The next course I selected for my Unschooled Master of Theology program was the KI course Matthew Part 1, which covers the second half of the Gospel of Matthew. 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?
Matthew was a tax collector before becoming one of Jesus’ disciples. In The Chosen, he is portrayed as having autistic traits, although Scripture does not state this. His Gospel contains more chapters than either of the other Synoptic Gospels, Mark and Luke.
What Do I Want to Learn?
I want to develop a comprehensive understanding of Matthew’s Gospel, including its structure, themes, and theological significance. I also want to understand how it compares with the other three Gospels, particularly where their accounts overlap, differ, or provide unique perspectives on Jesus’ life and ministry.
Session 1
Read John 5:39 and Hebrews 10:7. Give three Old Testament glimpses of Jesus Christ.
The Old Testament is filled with glimpses of Jesus Christ, showing that Scripture is not a collection of independent writings but an integrated revelation pointing to Him. Three examples are the Passover Lamb (Exodus 12:1–13), whose blood protected the Israelites from judgment and foreshadowed Christ’s sacrifice for our sins (John 1:29; 1 Corinthians 5:7); the Kinsman-Redeemer (Ruth 4:1–10), where Boaz redeems Ruth and restores her family’s inheritance, foreshadowing Christ becoming human to redeem mankind (Hebrews 2:14–17); and the Suffering Servant (Isaiah 53:4–6), who bears the sins of others and suffers in their place, prophetically describing Christ’s sacrificial death (1 Peter 2:24–25). These examples demonstrate what Jesus meant when He declared that the Scriptures testify of Him (John 5:39).
What is the hidden code that is found in Genesis 5? What is the significance or the implications of this?
According to Missler, the ten names in the genealogy from Adam to Noah contain a remarkable message: “Man is appointed mortal sorrow; but the Blessed God shall come down, teaching that His death shall bring the despairing rest.” If this interpretation is correct, it would mean that the Gospel message was embedded within the opening chapters of Genesis more than a thousand years before Christ’s birth. The implications are significant because they suggest an author operating outside the constraints of time, revealing God’s redemptive plan long before its fulfillment. This supports Missler’s argument that the Bible demonstrates an integrated design originating from the Holy Spirit rather than merely its human authors. Personally, I find this proposed message more plausible and convincing than the equidistant letter sequence (ELS) codes because it uses the actual names appearing in the biblical genealogy rather than searching for patterns through predetermined letter intervals. However, the interpretation ultimately depends upon the accuracy of the proposed Hebrew name meanings, some of which are disputed.
What is the significance of the genealogy that is “hidden” in Genesis 38?
Missler identifies another remarkable example of what he considers deliberate biblical design in Genesis 38, the account of Judah and Tamar. He argues that the names Boaz, Ruth, Obed, Jesse, and David are encoded within the Hebrew text at intervals of 49 letters. This is significant because these individuals belong to the genealogy leading to King David and ultimately Jesus Christ, yet Genesis 38 was written centuries before their births. The number 49, being seven squared, also connects with Missler’s broader discussion of heptadic structures throughout Scripture. If intentional, such a pattern would suggest that the Holy Spirit anticipated the future messianic genealogy and incorporated it into the earlier account.
The narrative also shows a significant connection. Tamar gives birth to Perez through Judah, and Perez becomes an ancestor of David (Ruth 4:18–22; Matthew 1:3–6). Genesis 38 therefore establishes an actual genealogical connection to Christ, regardless of whether the proposed letter sequence is intentional. I find this distinction important because Scripture explicitly documents the genealogy, while the hidden letter sequence requires additional verification. Nevertheless, Missler uses both to support his argument that the biblical text contains a deliberate design that extends across generations and individual books.
Jeremiah 22:30 is a witnessing tool that requires what? Why is this a tool you could use when witnessing to a Jew?
Jeremiah 22:30 establishes what Missler calls the blood curse on Jeconiah, declaring that none of his descendants would prosper while sitting on David’s throne and ruling Judah. This creates an apparent problem because the Messiah must descend from David’s royal line, yet Joseph’s genealogy in Matthew 1 passes through Jeconiah. The curse requires a different path to the crown. Missler explains that Jesus receives His legal right to David’s throne through Joseph while receiving His biological descent from David through Mary, whose genealogy he identifies in Luke 3 as passing through David’s son Nathan rather than Solomon. The virgin birth therefore becomes essential to Missler’s explanation because Jesus can inherit the royal claim without being Joseph’s biological descendant. This could be a useful witnessing tool when speaking with a Jewish person because it begins with the Hebrew Scriptures and presents the virgin birth as a proposed solution to an apparent contradiction between God’s promise to David and His judgment upon Jeconiah. It also provides an opportunity to examine Isaiah 7:14 and the messianic prophecies together.
What is the significance of the daughters of Zelophehad?
Because their father died without sons, they petitioned Moses to preserve their father’s inheritance, and God granted their request (Numbers 27:1–11). This established a precedent allowing daughters to inherit property when there were no male heirs, with additional regulations concerning marriage and tribal inheritance (Numbers 36). Missler connects this exception to the genealogies of Jesus, arguing that a daughter’s husband could be legally recognized within her father’s family. He proposes that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, Mary’s father, explaining why Luke 3:23 identifies Joseph as Heli’s son. Missler also emphasizes the Greek word νομίζω (nomizō), meaning to suppose or reckon according to custom or law. Under this interpretation, the arrangement helps explain how Jesus could have both a legal claim to David’s throne through Joseph and a biological connection through Mary. Although the Zelophehad account does not explicitly establish the adoption arrangement, I find the inheritance exception significant because it provides a possible legal framework for understanding the genealogies and supports Missler’s argument that even the details of the Mosaic Law anticipate Christ.
What are some lessons we can learn from the little four-chapter book of Ruth?
The Book of Ruth demonstrates that God has an intended purpose for inspiring all 66 books of the Bible. Scripture is not simply a collection of unrelated historical documents but an integrated revelation that progressively reveals God’s plan of redemption. Ruth illustrates this through the relationship between Boaz and Ruth, particularly the role of the kinsman-redeemer (go’el). As a qualified relative, Boaz redeems the family inheritance and takes Ruth as his wife, providing a prophetic picture of Jesus Christ, who became human to qualify as our Redeemer. Missler also emphasizes the book’s larger prophetic significance, including Ruth’s position as a Gentile bride and Boaz’s role as her redeemer, which he connects with Christ and His Church. What I find particularly significant is that an apparently ordinary account of family hardship, loyalty, and redemption contains a much larger picture of God’s plan. It reinforces the idea that biblical history is purposeful and that events, people, and institutions throughout the Old Testament anticipate the fulfillment of God’s promises in Jesus Christ.
K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.
Nothing to add.
Session 2
What are the two Jewish expectations concerning the Messiah? How has or how will Jesus fulfill both of these?
The two expectations were the suffering servant and the reigning king. The mistake was treating these as two different Messiahs instead of two comings of the same Messiah. Mark emphasizes Jesus as the suffering servant, while Matthew emphasizes Him as the Jewish Messiah, the King. The issue is not contradiction, but sequence: first suffering, then glory. Jesus fulfilled the suffering-servant role in His first coming by dying for sin. The crucifixion was not merely a tragedy; it was an achievement. He will fulfill the ruling-king expectation at His second coming, when He takes the throne of David and reigns. The same Messiah suffers first and reigns later.
They argued for 2 messiahs, one to suffer and die, and another to rule and reign. Jesus did the first, but he will come again and fulfill the second.
How can you PROVE the Bible?
The Bible is “proved” by its integrated design: many books, many authors, many centuries, but one unified message centered on Christ. The argument is not merely emotional or devotional. The Scriptures anticipate detailed events before they happen, which shows that the origin of the message is outside ordinary time. Missler’s framework is that the integrity of the design establishes the identity of Christ, and Christ then authenticates the whole package.
At the same time, I would still say this proof is not received the same way by the unregenerate mind. A person who is only natural does not properly receive the things of God because they are spiritually discerned. So the evidence exists, but spiritual blindness keeps people from seeing it rightly. The Bible can be demonstrated, but only God can open the eyes to receive it.
Why was a virgin birth needed?
The virgin birth was needed because of both prophecy and lineage. Genesis 3:15 gives the first hint: the “seed of the woman,” which is biologically unusual language because seed is normally associated with the man. Isaiah 7:14 then gives the clearer prophecy that a virgin would conceive and bear a son. Luke’s notes say the miraculous conception was necessary because of Christ’s deity and preexistence.
It also solved the blood-curse problem on Jeconiah’s royal line. The Messiah had to come legally through David’s royal line, but Jeremiah 22:30 placed a curse on Jeconiah’s physical seed. Matthew gives the legal line through Joseph, while Luke gives the bloodline through Mary, avoiding the cursed bloodline while preserving the legal claim.
What were the gifts of the Magi? What was the significance of these gifts? Have you ever given these gifts to Christ? If so, give examples.
The gifts were gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Gold points to kingship and deity. Frankincense is associated with the priesthood and worship. Myrrh points to suffering and burial. So the gifts were not random, expensive items. They prophetically testified to who Jesus is: King, Priest, and the One who would die.
I have not physically given Christ gold, frankincense, and myrrh, but the point is whether I have given Him what they represent. Gold would mean acknowledging Him as King, not myself. Frankincense would mean offering worship and prayer. Myrrh would mean accepting the cost of death to self, suffering, obedience, and surrender. In that sense, these are not just ancient gifts; they are a pattern of discipleship.
Why was Herod so concerned about the Magi?
Herod was concerned because the Magi were not just harmless wise men on camels. In the session, they are presented as Parthian/Persian kingmakers, connected to a powerful eastern empire that rivaled Rome. Herod was already politically insecure, and Judea was a buffer zone between Rome and Parthia. So when these men arrived asking, “Where is He that is born King of the Jews?” it was politically explosive. Herod was not born king of the Jews. He was appointed by Rome. Their question exposed the weakness of his claim and implied that a legitimate King had been born. That threatened both his authority and his survival. His response was not worship but murder, because he wanted to preserve his throne.
What is the Shekhinah? List some Old and New Testament appearances.
The Shekhinah is the visible manifestation of God’s glory or presence, often associated with supernatural light, fire, or cloud. In the Old Testament, examples include the Spirit of God over the waters in Genesis 1, the flaming manifestation in the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 15, the burning bush in Exodus 3, and the pillar of cloud by day and fire by night during the wilderness journey.
In the New Testament, the session connects this idea to the star of Bethlehem and to the flames at Pentecost in Acts 2. The point is that the “star” does not behave like a normal astronomical object. It leads, moves, and identifies a location. So the better explanation in this framework is that it was a Shekhinah-type manifestation, not a planetary conjunction.
K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.
Nothing to add.
Session 3
What lessons have you learned from John the Baptist?
John the Baptist teaches me that a person can have what appears to be a secondary role and still be enormously significant. His whole ministry was not centered on himself but on preparing the way for Christ. Missler emphasizes that John was the last of the Old Testament prophets and the first herald of the New Testament, sent to bear witness to the Light rather than to be the Light himself. That matters because significance in God’s work is not measured by visibility, length, platform, or personal recognition. John’s role was brief, but it was decisive.
I also see that calling does not mean we always understand everything perfectly while we are walking it out. John knew who Christ was and publicly identified Him as the Lamb of God, but later, from prison, he sent disciples to ask whether Jesus was the One or whether they should look for another. Missler raises the question of whether John sent them for himself or as a training mission, but either way it shows that even the called can face tension, discouragement, or confusion. That does not erase the calling. It proves that faithfulness is often obedience in partial understanding.
