That gives these two chapters a coherent progression: abide in Christ, depend upon the Spirit, bear fruit, love one another, and expect opposition from the world. Jesus does not promise that faithfulness will remove tribulation; He ends by saying, “In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.”
K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.
Nothing to add.
Session 16
How do you reconcile election (and predestination) with free will?
John 17 does not attempt to resolve the philosophical tension between election and free will, but it strongly emphasizes God’s prior choice, purpose, and action. Jesus says that the Father had given believers to Him, and Missler repeatedly stresses that this giving reaches back “before the foundation of the world” through Ephesians 1:4. He also points out that Jesus prays for what has already been predestined, using Daniel as an example of someone who prayed intensely for what God had already declared He would do. Missler’s conclusion is not that prayer or human action becomes meaningless, but that God’s decrees do not render the means useless. God ordains the outcome, while prayer, obedience, evangelism, and other human actions still function as the means through which that outcome is accomplished.
This is where my wife and I land differently. She takes a compatibilist position: Scripture contains passages emphasizing both divine sovereignty and meaningful human choices, and her experience has been that God places real decisions before her and allows her to live with their consequences. I lean much more strongly toward predestination. Ephesians 2:10 says that God prepared good works beforehand “that we should walk in them,” and Psalm 139:16 describes the days ordained for us as written before they existed. I therefore see our apparent choices as genuinely experienced from inside our lives, while still existing entirely within what God has already written and purposed. We choose according to who we are, but God is the one who made us, knows us completely, and has already established the course in which we walk. John 17 reinforces that perspective for me because Jesus speaks of believers as people the Father already knew, gave, and kept before they ever understood what was happening.
Do we really have free will? If so, what should we do with it?
I do not think we possess libertarian free will in the sense that we could ultimately act outside what God has already determined. From our perspective, it appears that we stand before choices A, B, and C and freely choose one of them. My view is that God has created each person so completely—and knows the entire course of that person’s life so fully—that the choice ultimately made is the choice that person was always going to make. That does not mean the choice feels artificial or forced from within our experience. We still deliberate, desire, decide, and act. But those actions occur inside the life God has already authored. John 17 fits that framework when Jesus speaks of those whom the Father “gave” Him and when Missler observes that Jesus prays for things already predestined.
That does not make obedience, evangelism, or prayer pointless. Missler states directly that “God’s decrees do not render void the means.” Daniel knew from Jeremiah that the captivity would end after seventy years, yet rather than doing nothing, he prayed intensely for the fulfillment of what God had already promised. The same principle applies to us. If God has ordained that someone will hear the gospel through me, then my evangelism is part of the ordained means. If He has prepared works beforehand for me to walk in, then my responsibility is still to walk in them. Predestination does not make the characters in the story irrelevant; it explains why their actions matter within the story the Author has written.
What does this chapter teach about our eternal security?
John 17 is actually one of the strongest chapters in this session for Missler’s doctrine of eternal security. Jesus says that the Father has given believers to Him, and then He commits them back to the Father for safekeeping: “Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me” (John 17:11). Missler makes the point very strongly that the believer’s security rests upon the Father’s faithfulness to answer the prayer of the Son. He even says that if one of God’s elect were ultimately lost, Christ’s glory as the perfect servant would be tarnished. He connects this with John 6, where Jesus says He will lose none of those given to Him.
Missler also distinguishes Judas from the genuinely saved disciples. In John 17:12, the Greek construction behind “none of them is lost, but the son of perdition” is presented as a contrast between two different classes. Missler argues that Judas did not lose salvation; rather, he never possessed what the others possessed in the first place. This fits my own understanding of eternal security. John elsewhere says that those who permanently depart demonstrate that they were never truly of the believing community, and Paul describes the Holy Spirit as the believer’s seal unto redemption. In Missler’s framework, the Father keeps us, the Son intercedes for us, and the Spirit seals us. Our security therefore rests far more securely on God’s action than on our ability to preserve ourselves.