Read Joshua 3. What was the purpose of the stones of Gilgal? What stones of remembrance do you have in your life?
The stones of Gilgal were established as a memorial witness to what God had done for Israel when He brought them across the Jordan River on dry ground. Twelve stones, one representing each tribe, were taken from the Jordan and set up so that future generations would ask what they meant. Their purpose was remembrance and testimony. They preserved the memory that Israel entered the land by God’s power, not by their own strength. Missler also connects those stones with John the Baptist’s confrontation of the Pharisees, noting Joshua 3 and the stone monuments as a memorial of the Jordan crossing.
For me, my stones of remembrance are the books I write. They are not just projects or products. They are memorials of what God has done, what He has taught me, and what He has carried me through. God willing, they will remain after me for my children, their children, and anyone who finds them. I want them to testify that everything is because of God, for God, and sustained by God—and that the one decision that matters most is receiving Christ.
Why did Jesus insist on being baptized? When did He take your place? Share a bit of your testimony.
Jesus insisted on being baptized “to fulfill all righteousness.” John resisted because he recognized that Jesus had no need of repentance, but Jesus submitted to baptism because He was identifying Himself with the people He came to redeem. Missler’s Matthew notes show that this moment also publicly revealed the Trinity: the Son was baptized, the Spirit descended like a dove, and the Father spoke from heaven. So baptism was not merely symbolic theater. It marked the beginning of His public ministry and His identification with sinners, even though He Himself was sinless.
For me, this matters because Jesus took my place not first at baptism, but ultimately at the cross. His baptism pointed forward to that substitution. I have been baptized, but I do not see baptism as saving me. John’s baptism was associated with repentance and outwardly pictured an inner change, but Missler’s Luke notes are clear that baptism did not save anyone; forgiveness is by grace and mercy. My testimony is that God reached me when I was seventeen, broke apart my old worldview, and brought me into the light of Christ. Baptism matters, but Christ Himself is the Savior.
What experiences do you have in the area of fasting? Why does Chuck suggest you take serious the valleys as well as the mountaintops?
I have always struggled with fasting. I was able to do it for martial arts because there was a discipline and purpose attached to it, but I have not found it easy to do as a believer. Part of that may be because I do not often feel impassioned enough about a specific issue to offer food in that way before God. Also, God is already central to most of my days, so fasting does not always feel to me like a needed escape from ordinary life into spiritual focus. That may reveal a weakness in me, but it is the honest answer.
Missler’s notes on the temptation of Christ show why valleys matter. Jesus fasted forty days and was then tempted in the wilderness; Missler connects this to Israel’s forty years in the wilderness and contrasts the first Adam, who failed in a garden, with the Last Adam, who succeeded in a dangerous wilderness. The valley exposes what is actually there. The mountaintop may encourage us, but adversity tests dependence, mission focus, and whether we will live “by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” So I need to treat hardship not as random interruption, but as instruction, correction, and formation under God’s will.
What lessons can be learned from Jesus’ encounter with the devil?
One major lesson is that Satan is real, personal, intelligent, powerful, and malevolent—but not equal with God. Missler is careful here: Satan is a created being, not omnipresent, but he is still a real adversary and ruler. That keeps the balance. We should not pretend he does not exist, but we also should not give him more credit than he deserves. Jesus does not defeat Satan by theatrics, argument, or raw display of power. He answers every temptation with Scripture.
Another lesson is that Satan’s offer of the kingdoms of the world implies some kind of legitimate present authority over the world system. It would not be a meaningful temptation if Satan had nothing to offer. But that authority is temporary and already doomed. John later speaks of the prince of this world being cast out, and Missler calls that the beginning of the end of Satan’s dominion. The encounter teaches that opportunity is not mandate, appetite is not authority, and even a real offer can be a trap if it bypasses God’s will.
Where in the Scriptures does God challenge you to “tempt or test” Him? What are your experiences in that arena?
This question needs careful wording. Scripture says God does not tempt anyone with evil, so I would not say God tempts me in that sense. My own desires tempt me. God teaches, disciplines, guides, shelters, and corrects. In the temptation account, Jesus quotes: “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God,” meaning we are not to manipulate God, force His hand, or create a crisis and demand that He rescue us. That kind of testing is presumption, not faith.
At the same time, there are places where God invites testing in a different sense. In Malachi 3:10, God told the Jews to “prove” Him in obedience and provision, and in Matthew, Missler discusses Isaiah 7, where God invited Ahaz to ask for a sign, but Ahaz refused. So the distinction matters: testing God presumptuously is wrong, but trusting God where He has invited faith and obedience is right. In my own life, I do not think of God as tempting me. I think of Him as teaching me through circumstances, mercy, correction, provision, and restraint.
K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.
Nothing to add.
Session 4
What is the difference between character and integrity? Which would you prefer and why?
I understand character as the collection of qualities, attitudes, and behaviors that define a person. Integrity, on the other hand, is the consistency between what someone believes, what they profess, and how they actually live. We can see character in our actions and interactions with others, while integrity is often clearest when no one is watching. A person might cultivate the appearance of good character while lacking integrity. Jesus repeatedly exposed this problem among the religious leaders, who emphasized outward righteousness while neglecting the inward condition of the heart (Matthew 5:20; 6:1–6). The Sermon on the Mount shows that God cares not merely about outward behavior but about the motives and desires behind it.
I would prefer to develop integrity because I believe genuine Christian character must originate in the transformation of the heart rather than the cultivation of an outward religious appearance. However, I also recognize that this transformation is ultimately God’s work through the indwelling Holy Spirit. I cannot manufacture righteousness through my own determination or religious discipline. I can submit myself to God, study his Word, and respond obediently to his conviction, but his power accomplishes sanctification. My desire is not simply to appear righteous before others but to become increasingly conformed to Christ, particularly in those private moments when there is no audience to impress.
What is the difference between the Ten Commandments and the Beatitudes?
The Ten Commandments were given to Israel as part of the Mosaic covenant and establish fundamental obligations concerning Israel’s relationship with God and with one another (Exodus 20:1–17). They express God’s righteous standards through specific commands and prohibitions. The Beatitudes, found in Matthew 5:3–12, describe the spiritual characteristics and blessings associated with those who belong to the kingdom of heaven. Rather than simply prescribing outward behavior, they address the individual’s inward disposition: humility, mourning over sin, meekness, hunger for righteousness, mercy, purity of heart, peacemaking, and endurance under persecution. As Missler emphasizes, the Sermon on the Mount concerns the righteousness appropriate to the subjects of the kingdom, a righteousness that must exceed the outward religious observance of the scribes and Pharisees.
I understand the Beatitudes as reflecting Christ’s character and the inward righteousness the Holy Spirit produces. The Mosaic Law reveals God’s standards and exposes humanity’s inability to attain righteousness through personal effort. The Beatitudes describe qualities that likewise cannot be perfectly manufactured through human determination. They must emerge from a transformed heart. I would distinguish the Beatitudes from the Mosaic covenant itself, although they are not presented as a replacement legal code. Both reveal God’s righteousness, but the Christian’s relationship to God rests upon the completed work of Christ and the transforming ministry of the Holy Spirit rather than personal achievement under the Law (Romans 8:1–4; Galatians 3:24–25).
What three Beatitudes would best describe you?
Three Beatitudes that I would particularly identify with are hungering and thirsting after righteousness (Matthew 5:6), being poor in spirit (Matthew 5:3), and mourning (Matthew 5:4). My desire to study Scripture, understand God’s character, and pursue a deeper relationship with him reflects the hunger for righteousness that Jesus describes. Being poor in spirit means recognizing spiritual dependence on God rather than confidence in personal righteousness. Mourning, in this context, includes recognizing the reality of sin, suffering, and humanity’s broken condition. I would not claim to embody these qualities perfectly, but they represent characteristics I recognize and desire to see increasingly developed in my Christian life.
What was the purpose of the Law? Does a Christian have to keep the Law? Which one(s)?
Paul explains that the Law was given to reveal sin, expose humanity’s unrighteousness, and ultimately lead us to Christ (Romans 3:20; 5:20; 7:7; Galatians 3:19–25). It was never intended to provide salvation through human obedience. If righteousness could have been obtained through the Law, Christ’s sacrifice would have been unnecessary (Galatians 2:21). The Law demonstrates God’s holiness while exposing our inability to achieve that holiness through our own efforts. Missler repeatedly emphasizes that attempting to reconcile ourselves to God through religious observance misunderstands the completed work of Jesus Christ. The Law served as a tutor directing us toward the Messiah, but once faith has come, believers are no longer under that tutor.
Consequently, I do not believe Christians are obligated to keep the Mosaic Law as a covenantal system. We are justified through faith in Jesus Christ, not through obedience to the commandments given to Israel. This does not mean Christians are free to practice unrighteousness. Rather, we are called to fulfill the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2), walk according to the Spirit, and demonstrate the love that fulfills God’s righteous purposes (Romans 8:4; 13:8–10). I reject the idea that salvation is entirely by grace while continued acceptance before God depends upon keeping selected portions of the Mosaic Law. That confuses the basis of our justification with the fruit of our sanctification. Obedience should emerge from our relationship with Christ through the Holy Spirit, not from an attempt to establish or maintain righteousness through legal observance. Keeping the Law of Christ is a consequence of the redemption and our sanctification, not the other way around.
What is the difference between BE-ATTITUDES and legalism?
The Beatitudes describe inward characteristics associated with the kingdom of heaven, while legalism attempts to establish righteousness through conformity to religious rules and outward behavior. The difference is fundamentally one of spiritual origin and motivation. A legalist tries to produce righteousness through personal effort, while the Christian depends on God’s transforming work. Jesus’ criticism of the Pharisees was not simply that they took obedience seriously, but that their religious system often elevated external observance while neglecting the inward righteousness God requires.
For me, legalism includes trying to cultivate the Beatitudes as a means of earning God’s favor rather than recognizing them as characteristics that develop through sanctification. I cannot make myself genuinely humble, merciful, or pure in heart merely by adopting religious practices. God must cultivate those qualities in me. The distinction is not that obedience is irrelevant, but that obedience cannot become the foundation of my relationship with God. My righteousness rests in Christ, and my transformation depends upon the Holy Spirit.
In what ways did Jesus fulfill the Mosaic Law?
Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Law through his perfect obedience, his fulfillment of its prophetic and typological significance, and his sacrificial death. In Matthew 5:17–18, Jesus declares that he came not to destroy the Law or the Prophets but to fulfill them. Unlike every other human being, Jesus lived without sin and perfectly satisfied the righteous requirements of God’s Law (Hebrews 4:15). He also fulfilled the sacrificial system, which anticipated the ultimate sacrifice for sin. The offerings and sacrifices prescribed under the Mosaic covenant pointed toward the Lamb of God, whose death would accomplish what repeated animal sacrifices could never accomplish permanently (Hebrews 9–10).
Christ’s fulfillment of the Law also makes justification possible for those who believe in him. We do not reproduce his righteousness through our own obedience; it is the basis on which we can be reconciled to God. Through his death, he bore the consequences of sin, and through his resurrection, he demonstrated his victory over death. Romans 8:3–4 explains that God accomplished through his Son what the Law could not accomplish because of the weakness of human flesh. Therefore, I understand the Law as fulfilled in Christ, with believers receiving its ultimate benefits through faith rather than attempting to satisfy its requirements through personal religious achievement.
K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.
Nothing to add.
Session 5
List the lessons learned from the prayer of John 17.
John 17 records Jesus’ prayer to the Father shortly before his arrest and crucifixion. It reveals several important principles concerning prayer, discipleship, and the relationship between believers and God. First, Jesus shows that prayer should ultimately seek God’s glory rather than advance personal interests (John 17:1–5). Second, he emphasizes the importance of eternal life, which he defines in terms of knowing the Father and Jesus Christ whom he has sent (John 17:3). Third, Jesus prays for the protection of his disciples, recognizing that they remain in a hostile world while belonging to God (John 17:11–15). Fourth, he asks that they be sanctified through the truth, explicitly identifying God’s Word as truth (John 17:17). Finally, Jesus prays for the unity of believers and for those who will come to believe through the testimony of his disciples (John 17:20–23).
What stands out to me is that Jesus’ prayer centers on God’s purposes, the spiritual preservation of his followers, and their sanctification through the Word. This connects directly with the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus teaches his disciples to seek God’s kingdom and righteousness rather than becoming consumed with material concerns. I also find it significant that Jesus prayed not only for the disciples present with him but for future believers, including those who would eventually come to faith through their testimony. His prayer demonstrates that the Christian life is not primarily about acquiring worldly security or achieving personal ambitions. It concerns knowing God, being transformed by his truth, remaining faithful in a hostile world, and ultimately participating in the glory of Christ.
Summarize the lessons about the Law from Romans 1 thru 7.
Romans 1–7 establishes that humanity is universally guilty before God and cannot obtain justification through obedience to the Law. Romans 1 describes the unrighteousness of the Gentile world, while Romans 2 demonstrates that possessing the Law does not make the Jewish people righteous when they also violate its requirements. Romans 3 brings both groups under the same conclusion: all have sinned and fall short of God’s glory (Romans 3:23). The Law reveals sin but cannot justify the sinner (Romans 3:20). Paul then explains that justification comes through faith, using Abraham as an example of righteousness credited apart from works (Romans 4). Romans 5 contrasts Adam, through whom sin and death entered the world, with Christ, through whom grace and righteousness become available. Paul also explains that the Law entered so that the trespass might increase, making the reality of sin more apparent (Romans 5:20).
Romans 6 and 7 address the believer’s changed relationship to sin and the Law. Through identification with Christ’s death and resurrection, Christians are no longer to live as slaves to sin (Romans 6:1–14). Romans 7 explains that believers have died to the Law through the body of Christ so that they might belong to him and bear fruit for God (Romans 7:4–6). Paul also demonstrates that the Law itself is holy, righteous, and good, but that sin exploits the commandment because of humanity’s fallen condition (Romans 7:7–13). My conclusion is that the Law was never capable of producing salvation. It exposes our need for a Savior and directs us toward Christ. Once reconciled to God through faith, our sanctification proceeds through the work of the Holy Spirit rather than through renewed attempts to achieve righteousness under the Mosaic covenant.
Should Christians fast? Explain and justify. If so, what are the cautions and caveats?
I believe Christians are free to fast, but I do not believe fasting should be imposed upon believers as a universal religious obligation or as a means of obtaining righteousness before God. In Matthew 6:16–18, Jesus addresses fasting and condemns making one’s religious devotion visible for others’ admiration. His instructions assume that fasting may occur among his followers, but they do not establish a mandatory schedule or prescribe fasting as a requirement for justification. I understand fasting as a matter of personal conviction and spiritual purpose rather than a religious performance. If God convicts an individual to fast, that person should respond faithfully. However, I reject the idea that Christians become more acceptable to God simply because they abstain from food or follow prescribed religious disciplines.
My principal caution concerns the motivation behind fasting. Jesus specifically warns against practicing religious devotion to gain others’ recognition. Fasting should never become a demonstration of spiritual superiority, a substitute for genuine obedience, or an attempt to manipulate God into answering prayer. I would also caution against imposing personal convictions upon other believers, since doing so risks turning a voluntary spiritual practice into another form of legalism. Missler recognizes fasting as an appropriate practice for Christians today, particularly when undertaken privately. I agree it can be appropriate, but I believe its legitimacy depends on the individual’s relationship with God and the purpose for which it is undertaken, not on adherence to a humanly prescribed religious system.
What does “Give us this day our daily bread” mean? List some references from the Scriptures concerning bread.
In Matthew 6:11, Jesus teaches his disciples to pray for their daily bread, emphasizing dependence upon God for their ordinary physical needs. The Greek expression arton hēmōn ton epiousion (ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον) is traditionally translated as “our daily bread,” although the precise meaning of epiousios is debated. In Matthew 6, the prayer encourages dependence on God’s provision rather than anxiety over future material security. This resembles Israel’s experience with manna in the wilderness, where God provided food daily and instructed the people not to accumulate more than he permitted (Exodus 16:4–5, 16–21). Proverbs 30:8–9 similarly expresses the desire for sufficient provision without either poverty or riches. Other significant passages include Deuteronomy 8:3, where humanity is reminded that life depends upon God’s Word rather than bread alone; John 6:32–35, where Jesus identifies himself as the bread of life; and Matthew 4:4, where Jesus quotes Deuteronomy during his temptation.
I understand this petition as a call to contentment and trust in God’s continuing provision. I do not believe Christians should make the accumulation of wealth their central concern, nor should we deliberately seek poverty as though deprivation itself were a virtue. Instead, we should faithfully steward the resources God provides while recognizing that our security ultimately rests in him. The surrounding verses in Matthew 6 reinforce this understanding by instructing believers not to become consumed with anxiety over food, clothing, or tomorrow’s needs (Matthew 6:25–34). The petition for daily bread reminds me that everything I possess comes from God and that I remain dependent upon him regardless of my financial circumstances.
Where is your true treasure today? What are you PASSIONATE about?
My true treasure is in Christ, and I have little interest in pursuing the things of this world merely for their own sake. Jesus teaches that where our treasure is, there our heart will be also (Matthew 6:19–21). I understand this as a warning against allowing wealth, possessions, status, or worldly accomplishments to become the foundation of our identity and security. My greatest desire is to fulfill the work God has given me, to accomplish that work faithfully, and eventually to reach the end of my life knowing that I have completed the responsibilities entrusted to me. I want to be able to lay down my work and rest, recognizing that I have served the Lord according to the abilities and opportunities he provided.
I am particularly passionate about my vocation as an author. I enjoy creating stories that challenge readers intellectually and move them emotionally. I am drawn to stories involving broken people, difficult circumstances, and the question of how much suffering a person can endure before reaching a breaking point. Although I write supernatural suspense rather than explicitly Christian fiction, I understand my vocation as work performed before God. Colossians 3:23 reminds believers to work wholeheartedly as unto the Lord. My ambition is not simply to accumulate sales or recognition but to develop my abilities, complete the stories entrusted to me, and produce work that reflects the seriousness with which I approach my calling.
In which ways can we be shrewd in terms of living in a fallen world? How should we give? According to need? … explain.
Living in a fallen world requires discernment rather than naïveté. Jesus instructs his disciples to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves (Matthew 10:16), and Matthew 7:6 warns against indiscriminately offering what is holy to those who will only treat it with contempt. I believe Christians must exercise judgment concerning the character, motives, and conduct of others. We should test spiritual claims against Scripture, evaluate circumstances carefully, and recognize that not everyone acts with honesty or good intentions. However, discernment must not become an excuse for cruelty, cynicism, or the refusal to extend grace. Jesus also commands his followers to examine their own hearts before judging others (Matthew 7:1–5). Wisdom therefore requires both careful evaluation and humility.
Regarding giving, I believe generosity should be guided by the Holy Spirit, exercised willingly, and directed toward genuine needs rather than motivated by guilt or religious pressure. Jesus teaches generosity in Matthew 6:1–4 while warning against giving for public recognition. I do not believe Christians are obligated to satisfy every request presented to them, regardless of the circumstances. We have a responsibility to steward what God has entrusted to us, including our obligations to our families. At the same time, we must remain responsive to legitimate needs and avoid using discernment as an excuse for selfishness. My guiding principle is that giving should emerge from sincere conviction and love, not from coercion or an attempt to earn God’s approval.
K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.
Nothing to add.
Session 6
What did Jesus mean when He said, “Let the dead bury their dead?” What did that mean to the original listeners? What impact might this have on your life?
When Jesus told the man to “follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead” (Matthew 8:22), I believe He emphasized that the kingdom of God must take priority over everything else in our lives. As Missler points out, we do not know whether the man’s father had already died or whether he was asking to postpone following Jesus until his father eventually passed away. Either way, Jesus was confronting the man’s priorities. In that culture, caring for one’s parents and providing a proper burial were significant family and religious obligations. Jesus’ statement was therefore particularly startling to His original listeners. I do not think He was necessarily condemning those obligations or suggesting that Christians should neglect their families. Rather, He was demonstrating that even legitimate responsibilities must remain subordinate to our commitment to Him. The spiritually dead can concern themselves exclusively with the affairs of this world, but those called into the kingdom of God must approach life from an entirely different perspective. Jesus was not simply inviting people to adopt a new religious practice. He was calling them to a fundamentally different way of living, one in which allegiance to Him takes precedence over every competing obligation.
For me, the application is that I need to maintain a proper perspective on this life and everything associated with it. It is very easy to become consumed with earthly responsibilities, family obligations, possessions, traditions, ambitions, and the endless problems that demand our attention. None of these things is necessarily wrong, but they can become obstacles when we allow them to determine the direction of our lives. Jesus makes this same point in Matthew 6:33 when He tells His disciples to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, trusting that God will provide what they need. I believe we should hold the things of this world loosely rather than becoming so attached to them that we are unwilling to follow wherever God leads. This does not mean abandoning our responsibilities or assuming that God will remove every difficulty from our lives. It means recognizing that our responsibilities are ultimately subordinate to His purposes. I have no idea what God intends to accomplish through the remainder of my life, and I do not want my attachment to earthly things to become an obstacle to what He has prepared for me. My responsibility is to remain faithful and obedient, trusting Him to provide what is necessary as I pursue the work He has placed before me.
Was the “rebuking” of the sea (Matthew 8:26) only a figure of speech? What else might be implied?
I do not believe Jesus’ rebuking of the wind and sea was merely a figure of speech, although I am not convinced that it necessarily indicates demonic activity either. In Matthew 8:23–27, Jesus and His disciples encounter a violent storm while crossing the Sea of Galilee. The disciples, several of whom were experienced fishermen familiar with those waters, become so frightened they believe they are going to die. Meanwhile, Jesus is asleep in the boat. When they awaken Him, He questions their fear and lack of faith before rebuking the winds and the sea, and the storm immediately calms. Missler suggests that the unusual severity of the storm, combined with Jesus’ use of the word rebuke, may indicate that Satan was attempting to destroy Jesus and His disciples. I can understand why he considers that possibility, particularly given the disciples’ familiarity with the Sea of Galilee and the fact that Jesus was traveling toward an encounter with demonic forces. However, the text does not explicitly identify Satan or any demonic activity as the cause of the storm. I would be hesitant to conclude that a supernatural adversary was responsible simply because Jesus rebuked the elements.