What does this chapter teach about sanctification?
John 17 presents sanctification as both something God does to the believer and an ongoing experience within the believer’s life. Jesus prays, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth” (John 17:17). Missler identifies the Greek verb as ἁγιάζω (hagiazō), meaning to consecrate or set apart a person or thing to God. He emphasizes that sanctification involves the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and describes it as both positional and practical, as well as progressive. The believer has already been set apart to God, yet continues to be transformed through truth.
That fits how I understand sanctification personally. It is the continuing process of surrendering to God’s will, responding to the Holy Spirit’s instruction, and becoming increasingly Christlike in conduct. John 17 also makes clear that sanctification does not mean withdrawing from the world. Jesus specifically says He is not asking the Father to remove believers from the world, but to keep them from the evil one. We are set apart while remaining in the world so that we can carry out the work for which Christ sends us.
How do we attain unity in the Body of Christ?
John 17 teaches that genuine Christian unity grows out of our shared relationship with the Father and the Son. Jesus prays, “that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee” (John 17:21). Missler points out that the Greek word translated “one,” ἕν (hen), is neuter singular, indicating a unity of spirit rather than a literal physical merging of believers. This is not simply institutional unity or everyone belonging to the same denomination. It is spiritual unity rooted in believers being in Christ and Christ being in them.
Because of that, I do not think unity can ultimately be manufactured through organizations, programs, or doctrinal compromise. It comes as individual believers surrender more fully to Christ and allow Him to correct, guide, and direct them. The more each believer is genuinely aligned with Christ, the more naturally believers will become aligned with one another. The failure of visible Christianity to display this kind of unity reflects how often Christians operate from the flesh rather than depend on Christ. John 17 presents unity not merely as an internal benefit to Christians, but as part of the Church’s witness: Jesus says this unity is “that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.”
Are you vocal in prayer? Do you think it is important? Why?
My prayer life is active but inconsistent. My intention to pray is often stronger than my follow-through. I recently began praying specifically for my customers and the people on my mailing list because my wife and I view the book business as more than a commercial enterprise. The stories are intended to reach people who might never respond to a traditional church environment, raise spiritual questions, and ultimately point them toward Christ. If those readers fall within my sphere of influence, then praying for them is part of taking that responsibility seriously.
Session 16 reinforces that conviction strongly. Missler emphasizes that Jesus regularly prayed aloud and calls prayer the most important work Christians do—the believer’s “heaviest armament.” John 17 itself is a spoken prayer, apparently offered aloud so that the disciples could hear it and learn from it. Missler also stresses that Jesus’ present ministry includes intercession for believers. I have therefore begun considering whether the people reached through this ministry represent, in some unconventional sense, a group of people I am responsible to shepherd. If that is even partly true, then praying for them routinely is not optional. It is part of caring for the people God has placed within my reach.
K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.
Nothing to add.
Session 17
Why did the arresters fall to the ground?
I do not think the text requires that they literally saw Jesus in His glorified form. What John emphasizes is His divine power and authority. When they said they were looking for Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus answered ἐγώ εἰμι (egō eimi), “I am.” Missler points out that the “he” in “I am he” was supplied by the English translators and connects Jesus’ statement with the divine “I AM” language that runs through John. At that declaration, the entire arresting party went backward and fell to the ground. The point seems to be that Jesus was demonstrating who was actually in control. They were not overpowering and capturing Him; He was voluntarily surrendering Himself. Missler specifically highlights John’s progression of divine knowledge in verse 4, divine power in verse 6, and divine protection in verses 8–9.
Why did Jesus heal Malchus?
My first thought was that the healing must have been intended as a sign or fulfillment of Scripture, but Missler does not make that argument in this session. What he specifically says is that Jesus healing Malchus “if for no other reason, saves Peter’s life.” Peter had just attacked the high priest’s servant with a heavy sword and apparently intended far more than removing an ear. Healing Malchus removed the physical evidence of Peter’s assault and may have prevented Peter from being arrested or executed along with Jesus. That also fits the surrounding passage, where Jesus deliberately protects His disciples and commands the arresting party, “If therefore ye seek me, let these go their way.”
The passage also presents a striking contrast in the act itself. Jesus is being unlawfully arrested and is only hours away from crucifixion, yet His final miracle before the cross is the healing of someone who had come as part of the party arresting Him. At the same time, Jesus corrects Peter: “Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?” Jesus does not need Peter to rescue Him. His healing of Malchus reinforces the chapter’s larger point: Jesus deliberately submits to the Father’s plan rather than being overcome by His enemies.
Who was the “other disciple” that gained entrance for Peter?
I originally assumed that the other disciple was John, and Missler says most commentators make that same assumption, but he does not consider the identification certain. He points out that John normally refers to himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” whereas this person is simply called “another disciple,” and Acts 4:13 creates a possible difficulty with assuming that John was personally known to the high priest. Missler therefore suggests that Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea might also be possibilities because both were influential men with access to the Jewish leadership. So the best answer from this session is: possibly John, and traditionally understood as John, but the text does not identify him, and Missler leaves the question open.
Compare our own performance(s) with Peter’s.
Missler’s point is that before criticizing Peter, we should recognize how easily we repeat his failures in less dramatic circumstances. Peter was extraordinarily courageous in one moment—drawing a sword against an armed arresting force—and then frightened enough a short time later to deny Jesus before servants. Missler says Peter was “courageous when he should be still” and then cowardly when he should have been courageous. He particularly warns about self-confidence: Peter did not fall in what appeared to be his weakness but in what seemed to be his strength. Missler argues that our strongest characteristic can actually become dangerous because it is where pride and self-reliance are most likely to develop.
The comparison becomes more personal when Missler asks whether we have ever denied Christ by failing to speak when we had an opportunity, talking when we should have listened, arguing when we should have obeyed, sleeping when we should have prayed, or fighting when we should have submitted. Peter slept instead of praying in Gethsemane, chose the wrong companions, and eventually gave in to the fear of men. I may never have verbally said, “I do not know Jesus,” as Peter did, but there have certainly been times when I have failed to act, speak, pray, or obey when I should have. That makes Peter’s failure less an opportunity to condemn him and more a warning about what happens when I depend upon myself instead of God.
What else might Pilate have done?
Pilate could simply have released Jesus. In fact, according to Missler, Roman law required exactly that once Pilate announced, “I find in him no fault at all.” Missler says everything that followed that declaration was illegal. Pilate knew Jesus was innocent, understood that the chief priests had delivered Him out of envy, and repeatedly sought a way to release Him. Missler counts six attempts by Pilate to release Jesus, including telling the Jewish authorities to judge Him themselves, sending Him to Herod, offering the Passover prisoner release, attempting a lesser punishment, and presenting Him again to the crowd.
I originally thought Pilate could have stalled, but the larger issue in the session is that he didn’t need to. He had already reached the correct legal judgment. What he lacked was the courage to act on it. His failure was therefore not primarily a lack of information but a failure to enforce his own verdict. Once he had determined that Jesus was innocent, his responsibility as the Roman governor was to release Him regardless of pressure from the religious leaders or the crowd.
In what ways are we in “Barabbas’s shoes”?
Missler makes this one of the session’s central illustrations. Barabbas stood under righteous condemnation and knew that he was guilty. He also knew that Jesus was innocent, that Jesus was taking the punishment intended for him, and that he had done absolutely nothing to deserve his release. Missler summarizes it as an exchange of places: Barabbas’s bondage, guilt, disgrace, and cross were transferred to the innocent Jesus, while the freedom and safety that properly belonged to Jesus became Barabbas’s. Barabbas did not reform himself or earn a pardon. Someone innocent simply took his place.