What I find more significant is that this incident demonstrates Christ’s authority over creation itself. Scripture repeatedly identifies God as the One who controls the seas, the winds, and the forces of nature (Psalm 89:8–9; 107:23–30). When Jesus commands the storm to cease, the elements respond immediately, prompting the disciples to ask, “What kind of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?” (Matthew 8:27, WEB). I think that question is the account’s central point. Matthew presents the King’s credentials, showing that Jesus possesses authority that belongs to God alone. Whether the storm arose through ordinary weather conditions or involved some form of supernatural opposition, it remained entirely subject to Christ’s authority. For me, this reminds me that God’s sovereignty extends over every aspect of creation, including circumstances that appear chaotic or threatening from our limited perspective. The disciples believed they were in danger, even though Jesus was physically present with them. Yet the storm was never beyond His control. I think this challenges me to recognize that my perception of a situation does not necessarily reflect what God is accomplishing through it. I may not understand why a particular circumstance has arisen, but I can trust that it remains subject to His authority.
In what way does Matthew seem to connect the woman with the issue of blood with the daughter of Jairus?
Matthew connects these two accounts by placing the healing of the woman with the issue of blood directly within the account of Jesus raising Jairus’ daughter from the dead (Matthew 9:18–26). Jairus approaches Jesus because his daughter is dying, or, as Matthew summarizes the situation, has already died. Jesus begins traveling to his house, but along the way a woman who has suffered from a persistent hemorrhage approaches Him from behind and touches the fringe of His garment. She believes that merely touching His clothing will heal her. Jesus acknowledges her faith, and she is immediately healed. He then continues to Jairus’ house and raises the girl from the dead. The parallel accounts in Mark 5:21–43 and Luke 8:40–56 provide additional details, including the fact that the woman had suffered from her condition for twelve years and Jairus’ daughter was twelve years old. Missler places considerable emphasis on this shared number. Although Matthew does not explicitly mention either twelve-year detail, the Gospel accounts together establish a connection between the two miracles. In both cases, Jesus responds to desperate circumstances that human efforts have been unable to resolve, demonstrating His authority over disease and death.
Missler also proposes that these events may contain a prophetic pattern involving Israel and the Gentiles. He suggests that Jairus’ daughter could represent the daughter of Zion, or Israel, while the woman with the issue of blood could represent the Gentiles who receive healing through faith. In this interpretation, Jesus is initially on His way to restore Israel, but a Gentile woman interrupts His journey and receives His blessing. Afterward, He continues to the daughter and raises her from the dead. Missler sees a possible parallel with his understanding of God’s prophetic program: Israel’s rejection of the Messiah, the extension of salvation to the Gentiles, and Israel’s eventual restoration. I find the proposed pattern interesting, particularly because Scripture uses the expression daughter of Zion to refer to Israel. However, I would not build a doctrine upon this interpretation. The text never identifies the woman as a Gentile, and Matthew does not explicitly assign prophetic significance to either miracle. Even Missler acknowledges that the connection is speculative. What I believe we can say with certainty is that both accounts demonstrate the extraordinary authority of Jesus Christ and the importance of faith in approaching Him. The woman had exhausted her resources seeking healing, while Jairus faced the death of his daughter. In both cases, Christ accomplished what no human being could.
In terms of the ancient Jewish wedding ceremony as a prophetic type, what is the next event to be expected? Why?
According to Missler, the ancient Jewish wedding ceremony provides a prophetic illustration of the relationship between Jesus Christ and the Church. He describes a sequence beginning with the establishment of a marriage covenant and the payment of a purchase price. The bride and bridegroom are then set apart for one another, although the marriage has not yet been consummated. The bridegroom returns to his father’s house to prepare a place for his bride, while the bride remains behind preparing for his eventual return. One important element in Missler’s presentation is that the bride does not know precisely when the bridegroom will return. She knows that he is coming, and her responsibility is to remain prepared. Missler connects these customs with the New Covenant established through Christ’s blood (1 Corinthians 11:25), the Church being set apart for Christ (Ephesians 5:25–27), and Jesus’ promise to prepare a place for His followers in His Father’s house (John 14:1–3). In this interpretation, Christ is the bridegroom, the Church is His bride, and His sacrificial death represents the purchase price through which the covenant was established.
If we follow Missler’s prophetic interpretation, the next expected event is the return of the bridegroom to gather His bride. He identifies this with the event described in 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17, when believers are caught up to meet Christ. This fits his understanding of the doctrine of imminence, which holds that Christ’s return for the Church could occur at any time without requiring another prophetic event to take place first. I think the wedding imagery meaningfully illustrates the relationship between Christ and His people, particularly the covenant, the preparation, and the expectation of His return. However, I would distinguish between what Scripture explicitly teaches and the details of the ancient wedding ceremony used to illustrate it. Scripture clearly teaches that Christ will return, that believers belong to Him, and that we should remain watchful and prepared (John 14:3; 1 Thessalonians 4:16–18; Matthew 24:42–44). Whether every element of Missler’s reconstructed wedding ceremony corresponds to a specific prophetic event is a separate question. For me, the practical application remains the same regardless of how those details are interpreted. Christ has established His covenant with His people, and we should live in anticipation of His return, remaining faithful to the responsibilities He has given us rather than becoming preoccupied with determining precisely when He will come.
Why do demons seek embodiment? Do you believe there is a difference between fallen angels and demons? Who were the Rephaim and why was Joshua commanded to entirely wipe out certain peoples?
I believe demons seek embodiment because they exist in a disembodied condition that is somehow contrary to their nature or desires. In Matthew 8:28–34, the demons possessing the men in the region of the Gadarenes ask Jesus to let them enter a nearby herd of pigs rather than simply be cast out. Their request suggests that inhabiting a physical host provides something they desire, although Scripture does not explicitly explain what that advantage might be. Missler proposes that demons may be the disembodied spirits of the Nephilim who perished during the Flood. According to his interpretation of Genesis 6:1–4, the sons of God were fallen angels who took human women and produced hybrid offspring known as the Nephilim. When those offspring died, their physical bodies were destroyed, but their spirits continued to exist without bodies. If this interpretation is correct, it would help explain why demons appear so determined to inhabit human beings or even animals. I find the theory plausible within Missler’s broader understanding of Genesis 6, although I recognize that Scripture does not explicitly identify demons as the spirits of the Nephilim. The account does establish that these spirits were distinct from the people they inhabited, that they sought permission to enter another host, and that they remained subject to the authority of Jesus Christ.
I also believe there may be a distinction between fallen angels and demons. Scripture presents angels as supernatural beings who serve God, carry out His purposes, and possess abilities beyond those of ordinary human beings. Some angels rebelled against God, and Missler identifies those rebellious angels with the sons of God mentioned in Genesis 6. In his interpretation, their offspring were the Nephilim, while the Rephaim were a related group of ancient giants or mighty people whose existence is associated with the populations Israel encountered in Canaan. Passages such as Deuteronomy 2:10–11, Deuteronomy 3:11–13, and Joshua 13:12 identify the Rephaim with certain ancient peoples, while Numbers 13:33 associates the Anakim with the Nephilim in the Israelite spies’ report. Missler argues that Joshua’s command to destroy certain Canaanite populations was connected to the corruption of the human gene pool through angelic interbreeding. If that interpretation is correct, it raises an obvious question: how could such descendants exist after the Flood supposedly destroyed the original Nephilim? Either some aspect of that lineage survived, or a similar event occurred after the Flood. However, I recognize that these explanations are speculative. Scripture explicitly connects the conquest of Canaan with the wickedness of its inhabitants and God’s judgment upon them (Deuteronomy 9:4–5; 18:9–12), but it does not explicitly state that Joshua was commanded to destroy these populations because of angelic genetics. I think Missler’s interpretation is worth examining, but I would not consider it established doctrine without stronger biblical support.
Can a Christian be demon possessed? Share your opinion and Scripturally defend your answer.
I would argue that a genuine Christian cannot be demon-possessed, although I recognize that Scripture does not contain a single verse that explicitly states this in those exact words. My conclusion is based on what Scripture teaches about salvation, regeneration, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. According to 1 Corinthians 6:19–20, the believer’s body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who dwells within us. Romans 8:9 teaches that anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to Him, while Ephesians 1:13–14 describes believers as sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who guarantees our inheritance. I believe these passages establish that a genuine believer belongs to God and is indwelt by His Spirit. In Colossians 1:13–14, Paul explains that God has delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of His beloved Son. If salvation involves this fundamental change in ownership, authority, and spiritual condition, I find it difficult to reconcile that with the idea that an evil spirit could simultaneously take possession of someone who belongs to Christ. Missler makes a similar argument in his lecture, emphasizing that the demons in Matthew 8 could not even enter the pigs without Christ’s permission. If demons remain subject to His authority, I see no reason to believe that He would permit them to take possession of someone whom He has redeemed and sealed with His Spirit.
However, I would distinguish between demonic possession and demonic influence, temptation, oppression, or harassment. Scripture clearly teaches that Christians remain engaged in spiritual conflict. Ephesians 6:10–18 instructs believers to put on the whole armor of God so that they can stand against the schemes of the devil. Peter warns Christians that the devil prowls around like a roaring lion seeking someone to devour (1 Peter 5:8–9), and James instructs believers to submit themselves to God and resist the devil (James 4:7). These warnings would be unnecessary if Christians were entirely immune to Satan’s influence. We can still be tempted, deceived, discouraged, and drawn toward sinful behavior. Even Peter, after confessing Jesus as the Christ, was rebuked for expressing a perspective that opposed God’s purposes (Matthew 16:21–23). Nevertheless, I believe there is a significant difference between being influenced by evil and being possessed or controlled by an evil spirit. The believer’s ultimate identity and security rest in Christ, not in the strength of his own resistance. First John 4:4 states that the One who is in us is greater than the one who is in the world. I therefore believe Christians must remain vigilant against spiritual deception and temptation, while recognizing that their salvation and ultimate security are sustained by God’s power rather than their own abilities.
K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.
Nothing to add.
Session 7
How do the instructions given to the disciples in this session compare with the instructions to us today?
In Matthew 10, Jesus instructed the twelve apostles to go specifically to the lost sheep of Israel, proclaim that the kingdom of heaven was at hand, heal the sick, cleanse lepers, raise the dead, and cast out demons. They were told not to travel into Gentile or Samaritan territories and not to make extensive material preparations for their journeys. Instead, they were to depend upon the hospitality of those who received them. Missler emphasizes that these instructions applied to a particular commission and should not automatically apply to every believer today. He also notes that some portions of the chapter seem to address circumstances beyond the apostles’ immediate mission. The commission given to the Church after Christ’s resurrection was different, particularly in its expansion beyond Israel to the nations.
I think this distinction matters because we need to understand who Scripture is addressing before applying its instructions to ourselves. Nevertheless, many of the underlying principles remain relevant. Jesus warned His disciples that following Him would involve opposition, persecution, sacrifice, and sometimes conflict within their own families. He also instructed them to remain faithful, trust God’s provision, and place their loyalty to Him above every earthly relationship. I believe those expectations still apply to believers today. We may not possess the same apostolic authority or receive the same specific instructions concerning travel and miraculous healing, but we are still called to represent Christ faithfully, proclaim His message, and remain obedient regardless of the consequences.
Was John the Baptist a fulfillment of the prophesied appearance of Elijah? Why did Jesus say he was the greatest born of woman? Who are the least in the Kingdom of Heaven?
I believe John the Baptist both was and was not the fulfillment of the promised appearance of Elijah, depending on how we understand the prophecy. Jesus explicitly identified John with the promised Elijah, but He qualified that statement by saying, “If you are willing to receive it” (Matthew 11:14). Missler argues that John could have fulfilled the prophecy had Israel received Jesus as its Messiah. However, because the nation rejected both John and Jesus, the final fulfillment remains in the future. John himself denied being Elijah when questioned (John 1:21). I believe Elijah will literally return, and I agree with Missler’s view that he is a likely candidate for one of the two witnesses described in Revelation 11. John’s ministry prepared the way for Christ’s first coming, while Elijah’s future appearance would serve God’s purposes in connection with His return.
Jesus’ statement that no one born of women was greater than John is remarkable when we consider individuals such as Abraham, Moses, and the Old Testament prophets. Missler points out that Jesus did not necessarily say John was greater than every one of them, but that none was greater than John. John occupied a unique position as the final prophet of the Old Testament era and the one who personally announced the Messiah’s arrival. Yet Jesus also said that the least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than John. Missler interprets this distinction in terms of John’s position under the Old Testament order compared with those who participate in the Kingdom through Christ. I don’t understand this to mean that John was excluded from salvation or that he lacked importance. Rather, it shows the extraordinary privilege of belonging to the Kingdom Christ came to establish.
In what two ways was Jesus “our” fulfillment of the Law? What is the Law of Christ?
Missler identifies two ways in which Jesus fulfilled the Law. First, He became the perfect sacrifice for sin, offering His own blood on our behalf and accomplishing what we could never accomplish through our own obedience. Jesus lived without sin and fulfilled the Law’s righteous requirements. When He declared, “It is finished,” His redemptive work was complete. Second, Jesus fulfilled the Law by revealing and establishing God’s will under the New Covenant. Rather than simply repeating the Mosaic commandments, He taught a standard of righteousness that reached beyond outward behavior into the thoughts, desires, and motivations of the heart. In that sense, Jesus both fulfilled the Law’s requirements on our behalf and established the expectations for those who belong to Him.
I understand the Law of Christ as the standard of life and obedience to which believers are called under the New Covenant. In many respects, I believe it is far more demanding than the Mosaic Law because it addresses not only what we do but also who we are internally. Jesus made it clear that hatred, lust, hypocrisy, and other inward attitudes matter just as much as outward conduct. However, I don’t believe we can fulfill the Law of Christ through our own strength or determination. We must surrender to God’s work within us, allowing the Holy Spirit to transform us from the inside out. Our obedience should result from that transformation rather than an attempt to earn salvation through religious performance.
List at least five “credentials” of Christ’s deity and share with us some personal applications of these.
Missler identifies several credentials of Christ’s deity demonstrated through His miracles. These include His authority over disease, nature, Satan, sin, death, darkness, and demons. Jesus healed lepers and other suffering individuals, demonstrated authority over natural forces, forgave sins, cast out demons, and raised the dead. Missler explains that Matthew selected these miracles to demonstrate that Jesus was not merely an extraordinary teacher or prophet but God Himself. I think these credentials matter because they show authority over things humans cannot ultimately control. We may develop treatments for diseases or technologies that help us manage natural conditions, but we cannot command creation, forgive sins through our own authority, or overcome death as Jesus did.
Personally, these credentials reinforce my understanding of who Jesus is and why I can trust Him. His authority over disease reminds me that our physical limitations do not limit God. His authority over nature demonstrates that the created universe remains subject to its Creator. His authority over Satan and demons reminds me that supernatural opposition is real but ultimately subordinate to Christ. His authority to forgive sins establishes that salvation depends upon Him rather than our own righteousness. Finally, His authority over death undergirds our hope of resurrection and eternal life. Together, these miracles show that Jesus has authority over every dimension of existence, so no part of my life falls outside His sovereignty.
Have you ever experienced Matthew 10:19-20? Share your experience.
Technically, I don’t believe I have experienced Matthew 10:19–20 in the specific circumstances Jesus was describing. He warned His disciples that they would be arrested and brought before governors, kings, and other authorities because of their testimony about Him. In those circumstances, He promised that the Spirit would provide what they needed to say. Missler specifically cautions against using this passage as an excuse to avoid preparing sermons or other forms of teaching. I think that distinction matters because the promise was given in the context of persecution and compulsory testimony, not as a general assurance that believers never need to prepare when speaking about their faith. I have never been arrested or placed before government authorities because of my testimony concerning Christ.
I have, however, experienced opposition and mistreatment because of my Christian faith. Some of the most difficult experiences have involved people who professed to be Christians themselves. I have encountered individuals who appeared willing to take advantage of my desire to help others or my commitment to Christian principles. These experiences have made me more aware of the difference between someone who claims to follow Christ and someone who actually demonstrates His character. Scripture repeatedly warns us about deception, false teachers, and people who use religion for their own purposes. While I cannot claim to have experienced the specific promise of Matthew 10:19–20, I do believe these experiences have taught me the importance of discernment, preparation, and remaining faithful to Christ without assuming that everyone who identifies as a Christian can be trusted.
Why has God not yet judged America?
I don’t think we can know with certainty why God has not brought a decisive national judgment upon America, or even assume that He has not already been judging the nation in various ways. Some Christians argue that America has been spared because of its historical support for Israel, but I don’t think that explanation adequately accounts for the larger biblical pattern. I believe nations rise and fall according to God’s purposes, and America is no exception. The Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans all wielded tremendous power during their respective periods, yet none retained that position indefinitely. I suspect America has served a particular purpose as a world power over the past century, but I see no biblical reason to assume that its position is permanent. Missler emphasizes that nations entrusted with great privileges also bear great responsibility, and he applies that principle directly to America’s prosperity and stewardship. I think our time as a dominant world power will eventually end, perhaps through economic collapse, military defeat, or some catastrophic disruption. I have even wondered whether an electromagnetic pulse could cripple our technological infrastructure and leave the country isolated while the rest of the world moves forward. That is speculation rather than biblical prophecy, but the larger point remains: America’s power and prosperity are temporary, and God is under no obligation to preserve them.
K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.
Nothing to add.
Session 8
Since Jesus is “Lord of the Sabbath,” should a Christian observe the Sabbath day? What pitfalls surround this issue? What is your practice?
No, I do not believe Christians are obligated to observe the Sabbath as a requirement of the Law. Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27). It was intended to be a blessing, an opportunity for rest and devotion to God, rather than a burden imposed upon us. A Christian is certainly free to observe the Sabbath, and there is nothing inherently wrong with doing so. The danger arises when someone places himself back under the Law, treating Sabbath observance as a requirement for salvation or as something that adds to Christ’s completed work. Paul addresses this directly in Romans 14:5–6, explaining that one person regards one day above another while another regards every day alike. Each should be fully convinced in his own mind. Colossians 2:16–17 likewise warns us against letting others judge us over Sabbaths and religious observances. Our salvation rests entirely upon Christ, not upon which days we choose to observe.
Personally, I have spent much of my adult life without actively celebrating religious or secular holidays, and I do not believe I have missed anything essential. I have fond memories of Christmas, but I also recognize how thoroughly many modern holidays have become commercialized and disconnected from their supposed spiritual significance. In some respects, I believe studying and observing the biblical festivals could be more spiritually beneficial than participating in our modern holiday traditions, particularly because they reveal so much about God’s redemptive plan. However, I would not make that a requirement for anyone. Missler makes an important observation that there are two potential pitfalls: becoming legalistic about the Sabbath and dismissing it so completely that we overlook an opportunity for blessing. I agree with that distinction. Christ has fulfilled the Sabbath on our behalf (Hebrews 4), and I believe we are free to set aside time for God according to our convictions, without making our personal practices a standard by which we judge other believers.
How should we deal with traditions that are not Biblically based?
I do not believe there is anything inherently wrong with traditions, festivals, or cultural practices simply because Scripture does not explicitly prescribe them. The important questions are whether they contradict biblical teaching, what motivates our participation, and how our actions affect our relationship with God and other people. Paul explains that he became all things to all people so that he might save some (1 Corinthians 9:19–23). I believe that principle allows considerable flexibility in how Christians engage with the world. For example, someone who comes from an occult background might find it spiritually dangerous to participate in certain activities associated with that former life. Another Christian, firmly established in his faith, might be able to enter the same environment to witness to people he once associated with. The activity itself, the individual’s spiritual maturity, and the purpose behind his participation all need to be considered.
However, we must also exercise Christian liberty with love and consideration for others. Paul warns against using our freedom in ways that become stumbling blocks to fellow believers (Romans 14:13–23; 1 Corinthians 8:9). If someone felt called to witness at a gathering associated with Wicca, for example, I would not automatically condemn that decision. But I would encourage him to consider whether his participation might be misunderstood as an endorsement of occult practices, whether it presents a genuine temptation, and how he could explain his intentions to concerned believers. At the same time, I do not believe another Christian’s discomfort automatically makes an otherwise permissible action sinful. We have to distinguish between genuinely encouraging someone to violate his conscience and merely doing something another person disapproves of. Ultimately, I believe we should examine traditions against Scripture rather than accept or reject them simply because they are traditional. As Missler suggests, we should be willing to question inherited practices, but ground our conclusions in God’s Word rather than personal preference.
What are some examples of observations of the Sabbath before Exodus 20?
The first example appears in Genesis 2:2–3, where God rested from His work of creation on the seventh day, blessed that day, and sanctified it. This occurred long before Israel’s establishment or the giving of the Mosaic Law. Although Genesis does not explicitly describe Adam and Eve observing a weekly Sabbath, it establishes the seventh day as something God Himself set apart. This matters because it suggests the Sabbath’s underlying principle predates Israel’s covenant. Missler emphasizes this distinction in the lecture, arguing that Exodus 20 does not introduce the seventh day for the first time but calls Israel to remember what God had already established.
A more direct example appears in Exodus 16, when God provided manna to the Israelites before the giving of the Ten Commandments. They were instructed to gather manna for six days, collecting a double portion on the sixth day because there would be none available on the seventh. Exodus 16:23 specifically identifies that day as a Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord. This demonstrates that Israel was already being instructed to observe the Sabbath before the commandment was formally given in Exodus 20. I find this distinction interesting because it raises the question of how much of God’s instruction was known before the Law was codified through Moses. Nevertheless, I would distinguish between God sanctifying the seventh day at creation and the specific covenant obligations subsequently given to Israel.
What is the ministry of the Holy Spirit? What is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?
The ministry of the Holy Spirit includes convicting the world concerning sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:8–11), drawing attention to our need for Christ, and glorifying Jesus rather than Himself (John 16:13–14). For believers, the Holy Spirit also indwells us, seals us until the day of redemption, guides us into truth, and works within us to produce spiritual fruit (Ephesians 1:13–14; 4:30; Galatians 5:22–23). I believe His work is essential from the very beginning of our relationship with God. We do not simply reason our way into salvation through intellectual persuasion. God must act upon the individual, revealing the truth and bringing about the transformation necessary for someone to come to Christ. Once we belong to Him, the Spirit continues His work of sanctification, teaching, correcting, and preserving us as we await our final redemption.