That is exactly how Missler says we stand before Christ. We are Barabbas. We are guilty and under righteous judgment, while Christ is innocent. We have done nothing that merits the substitution, yet He takes our guilt and its consequences upon Himself while His righteousness and standing become ours. Missler therefore uses Barabbas as a picture of justification: “Your justification is a done deal. It was done on a wooden cross in Judea… some 2,000 years ago.” Barabbas walked away free because the innocent Christ took the condemned man’s place; the gospel says that Christ has done the same for us.
K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.
Nothing to add.
Session 18
What was the significance of the crown of thorns?
Missler treats the crown of thorns as deliberate biblical symbolism, but the Bible does not explicitly say, “the crown of thorns represents the curse.” Genesis 3:17–18 states that after Adam’s sin the ground was cursed and would produce “thorns and thistles.” Missler therefore sees the soldiers placing thorns on Christ’s head as an “echo” of Genesis 3: the last Adam is literally bearing on His brow a symbol introduced with the curse brought about by the first Adam. So the connection is textually grounded—thorns are explicitly associated with the curse in Genesis—but applying that meaning specifically to Christ’s crown is typological interpretation, not an explanation John himself gives. Missler considers the symbolism highly appropriate, but we should distinguish what Scripture explicitly states from the theological connection being drawn.
On which day of the week did the Crucifixion occur?
According to Missler, it was not Friday. His preferred reconstruction places the Crucifixion on Wednesday, Nisan 14, the Passover. He argues from Jesus’ statement in Matthew 12:40 that He would be in the earth “three days and three nights,” from the plural σάββατα (sabbata, “Sabbaths”) in Matthew 28:1, and from the fact that the following day was a high Sabbath—the Feast of Unleavened Bread—not necessarily the ordinary Saturday Sabbath. In the previous session he presented Wednesday as his reconstruction while acknowledging that good scholars differ on some details. So for purposes of Missler’s course, the answer is Wednesday, not Friday or Saturday.
Was it a tragedy or an achievement? For whom?
From Missler’s perspective, the Crucifixion was not ultimately a tragedy but the greatest achievement in the history of the universe. Humanly, it was an appalling miscarriage of justice: Jesus was innocent, subjected to illegal proceedings, scourged, mocked, and executed. From Satan’s perspective, Missler describes it as temporarily appearing to be a triumph—the serpent bruising the heel of the woman’s Seed in fulfillment of Genesis 3:15. But even that apparent victory became Satan’s defeat, because through Christ’s death the one who possessed the power of death would ultimately be destroyed.
From God’s perspective, therefore, the cross was the accomplishment of His redemptive purpose. Jesus’ final declaration, τετέλεσται (tetelestai), means “It is finished” and can carry the commercial sense “paid in full.” Christ was not helplessly defeated; He voluntarily gave His life. Missler repeatedly emphasizes John 10:18: no one ultimately took Christ’s life from Him—He laid it down Himself. The Crucifixion was therefore an achievement of the Father and the Son for us: the completion of the work necessary for our justification and redemption.
Was Pilate surprised when told of the empty tomb?
Missler’s answer is probably not—but he clearly labels this as his own inference rather than something Scripture tells us directly. His wording is, “I’m thoroughly convinced that when Pilate later hears of the empty tomb, he’s not surprised,” and later, “I personally suspect; I don’t know obviously.” Missler bases that on Pilate’s growing uneasiness throughout the trial. Pilate repeatedly declares Jesus innocent; learns that Jesus claims to be the Son of God; becomes “the more afraid”; asks Jesus where He really came from; and eventually tells the Jewish leaders who request a tomb guard, “Make it as sure as you can.” Missler hears something almost ironic in that statement—as though Pilate is beginning to suspect that they are dealing with something beyond his understanding.