The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is harder to define, but Matthew 12’s immediate context matters. Jesus had performed a miraculous deliverance through the power of the Spirit, and the Pharisees deliberately attributed that work to Satan. Jesus responded by warning them about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:22–32). I understand this as a willful rejection of the Spirit’s testimony about Christ, especially when someone recognizes or encounters evidence of God’s work and deliberately attributes it to evil. I would distinguish this from ordinary doubt, ignorance, or a believer struggling with sin. Missler emphasizes that the Holy Spirit convicts us of our need for a Savior, and that someone genuinely troubled about having committed this sin shows concern that should not be confused with the hardened rejection Jesus confronted. Ultimately, if someone persistently rejects the Spirit’s testimony concerning Christ, he is rejecting the very means through which God brings him to salvation.
What is the difference between conviction and condemnation?
I have generally understood conviction as God impressing upon someone the necessity of a particular action, whether that involves repentance, obedience, or responding to His calling. However, Missler makes an important distinction in this lecture between the conviction the Holy Spirit produces and the condemnation associated with sin. The Holy Spirit exposes our sin and directs us toward Christ, while Satan seeks to use our failures to convince us that we are hopeless, unforgivable, or beyond redemption. The difference is not necessarily how unpleasant the experience feels, because genuine conviction can be deeply painful. Rather, conviction leads us toward repentance, forgiveness, and restoration, while destructive accusation drives us toward despair and away from God. Romans 8:1 states that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. This does not mean that God never corrects or disciplines His children, but that Christ has already borne the judgment against their sins. I would also distinguish this from the final condemnation of those who remain outside Christ, which Scripture presents as a genuine judgment rather than merely a feeling of guilt. For me, the practical question is whether my awareness of sin is leading me to confess it and draw closer to Christ or whether I am allowing guilt to convince me that His sacrifice was somehow insufficient.
What is the lesson found in Matthew 12:43-45?
I believe the central lesson is that neutrality in the spiritual life is impossible. Jesus describes an unclean spirit leaving a man and later returning to find his former dwelling empty, swept, and put in order. The spirit then brings seven others more wicked than himself, leaving the man’s final condition worse than before. The important detail, in my opinion, is that the house is empty. Something evil has been removed, but nothing has taken its place. Simply removing sinful habits, abandoning false beliefs, or escaping an evil influence is not the same as being transformed by God. A person might outwardly reform his life without ever surrendering himself to Christ. Missler applies this specifically to deliverance from demonic influence, emphasizing that removing the evil influence must be accompanied by a genuine commitment to Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit’s indwelling.
I also think we need to recognize the immediate context of Jesus’ warning. He concludes by saying that the same thing will happen to “this evil generation” (Matthew 12:45). He is addressing a generation that has witnessed His miracles, heard His teaching, and nevertheless rejected Him. In that sense, the passage is not merely a general lesson about personal habits or demonic possession; it is also a warning about the consequences of rejecting God’s revelation. A significant difference exists between outward religious reform and genuine spiritual regeneration. We cannot simply clean up our lives and assume that makes us righteous. We need Christ Himself. The answer is not to fill our lives with enough religious activity to keep evil away, but to surrender ourselves to God and allow His Spirit to accomplish the transformation that we cannot produce on our own.
This is what occurred for me when I was 17, and I sat alone in that hospital room, a Gideon Bible in my hand, and my fiance laying asleep in the hospital bed. I read 2 Peter 2 and after I was finished, that which was wrong in me, that which was false—my belief in Buddhism as the right and noble path—it was stripped from me. But if nothing had taken its place, when I tried to go back (and I tried many times to go back to Buddhism), it would have been easy to just pick up where I had left off. But when I tried to return, something else was there in that space; God was there; he had inhabited what had been vacated. And so, there was no place for those false doctrines to return to.
K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.
Nothing to add.
Session 9
What is a parable and why does Jesus use them? Which is your favorite parable? Why?
A parable is a story or illustration that communicates a deeper truth. The Greek word parabolē (παραβολή) conveys the idea of placing one thing alongside another for comparison. However, I do not believe Jesus used parables simply to make difficult spiritual concepts easier for everyone to understand. Matthew 13:10–17 reveals a more complex purpose. Jesus explicitly states that He gave the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven to His disciples to understand, but not to others. His parables simultaneously revealed truth to those whom the Father had enabled to receive it and concealed that truth from those who remained spiritually blind. This is consistent with my understanding of divine election and the necessity of the Father’s drawing in John 6:44. Spiritual understanding is not ultimately the product of human intelligence or effort but of God’s revelation.
I do not have a particular favorite parable, although I am especially interested in the account of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19–31. Strictly speaking, the passage is not explicitly identified as a parable, and I believe its significance extends considerably beyond a conventional moral lesson about wealth and poverty. I find it particularly relevant to biblical anthropology and personal eschatology because it describes conscious existence after physical death, a distinction between the righteous and unrighteous dead, and an irreversible separation between their conditions. These details shape my understanding of the intermediate state and human existence between physical death and the final resurrection. Whether Jesus intended the account as a literal description or a story employing recognizable imagery, I believe its theological implications deserve serious examination.
When the Lord gives you some truth, what should you do with it? What happens if you just sit on it?
When God reveals something to us through His Word, I believe our responsibility is first to receive it, examine it, and allow it to transform our understanding and conduct. We should study the truth thoroughly, test our interpretations against the whole counsel of Scripture, and become increasingly competent in handling what we have learned. Matthew 13:12 suggests that those who receive spiritual understanding are entrusted with more, while those who do not genuinely receive it lose even what they appear to possess. Truth is not something we should accumulate merely for intellectual satisfaction. It should produce spiritual maturity, greater discernment, and obedience to whatever God has called us to do. When opportunities arise to communicate that truth to others, we should be prepared to do so faithfully.
However, I reject the assumption that receiving biblical truth automatically obligates every Christian to engage in the same prescribed forms of public evangelism. Modern evangelical culture frequently attempts to impose a uniform model of Christian service, insisting that everyone must approach neighbors, evangelize family members, or bring people into church programs. I do not believe Scripture requires every believer to exercise the same gifts or fulfill the same ministries. First Corinthians 12 describes a body with different members performing different functions. Sitting on the truth becomes a problem when it reflects disobedience, indifference, or a refusal to respond to God’s direction. It does not necessarily mean that a person is being unfaithful simply because he is not publicly proclaiming everything he has learned. My responsibility is to steward what God has entrusted to me and use it according to His calling, not the expectations of a religious institution.
What does it mean to you to be a child of the light? What are the advantages?
To be a child of the light means that I no longer belong to the spiritual darkness from which God called me. Jesus identifies Himself as the light of the world in John 8:12, while Ephesians 5:8 describes believers as those who were once darkness but are now light in the Lord. This is not merely a change in moral behavior or religious affiliation. It is a fundamental transformation of spiritual identity. We have been brought into the revelation of Jesus Christ: what He accomplished through His death and resurrection, what He is accomplishing through His Church, and what He will accomplish when He returns. I believe this transformation begins with God’s initiative. Those who have been drawn, called, and sanctified belong to Christ because God has acted upon them, not because they independently discovered spiritual truth.
The advantages of belonging to the light are extraordinary. We have been granted access to God’s mysteries that were previously concealed, including the mystery of the Church as the Body of Christ. Ephesians 3:4–6 explains that Gentiles have become fellow heirs and members of the same body through the gospel. This means we participate in God’s eternal purpose to gather a people for Himself from among the nations. We have the indwelling Holy Spirit, the assurance of belonging to Christ, and the expectation of resurrection and eternal life. We also have the Scriptures, through which God continues to instruct and sanctify us. These privileges should produce humility rather than superiority, because none of them originated in our own merit. They result from God’s grace and His eternal purpose.
How can you distinguish between the wheat and the tares?
The first requirement for distinguishing between wheat and tares is becoming intimately familiar with the genuine article. In Matthew 13:24–30 and 36–43, Jesus explains that the good seed represents the sons of the Kingdom, while the tares represent the sons of the evil one. The enemy deliberately introduces counterfeit plants among the genuine crop. I believe the same principle operates within Christianity today. Religious institutions, traditions, and individuals can adopt the language and outward appearance of Christianity without possessing its spiritual reality. Scripture is the only reliable standard for evaluating their teachings. We must become sufficiently familiar with biblical truth that departures from it become easier to recognize. This requires sustained study, careful interpretation, and a willingness to reject even longstanding religious traditions when they contradict God’s Word.
However, Jesus also introduces an important limitation: the servants are instructed not to uproot the tares prematurely because doing so might damage the wheat. The Son of Man and His angels perform the final separation at the end of the age. Consequently, although Christians are commanded to exercise discernment, test teachings, and examine spiritual fruit, we are not granted infallible knowledge of another person’s eternal condition. I can evaluate whether someone’s doctrine or conduct agrees with Scripture, but I cannot see the heart as God does. This distinction matters because discernment can become another form of religious arrogance when we confuse our ability to identify error with God’s authority to pronounce final judgment. Our responsibility is to remain faithful to the truth while leaving the ultimate separation to Christ.
Why does Jesus use a pearl as an illustration? What lessons can we learn from this teaching?
In Matthew 13:45–46, Jesus compares the Kingdom of Heaven to a merchant seeking beautiful pearls who discovers one pearl of extraordinary value and sells everything to purchase it. Pearls were valuable commodities in the ancient world, making the illustration immediately understandable to His audience. At the simplest level, the parable communicates the Kingdom’s incomparable worth. However, Missler develops a more specific interpretation by distinguishing the pearl from the treasure hidden in the preceding parable. He identifies the pearl with the Church, which Christ purchased at tremendous cost. This interpretation fits his broader understanding of the mysteries of the Kingdom and the distinction between Israel and the Church. It is an interesting theological reading, although Jesus does not explicitly identify the pearl in His explanation.
I find the emphasis on value particularly significant. Whether the pearl represents the Kingdom’s incomparable worth or, more specifically, the Church as Christ’s purchased possession, the central issue is its extraordinary price. If Christ is the merchant, then the sacrifice is His, not ours. Ephesians 5:25 states that Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for her, while 1 Peter 1:18–19 describes our redemption through His precious blood. This interpretation places the emphasis where I believe it belongs: upon the completed work of Christ rather than upon human achievement. The Church’s value is not derived from its institutional success, numerical growth, or cultural influence. Its value rests in the fact that Christ loved it and purchased it through His sacrifice.
How are we seeing the example of Pergamos and the parable of the Mustard Seed in our world today?
Missler connects the parable of the mustard seed in Matthew 13:31–32 with the church at Pergamos in Revelation 2:12–17. His interpretation differs from the common understanding that the mustard seed simply illustrates the remarkable growth of God’s Kingdom. He emphasizes that mustard is normally an herb rather than a large tree and that the birds lodging in its branches should be considered in light of the birds in the parable of the sower, where Jesus identifies them with the wicked one. Under this interpretation, the mustard plant’s unusual growth represents an institutional expansion that creates opportunities for corruption. Pergamos illustrates this development because Missler associates it with the period when Christianity became increasingly entangled with Roman political power. His description of Pergamos as the church married to the world emphasizes the danger of religious authority becoming dependent upon secular influence.
I believe this pattern remains visible in contemporary Christianity. Churches frequently measure success through attendance, buildings, financial resources, institutional reputation, and political influence rather than biblical faithfulness or spiritual maturity. Religious organizations can become so concerned with maintaining their position in society that they compromise the very doctrines they were established to proclaim. I am particularly concerned when institutional preservation becomes more important than truth, accountability, or genuine Christian fellowship. Nevertheless, I would distinguish Missler’s prophetic interpretation from the text’s explicit meaning. The mustard seed can also be understood as illustrating the Kingdom’s growth from seemingly insignificant beginnings. What I find useful in Missler’s interpretation is the warning that numerical expansion and institutional influence are not necessarily evidence of spiritual health. A church can look impressive on the outside while allowing serious corruption to flourish within it.