Pilate’s wife certainly contributes to that atmosphere. Matthew records that she had suffered in a dream because of Jesus and warned Pilate, and Missler specifically lists his wife’s dream as one of the three warnings Pilate received. But the source does not say that she was continually receiving information about Jesus through dreams or that Pilate had already concluded Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. That would go beyond the material. Missler’s narrower conjecture is that the dream, Jesus’ conduct and claims, the religious leaders’ motives, and Pilate’s own increasingly fearful interactions with Him may have left Pilate expecting far more to Jesus than he understood. Missler even speculates that Pilate might eventually have come to faith, while admitting there is no reliable documentary evidence to prove it.
What was Jesus’ primary yearning during His prayer to the Father?
According to Missler’s treatment of John 17, Jesus’ deepest yearning was not merely that the Father protect His followers, although He certainly prayed for their protection. Missler specifically identifies Christ’s great personal yearning as having His people with Him. John 17:24 says, “Father, I desire that they also whom you have given me be with me where I am, that they may see my glory.” Missler emphasizes how remarkable it is that the Creator incarnate can be spoken of as having a yearning at all, and then says plainly that His yearning is “to have us with Him.” Protection, sanctification, unity, and preservation are all petitions in the prayer, but the climactic desire is ultimately union with Christ in His presence and glory.
What trials have you been through? Were they fair? How did you react to them?
Several of the more difficult trials in my life have come from people I was actively trying to help. One involved a couple I had invested in who eventually turned against me when I would no longer accept their drinking and drug use. I did not consider what followed fair, but my response was sustained prayer—continual and increasingly earnest prayer that God would deliver me from what felt like wolves at my door. Another recurring trial has been criticism of the amount of time I have devoted to God and to studying Scripture. For years, people have questioned my choice to put that study first. Looking backward, however, I can now see that those years of concentrated study prepared me for things I could not have done otherwise. What seemed excessive or impractical to others may have been part of the preparation God intended all along.
More recently, I spent roughly three years investing heavily in a church—teaching Sunday school, serving the congregation, and helping the pastor in numerous ways—only to have the pastor eventually turn against me to protect his own interests, and to have the church leadership and congregation reject us rather than confront difficult issues. I was portrayed as wanting power or control, which was particularly painful because that was not what I had been trying to do. I tried to respond with patience for about a year rather than retaliating immediately. When we finally left, I wrote directly to the congregation because I no longer trusted the leadership to communicate accurately, but I deliberately wrote without malice and simply explained that we were leaving for opportunities to serve elsewhere. We even returned the Sunday after the business meeting where we had been rejected, despite the pain of seeing our children shunned by friends. Missler’s treatment of Christ’s trials puts experiences like these into perspective: fairness is not guaranteed in this world. Jesus Himself was innocent while virtually every feature of His trial violated the standards that should have protected Him. The question therefore becomes less whether the trial was fair and more whether I remained faithful to God as I passed through it.
K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.
Nothing to add.
Session 19
How do we know Christ rose from the dead?
The resurrection is not presented merely as an unsupported belief. Paul makes it the Gospel’s central historical claim: Christ died, was buried, rose again on the third day, and then appeared to witnesses (1 Corinthians 15:3–8). Missler emphasizes the empty tomb, the grave clothes, the multiple post-resurrection appearances—including more than 500 people—and the radical transformation of the disciples from frightened men hiding behind locked doors into men publicly proclaiming the resurrection and willing to die for that testimony.
At the same time, an important distinction exists between the eyewitnesses and us. Thomas could say that he had seen the risen Christ; we cannot. Jesus specifically addresses those who come afterward: “Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed” (John 20:29). So I would not say I “know” the resurrection in the same firsthand sense that Thomas, Mary Magdalene, or the apostles did. I believe their testimony and Scripture’s testimony. That belief is fundamental to saving faith: if Christ has not been raised, our faith is vain (1 Corinthians 15:14–17).
Why did people seem to have difficulty recognizing Jesus after His resurrection?