K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.
Nothing to add.
Session 10
How does modern Judaism compare with Mosaic Judaism (the Torah)?
Mosaic Judaism was rooted in the Torah itself: the commandments God gave through Moses, the priesthood, sacrifice, covenant, and the written Word. What Jesus confronts in Matthew 15 is not the Torah itself, but religious tradition being elevated above God’s command. The issue was not handwashing as a hygiene practice, but the tradition of elders being treated as a binding authority.
Modern Judaism is not simply Mosaic Judaism continued. After the temple was destroyed, Judaism could no longer function around temple sacrifice, priesthood, and altar. It became increasingly shaped by rabbinic interpretation, Mishnah, Talmud, and later traditions. The danger Jesus exposes is still relevant: any religious system can begin with God’s Word and then slowly replace it with human commentary, custom, and inherited tradition.
What are some of the lessons we can learn from John the Baptist’s ministry?
John the Baptist teaches me that faithfulness does not always lead to safety, popularity, or a ministry outcome I would choose for myself. He preached what God gave him to preach, even when it confronted political and sexual sin directly. He did not soften the truth because Herod was powerful or because Herodias would hate him for it.
His ministry also reminds me that the servant is not greater than the Master. John understood, “He must increase, but I must decrease.” That is easy to say when the ministry is growing, but harder when obedience leads to prison, obscurity, or death. The lesson is that ministry is not measured by whether I get the ending I wanted. It is measured by whether I obeyed God with what He gave me.
What lessons are to be learned in regards to Peter’s experience with Jesus on the Sea of Galilee?
Peter’s experience shows that faith is not abstract. He actually stepped out of the boat and walked toward Jesus. As long as his attention remained fixed on Christ, he was sustained in a situation that was naturally impossible. But when he looked at the wind and the danger around him, fear took over, and he began to sink.
The application is direct. I am not called to deny the storm exists, but I am called to keep Christ central in the middle of it. The moment my circumstances become larger in my mind than Christ Himself, I begin to sink. Peter’s cry, “Lord, save me,” is also important because Jesus responded immediately. Weak faith is still real faith when it turns toward Him.
Why should we be like the “clean animals” and chew the cud?
The clean animals chewed the cud, and the point being drawn from that is meditation. Scripture is not meant to be swallowed quickly and forgotten. It is meant to be worked over, returned to, digested, and brought back up again until it becomes part of us.
That matters because familiar passages are often the easiest ones to read too quickly. I can assume I already know the feeding of the five thousand, Peter walking on the water, or the confrontation over handwashing, and miss the deeper issue. To “chew the cud” is to slow down and ask what the text is really doing, not just what I remember from hearing it before.
What is the Kaballah? What is it attempting to do? What does Chuck mean when he states that the Kaballah attempts to uncover the Father’s nakedness?
The Kabbalah is the mystical stream within Judaism, especially associated with later attempts to penetrate the hidden meanings of God, creation, and ultimate reality. In the session, it was treated as a later development that moved beyond Mosaic Judaism and even beyond rabbinic tradition into speculative mysticism.
When Missler says the Kaballah attempts to uncover the Father’s nakedness, he means it tries to peer into what God has not authorized man to expose. That is different from reverently studying what God has revealed. It is one thing to search the Scriptures diligently. It is another thing to pry into the hidden mechanics of the Godhead as though God were a system to be decoded rather than the Lord to be obeyed and worshiped.
I personally do not agree that speculation or extrapolation is necessarily wrong, or that we are to restrict ourselves to learning or assessing general or special revelation. I think God gave some a mind that seeks out the outer things, the mysteries, the dark sayings (such as Daniel or Solomon), and it is not so much what we seek as what we do with it once we have found it (Prov 25:2).
What are the ramifications of Matthew 15:13? What personal application can you make?
Matthew 15:13 says, “Every plant which my heavenly Father didn’t plant will be uprooted.” The implication is severe. Religious activity is not automatically legitimate simply because it is old, respected, popular, or associated with sincere people. If the Father did not plant it, it will not last. That applies to false teaching, human tradition, religious systems, and even personal ambitions dressed up as ministry.
Personally, this forces me to ask whether what I am building is actually from God or merely something I want God to bless. If he planted it, it will endure. If he did not, it would eventually be pulled up. That connects with Romans 8:28–30, Psalm 139:16, and Ephesians 2:10: God’s work is prepared beforehand, rooted in His will, and carried through by His power. My job is not to manufacture spiritual importance, but to discern where He is actually working and obey there.
K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.
Nothing to add.
Session 11
Defend the statement that the Book of Matthew was written to the Jews.
I believe the Gospel of Matthew was written for a distinctly Jewish audience, though I would distinguish its original audience from its later readership. Matthew presents Jesus as Israel’s promised Messiah and repeatedly demonstrates how His life and ministry fulfill the Hebrew Scriptures. The genealogy begins with Abraham and David, establishing Jesus’ relationship to the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants. Matthew frequently uses fulfillment formulas, connecting specific events in Jesus’ life with Old Testament passages. He also emphasizes the Kingdom of Heaven, the Law of Moses, Israel’s religious leadership, and Jesus’ relationship to the promises made to the Jewish people. These characteristics strongly support the conclusion that Matthew was addressing readers familiar with Jewish history, expectations, and religious traditions.
However, I would not argue that Matthew belongs exclusively to the Jewish people or that its relevance is limited to its original audience. The Church has received and studied Matthew throughout its history, and the Gospel concludes with Jesus commanding His disciples to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19–20). Its distinctly Jewish presentation does not prevent it from communicating universal truth. In fact, understanding Matthew’s Jewish context helps Gentile Christians recognize that Christianity did not emerge independently of Israel but developed through the fulfillment of God’s promises to His covenant people. I would therefore say that Matthew was originally directed toward a Jewish audience, but its message was always intended to extend beyond that audience. Its place within the Christian canon makes it Scripture for the entire Church.
Who were the Pharisees and the Sadducees in the time of Jesus? What were their beliefs? Who would they be in today’s world?
The Pharisees and Sadducees were influential Jewish religious groups during the Second Temple period, but they differed considerably in their theological positions. The Pharisees emphasized strict observance of the Law and the traditions that had developed around it. They accepted the resurrection of the dead and believed in angels and spirits, as Acts 23:8 indicates. Their problem was not simply that they valued obedience but that many elevated human traditions and outward religious performance above the actual intentions of God’s Law. Jesus repeatedly confronted their hypocrisy and their tendency to burden others with religious requirements. The Sadducees, by contrast, were associated with the priestly establishment and rejected the resurrection and the existence of angels or spirits. They were more closely connected to the religious and political structures that governed Jewish society.
In contemporary Christianity, I would compare the Pharisees to religious legalists who attempt to establish righteousness through external conformity, denominational rules, and human traditions. They may possess considerable biblical knowledge while failing to understand the grace and mercy at the center of the gospel. The Sadducees resemble theological liberals who retain the language and institutions of Christianity while rejecting its supernatural foundations. These comparisons are not exact historical equivalents, but they illustrate two recurring errors. One group attempts to supplement God’s revelation with human religious requirements, while the other diminishes revelation by rejecting what it finds intellectually or culturally unacceptable. Both approaches ultimately subordinate Scripture to something outside Scripture, whether religious tradition or contemporary human reasoning.
What is expositional constancy? Give a few examples.
Expositional constancy is a principle of biblical interpretation emphasized by Missler in which symbols, figures, and idioms tend to retain consistent meanings throughout Scripture. The premise is that because the Bible has a unified divine author, recurring imagery can clue us into the interpretation of passages elsewhere. For example, leaven frequently can symbolize corruption or the permeating influence of evil, as seen in the Passover instructions, Jesus’ warning about the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees in Matthew 16:6–12, and Paul’s discussion of leaven in 1 Corinthians 5:6–8. Another example is the serpent, which is associated with deception and Satan in Genesis 3 and Revelation 12:9. The consistency of these images can help readers recognize relationships between passages that might otherwise appear unrelated.
I find this principle useful because it encourages us to interpret Scripture through Scripture rather than through arbitrary symbolism or contemporary assumptions. However, I would not treat expositional constancy as an inflexible rule. Biblical imagery can apply differently depending on its context. For example, leaven is used positively in Matthew 13:33 under a common interpretation of the parable, although Missler argues for a negative meaning consistent with his broader symbolic framework. Likewise, a lion can represent Christ in Revelation 5:5 and the devil in 1 Peter 5:8. Consequently, recurring symbols should guide interpretation without replacing grammatical, historical, and literary context. I believe the principle is most valuable when it identifies genuine patterns across Scripture while remaining subject to careful examination of each passage.
Jesus said the Gates of Hell will not stand up against the onslaught of the Church. List some of the victories you have participated in.
In Matthew 16:18, Jesus declares that He will build His Church and that the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. The Greek word Hadēs (ᾅδης) refers to the realm of the dead, making the statement broader than a conventional picture of Christians attacking the forces of hell. I understand Jesus to be declaring that neither death nor the powers opposing God’s purposes can ultimately prevent Him from accomplishing what He has determined to do through His Church. This is especially significant because the promise is not that individual Christians or religious institutions will always succeed. The promise is that Christ Himself will build His Church and that His work cannot ultimately be defeated. Our participation in that work therefore depends on His initiative and power rather than our organizational abilities or personal accomplishments.
One of the most significant victories in my life has been God calling me out of an extended period of isolation and preparation and placing me into a vocation that offers opportunities for ministry. For many years, I devoted considerable time to studying Scripture, often with limited involvement in the wider world. I now find myself interacting with readers who do not necessarily identify as Christians but who are willing to discuss the spiritual and philosophical questions underlying the stories I write. My fiction explores broken people, suffering, moral responsibility, and the consequences of human choices. These stories have created opportunities for conversations that might never occur in a conventional church setting. I do not measure these experiences by the number of conversions or visible religious outcomes. I see them as evidence that God can use the abilities and circumstances He has given me to accomplish purposes beyond my immediate understanding.
Why couldn’t the disciples handle the demoniac? Describe your prayer life? Have you ever fasted? Give us some details.
In Matthew 17:14–21, the disciples are unable to deliver a boy suffering from severe affliction, while Jesus successfully rebukes the demon. When they ask why they failed, Jesus identifies their lack of faith as the central issue. Some manuscripts also say that this kind does not go out except through prayer and fasting. Mark 9:29 contains a closely related statement emphasizing prayer, with some manuscript traditions including fasting. I understand the lesson to be that spiritual authority does not operate independently of dependence upon God. The disciples had previously been given authority over unclean spirits, but that authority was never intended to function as an autonomous ability. Their failure showed the danger of relying on past experience or personal confidence rather than continually depending on God.
My own prayer life is sporadic, and I do not consider myself particularly disciplined in maintaining a formal prayer schedule. I pray when circumstances arise, when I am struggling, when I need guidance, and when I recognize God’s provision in my life. I have fasted before, but not as a specifically Christian spiritual discipline. My experience with fasting was connected to my black belt training in Kenpo. I do not believe fasting should become another religious requirement imposed upon Christians without biblical justification. If God convicts someone to fast, that person should respond faithfully, but I reject the assumption that a prescribed fasting routine automatically produces greater spiritual authority. I believe the essential issue in the disciples’ failure was their dependence upon God, not the absence of a particular religious technique.