Missler sees something unusual about Jesus’ post-resurrection appearance. Mary Magdalene looks directly at Him and mistakes Him for the gardener (John 20:14–16), and the two disciples on the Emmaus road walk with Him without recognizing Him until later (Luke 24:13–31). In the lecture, Missler deliberately leaves the ultimate explanation for the next session, but he strongly hints that Jesus’ appearance was different and later connects their recognition of Him with seeing the wounds when He broke the bread. The scars remained in His resurrected body—Thomas could see the nail prints and the wound in His side —and Missler connects these to Zechariah 12:10 and Revelation 5:6.
Missler’s larger argument is that Jesus had been horribly disfigured during the crucifixion yet retained the wounds afterward. Therefore, recognition was not necessarily immediate from His face. On the Emmaus road, however, Luke also explicitly says that “their eyes were holden that they should not know him” (Luke 24:16), and later “their eyes were opened, and they knew him” (24:31). So there appears to be both a supernatural element and something different about His resurrected appearance.
Summarize the things we learn from the Emmaus Road events.
The Emmaus Road account shows that the disciples initially failed to recognize Jesus and, more importantly, failed to understand what Scripture had already told them about the Messiah. Jesus rebuked them as “fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken” (Luke 24:25). He then began with Moses and the prophets and explained the things concerning Himself throughout the Scriptures. For Missler, this is one of the episode’s major lessons: Jesus Christ is found throughout the Old Testament, and His death and resurrection were not unexpected events but the fulfillment of a design already embedded throughout Scripture.
It also shows how Jesus teaches His disciples. Rather than simply announcing, “I am Jesus; I have risen,” He leads them through Scripture and lets understanding develop from the Word. Their response afterward is significant: “Did not our heart burn within us…while he opened to us the scriptures?” (Luke 24:32). They finally recognize Him in the breaking of bread, after which He disappears. The episode therefore emphasizes Christ throughout Scripture, the need to believe what God has already revealed, Christ’s willingness to teach His disciples, and the reality of His bodily resurrection.
What is the difference between “peace from God,” “peace with God,” and “peace of God”?
Peace with God (Romans 5:1) is objective reconciliation with God: through justification by faith, God has dealt with the hostility caused by sin, and we now stand in a right relationship with Him. Peace from God (Ephesians 2:17, in Missler’s outline) is peace that comes to us from God through Christ; God is the source of that peace. The peace of God (Philippians 4:7) is the inward peace experienced by the believer, a peace that “passeth all understanding” and guards the heart and mind even when circumstances themselves are not peaceful. Missler explicitly distinguishes these three expressions in his notes on John.
What you described as “peace from God”—peace that does not match our circumstances—more precisely fits the peace of God. “Peace from God” identifies its source; “peace with God” describes our reconciled relationship with Him; and “the peace of God” describes the peace He produces within us.
How is “breathing on them” (John 20:22) different from the events of Acts 2?
John 20:22 occurs before Pentecost and concerns the disciples receiving the Holy Spirit personally: Jesus “breathed on them” and said, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” Missler places considerable significance on the Greek wording because the verb for “breathed” deliberately recalls the Septuagint of Genesis 2:7, where God breathes life into Adam. Missler therefore interprets John 20:22 as new creation: the disciples receive the Holy Spirit as the indwelling life of the new creation. His notes explicitly identify “New creation: breathed” and “New Indweller: Holy Spirit.”
Acts 2 is consequently not simply John 20:22 happening again. Pentecost is the later corporate event involving the baptism and empowering of believers by the Holy Spirit and the birth of the Church. Missler elsewhere explicitly identifies the Church as being “Born at Pentecost” and distinguishes it from Israel. Thus, in Missler’s framework: John 20 = regeneration/indwelling and new creation; Acts 2 = Pentecost, corporate baptism/empowerment, and the Church’s birth.
What is the importance of Matthew 28:1 being plural?
Missler is referring to the Greek σαββάτων (sabbatōn), which he understands here as “Sabbaths,” plural. His argument is that Matthew 28:1 therefore indicates that more than one Sabbath had occurred between the crucifixion and the women’s arrival at the empty tomb. One was the regular weekly Saturday Sabbath; the other was the high Sabbath associated with the Feast of Unleavened Bread. His Matthew notes explicitly annotate the verse “In the end of the sabbath[s]” and identify sabbatōn as plural.
This matters to Missler because it supports his argument against the traditional Friday crucifixion. He argues for a Wednesday crucifixion: Passover/crucifixion on Wednesday, the high Sabbath of Unleavened Bread on Thursday, preparation of spices on Friday, the regular Sabbath on Saturday, followed by discovery of the empty tomb Sunday morning. Thus, the plural “Sabbaths,” combined with Jesus’ “three days and three nights” statement in Matthew 12:40, is one of Missler’s textual arguments for distinguishing the high Sabbath from the ordinary weekly Sabbath rather than assuming that the Sabbath immediately following the crucifixion had to be Saturday.
K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.
Nothing to add.
Session 20
What were the conditions that led to Peter’s restoration?
Peter had denied Jesus three times, and I think his restoration begins with his repentance and recognition of his own weakness. Missler points out that Jesus deliberately recreates reminders of Peter’s past: the miraculous catch of fish recalls his original calling, the Sea of Galilee recalls his experiences with Christ, and especially the fire of coals, which appears in John only here and at Peter’s denial. Jesus then gives Peter three opportunities to reaffirm his love after his three denials and recommissions him with “Feed my sheep” and “Follow me.” I also think Peter’s restoration was ultimately part of God’s predetermined plan, because Jesus had already told Peter before his denial, “when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren” (Luke 22:32). Peter’s failure did not take Jesus by surprise; his restoration and future ministry were already anticipated.
What do you think the 153 fishes signify?
I do not think we can know for certain. Missler goes through several historical explanations and admits none of them were very persuasive to him. Cyril of Alexandria connected the number with the Gentiles, Israel, and the Trinity; Augustine connected it with 10 representing the Law and 7 representing grace, since adding the numbers 1 through 17 gives 153; and Jerome associated it with an ancient belief that there were 153 kinds of fish. Missler does not find these explanations particularly convincing.
The explanation Missler finds most interesting came from Dead Sea Scrolls scholar Peter Flint. The Great Psalms Scroll from Qumran Cave 11 contains the traditional 150 Psalms, along with three additional psalms attributed to David, for a total of 153 Psalms. Missler suggests that the 153 fish could therefore be a remez, or hint, pointing toward those 153 Psalms. I find that interesting, but I still do not know what the 153 fish actually signify.
I looked into Missler’s claim further, and the Dead Sea Scrolls do not actually contain a Psalter consisting of the traditional 150 Psalms plus three additional Psalms for a total of 153. The Great Psalms Scroll from Qumran contains only a portion of the canonical Psalms, arranged differently, along with several additional compositions, including Psalms 151, 154, and 155. The Dead Sea Scrolls do not include Psalms 152 and 153. So while Missler’s proposed connection between the 153 fish and the Psalms is interesting, the evidence does not support a straightforward 153 fish = 153 Psalms connection. I therefore think the significance of the 153 fish remains unknown. It seems deliberately specific, so I think there is probably a reason for it, but perhaps Jesus will have to explain that one when we get to heaven.
What was going on during the three questions Jesus asked Simon?
Jesus was restoring Peter after his three denials by giving him three opportunities to reaffirm his love and recommissioning him to care for His flock. Missler emphasizes the Greek words: the first two times Jesus asks whether Peter loves Him, Jesus uses agapao, which Missler describes as deep, sacrificial commitment, while Peter answers with phileo, expressing fondness or affection. Peter is honest about what is actually in his heart rather than boasting as he had before. On the third question, Jesus comes down to Peter’s word and uses phileo Himself, which grieves Peter. I would say Peter “lost the opportunity,” though Missler describes this as Jesus meeting Peter on his own level. Jesus then completes Peter’s restoration and recommissions him: feed the lambs, shepherd the sheep, feed the sheep, and finally, “Follow me.”