What do the Transfiguration and Revelation have in common? Who do you believe the two witnesses are in Revelation? Defend your answer.
The Transfiguration in Matthew 17:1–9 offers a remarkable glimpse of Christ’s glory and His role in fulfilling God’s redemptive purposes. Jesus appears in radiant glory, accompanied by Moses and Elijah, while the Father identifies Him as His beloved Son. Missler connects this event with the prophetic visions of Revelation, particularly the glorified Christ and the two witnesses of Revelation 11. I believe the Transfiguration anticipates the future manifestation of Christ’s Kingdom and the restoration that will accompany His return. It shows that Christ’s glory is not something He will acquire in the future, but something inherent in His identity that was temporarily revealed to the disciples. Moses and Elijah also connect the event to the Law and the Prophets, both of which find their fulfillment in Christ.
Regarding the two witnesses in Revelation 11, I believe Elijah is a strong candidate because Malachi 4:5–6 prophesies his coming before the great and terrible day of the Lord. The identity of the second witness is less certain. Moses is a plausible candidate because the witnesses perform miracles resembling those associated with Moses and Elijah, including turning water to blood and withholding rain. However, I lean toward Enoch and Elijah because both were taken by God without experiencing ordinary physical death, as described in Genesis 5:24 and 2 Kings 2:11. Some interpreters connect this distinction with Hebrews 9:27, although that verse does not explicitly require Enoch and Elijah to return and die. I recognize that Revelation does not identify the witnesses by name, so either proposal remains speculative. My preference is Enoch and Elijah, but I would not insist upon that identification as established doctrine.
K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.
Nothing to add.
Session 12
What is a “remez”? Give an example.
A remez (רֶמֶז) is a Hebrew term meaning a hint or allusion. In traditional Jewish interpretation, it refers to a level of meaning a passage suggests beyond its immediate or straightforward sense. I understand it as a way to recognize relationships within Scripture that may not have been apparent in the original historical context. A particularly interesting example is Matthew 2:15, where Matthew applies Hosea 11:1 to Jesus’ return from Egypt: “Out of Egypt I called my son.” In its original context, Hosea is clearly referring to Israel’s deliverance from Egypt, not explicitly predicting a future event in the Messiah’s childhood. Yet Matthew identifies the event in Jesus’ life as fulfilling that passage. The connection is not based upon the original verse being a straightforward prediction of Jesus’ journey. Rather, Matthew recognizes a deeper correspondence between Israel, God’s son, and Jesus, the Son who fulfills Israel’s calling.
I find this particularly important because it demonstrates that the New Testament authors sometimes interpret the Old Testament through patterns, correspondences, and theological relationships that extend beyond a passage’s immediate historical meaning. Sometimes they use none of these things and rely solely on special revelation. For this reason, I distinguish an inspired apostle’s interpretation from our own attempts to discover hidden meanings. Matthew’s application of Hosea carries scriptural authority because it is part of inspired Scripture. My personal interpretation of an Old Testament passage does not possess that same authority. Consequently, while I believe the remez approach can illuminate relationships within God’s revelation, it can also become an excuse for reading virtually anything into a passage if it is not carefully controlled. I want to recognize Scripture’s depth and unity without abandoning the original author’s meaning or inventing connections the text cannot reasonably support.
Who is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven? How does this teaching compare to your culture’s morals? When you think of a true servant, who comes to your mind? Give us both a biblical example as well as a modern day one.
In Matthew 18:1–4, the disciples ask Jesus who is greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. Rather than identifying the most accomplished or influential disciple, Jesus places a child before them and teaches that they must be converted and become like little children. The person who humbles himself like that child is greatest in the Kingdom. This directly contradicts contemporary cultural values, which often measure greatness by wealth, celebrity, professional success, influence, and personal achievement. Even within Christianity, churches sometimes elevate people because of their financial contributions, public visibility, or institutional positions. Jesus instead identifies humility and dependence as characteristics of genuine greatness. The greatest biblical example is Christ Himself, who came not to be served but to serve and give His life as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28). Joseph also provides a compelling example through his willingness to endure suffering and ultimately preserve the lives of those who had betrayed him.
A contemporary example that has caught my attention is a man at the church my family has recently begun attending. Almost every time I see him, he is serving in some capacity. He provides security during worship services, waits tables at men’s breakfasts, and seems willing to do whatever work is necessary without seeking attention. He served as a deacon for many years and was recently elected as an elder with unanimous support. From what I have learned, he has a longstanding reputation as a Christian and is also a business owner. I do not know him well enough to make definitive judgments about his character, but his consistent willingness to serve has impressed me. What interests me is not his new position as an elder but the pattern of service that preceded it. That seems much closer to the kind of greatness Jesus describes than the pursuit of recognition or authority.
Define gnosticism. Discuss and give examples of the gnostic gospels and why they are or are not valid.
Gnosticism refers to a collection of religious and philosophical movements that emphasized salvation or spiritual liberation through special knowledge. The term derives from the Greek gnōsis (γνῶσις), meaning knowledge. Although Gnosticism was not a single unified religion, many of its expressions combined elements of Greek philosophy, speculative cosmology, and Christian terminology. Some taught that the material world was fundamentally corrupt and that liberation required discovering hidden truths about one’s divine origin. This contrasts sharply with biblical Christianity, which teaches that salvation comes through the person and completed work of Jesus Christ rather than through access to secret spiritual information. Gnostic writings such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, and the Gospel of Judas reflect theological traditions that differ significantly from the canonical Gospels. Their claims to spiritual authority do not establish that they originated with the apostles whose names they invoke.
I do not accept these writings as valid alternatives to the canonical Gospels because their theological content, historical development, and claims of authority do not provide a convincing basis for treating them as apostolic Scripture. The canonical Gospels are rooted in the earliest Christian testimony about Jesus, while the surviving Gnostic gospel traditions generally reflect later theological developments. I also find the underlying worldview interesting because it still appears in contemporary spirituality, where Christian language is combined with occult practices, esoteric knowledge, and claims to hidden enlightenment. I have explored a fictionalized version of this phenomenon in my novel Our Daughter, which depicts modern Gnostics who practice witchcraft while describing their spiritual pursuits as “the light.” I intend to expand that story into a trilogy. The central issue, both historically and in its modern expressions, is the replacement of the biblical gospel with a system in which spiritual salvation or advancement depends upon discovering knowledge unavailable to ordinary believers.
Read Colossians 2:8 and 2 Timothy 4:3. Where do we see these passages in our world today?
Colossians 2:8 warns believers against being taken captive through philosophy and empty deceit according to human tradition rather than Christ. Second Timothy 4:3 warns of a time when people will refuse to endure sound doctrine and instead accumulate teachers who satisfy their own desires. I believe both passages describe tendencies that are increasingly visible in contemporary culture. Many people are dismissive of biblical Christianity while remaining remarkably receptive to alternative spiritualities, speculative philosophies, and teachings that promise personal fulfillment without repentance or accountability before God. People will embrace almost any worldview that affirms individual desires, as long as it does not require submission to the authority of Scripture. The result is a culture that frequently celebrates spiritual exploration while treating the exclusive claims of Christ as offensive or intellectually unacceptable.
However, I do not believe these warnings apply only to unbelievers or to the secular world. They are equally relevant within contemporary Christianity. Churches can become captive to cultural expectations, political movements, therapeutic philosophies, institutional traditions, or popular religious personalities. Congregations may prefer teachers who reassure them rather than confront their assumptions with Scripture. I have become increasingly concerned about the tendency to substitute religious programming and institutional loyalty for genuine biblical discipleship. The solution is not simply to reject everything outside Christianity but to evaluate every claim against God’s Word. Acts 17:11 provides the model I believe Christians should follow: receiving teaching with openness while examining Scripture to determine whether what is being taught is true. No pastor, denomination, ministry, or theological tradition should be exempt from that examination.
What do the Scriptures teach about angels? Have you had any encounters that may have been with an angel unaware?
Scripture presents angels as supernatural beings who exist within the created order but are distinct from humanity. They serve as messengers, ministers, and agents through whom God accomplishes various purposes. Hebrews 1:14 describes them as ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation. They appear throughout both Testaments, sometimes delivering messages, protecting individuals, executing judgment, or participating in events associated with God’s heavenly court. We know relatively little about their precise nature, origin, or ultimate destiny beyond what Scripture reveals. Genesis 6:1–4, Jude 6, and 2 Peter 2:4 also raise important questions concerning angelic rebellion and judgment. I understand the sons of God in Genesis 6 as angelic beings, although I recognize that this interpretation is now disputed, even though it was the prevailing view in the early church. Scripture also identifies Satan as an angel and an opponent of God, demonstrating that not all angelic beings remained faithful to their Creator.
Jesus teaches in Luke 20:34–36 that those who participate in the resurrection will be like the angels in certain respects and can no longer die. I understand this as describing aspects of our transformed existence rather than teaching that redeemed human beings literally become angels (But I also view the term “angel” as a catch-all descriptor and not an identity). Our ultimate destiny is resurrection and participation in the Kingdom of God, where we will serve Christ in the restored creation. As for personal experiences, I cannot identify any event in my life that I would confidently attribute to an angelic encounter. Hebrews 13:2 reminds believers that some have entertained angels without realizing it, so I cannot rule out the possibility that something occurred without my knowledge. However, I have never experienced an event that I could reasonably identify as a supernatural visitation. I prefer to acknowledge what I do not know rather than reinterpret ordinary experiences as miraculous simply because such an explanation would be interesting.
Are children saved? Defend you answers biblically.
I do not believe Scripture establishes an automatic salvation that applies to every child simply because of age or innocence. Salvation is God’s work, accomplished through Jesus Christ, and Scripture consistently identifies faith in Christ as the means by which we receive it. John 6:44 teaches that no one can come to Christ unless the Father draws him, while Romans 10:9–17 connects salvation with faith, confession, and hearing the message of Christ. I believe these principles apply universally, though applying them to infants and children who have not developed the capacity to understand or respond to the gospel raises questions that Scripture does not explicitly resolve. Jesus’ teaching about children in Matthew 18:1–14 demonstrates their importance to God and warns against despising or causing them to stumble. However, I do not believe these passages establish that every child is automatically regenerated or guaranteed eternal life regardless of his relationship to Christ.
Ultimately, I believe the eternal destiny of children who die before they can understand or respond to the gospel rests entirely in God’s sovereign judgment. I would not presume to declare them saved without biblical warrant, but neither would I presume to declare them condemned when Scripture does not explicitly settle their individual cases. This distinction matters because God is perfectly just, merciful, and fully acquainted with circumstances that human beings cannot evaluate. I believe the Father knows those who belong to Him, including those whose lives end before they can make an outward profession of faith. My responsibility is to teach the children entrusted to me the Scriptures, introduce them to the person and work of Jesus Christ, and pray that God will draw them to Himself. I cannot manufacture their salvation through religious instruction, emotional persuasion, or a prescribed ceremony. God must ultimately accomplish it.
K-W-L Self Assessment: L- Describe what you LEARNED from this session.
Nothing to Add.
Conclusions
Just finished the first part of Matthew. On to the next course in Matthew, and I should finish the other two first parts of the Synoptics this week or next. The gospels have always been a struggle for me, and this time around is showing no different. But I press on, hoping to grasp the full message the four books bring.
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?