Why did they seem to have difficulty recognizing the risen Christ?
Missler thinks the answer is found in Isaiah 52:14 and Isaiah 50:6. Isaiah describes the Messiah as being so badly marred that His appearance was no longer recognizable as that of a man, and Isaiah 50:6 describes His beard being pulled out. Missler believes Jesus retained the physical marks of His suffering after the resurrection rather than being restored to His previous appearance. That would explain why Mary Magdalene initially thought He was the gardener, why the disciples on the road to Emmaus walked with Him without recognizing Him, and why the disciples in John 21 knew it was Jesus while apparently still having difficulty identifying Him visually.
Missler connects this with Revelation 5:6, where John sees Jesus in heaven as “a Lamb as it had been slain.” He concludes that the marks of Christ’s humiliation became the marks of His glory. In other words, Jesus may still bear the scars and disfigurement caused by His crucifixion. That would explain why people who knew Him well sometimes needed something else—His voice, His wounds, or His actions—to recognize Him after the resurrection. But Luke 24:16 also points to a supernatural restraint on their eyes so they could not recognize him. So for me, the question is not why, but how they were not able to recognize him.
What are the indications that John wrote his Gospel after the Patmos experience?
Missler thinks John may have written his Gospel after Revelation and his experience on Patmos, although he is careful to call this a supposition rather than an established fact. One reason is that John uses structural features in his Gospel that remind Missler of Revelation. In particular, John 21 begins with the Greek expression meta tauta, “after these things,” which Missler says is an important structural marker throughout Revelation. He also sees a sevenfold structure in Revelation that appears more subtly throughout John’s Gospel.
Missler therefore suspects that after Patmos John retired to Ephesus with Mary and wrote the Gospel near the end of his ministry. He also points to the mature Ephesian setting surrounding the Gospel: the church at Ephesus was already collecting the writings of Paul and others, and Clement of Alexandria said John wrote his Gospel at the urging of his friends in Ephesus. Missler even notes that Peter had apparently been dead for more than twenty years by the time John wrote John 21. Taken together, he sees these clues as consistent with John being a very late work, possibly written after Revelation.
What was the most significant thing you’ve gained from this series?
The biggest thing I have gained is realizing that the Gospels are much more complex than I originally thought. John is not simply another account repeating Matthew, Mark, and Luke. It is highly selective and deliberately structured around particular signs, conversations, theological claims, and events. Missler points out that the Gospel of John records events from only about twenty days out of more than three years of Jesus’ ministry, and a large portion of the book focuses on the final week. John himself tells us why he selected what he did: these things were written so that we would believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and through believing have life in His name.
That leaves me wondering what the best approach is for teaching the Gospels. Simply teaching Matthew, then Mark, then Luke, then John independently may make it harder to see both their overlap and their major differences. John especially changes the picture because so much of his material is different from the Synoptic Gospels. After this study, I want to understand not only what each Gospel says individually, but how all four fit together chronologically and why each writer selected the events he recorded.
K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.
Nothing to add.
Conclusions
This was an interesting study, but it didn’t turn out the way I first thought. Originally I was doing a gospel study—following John straight through while consulting the synoptics as I went whenever they lined up with the events in John. But to my dismay, the Synoptics cover about 30% of what is in John. So, by the time I finished with this class, I had given up on doing all four together simultaneously. Overall, though, this gospel was a good start into the accounts of Jesus and the first disciples.
Until my next assignment….
Some doors shouldn’t
be opened.
But if you’re
still here…
You’re already standing in front of one.
Start reading In the Meadow for free.
Download your copy → here
What do you think?