1 Samuel 3:1-20

It would be unfortunate to miss all the ironies in 1 Samuel 3, beginning in v. 1 and moving through the whole passage. We often can miss the real life humor of the biblical text. Maybe you could read through the text a first time to find all the ironies and their humor and the play on words throughout the passage (ie, v. 2 has Eli’s eyesight had begun to grow dim; v. 1 states that visions were not widespread).

In a second reading, focus on the Lord’s call of Samuel. Why is the process of the call so complicated and take so many times to “connect”? Why can Samuel not interpret the call himself? What does he need to hear appropriately? Why does the call finally “connect”?
What risk comes to Samuel in his response to the call? Why? How would you characterize Eli’s response? How does Samuel’s call and his initial responses relate to v.20? How is he known as a trustworthy prophet?

John 1:43-51

The gospel also has its ironies. What does Philip do when Jesus calls him to “Follow me”? What is ambiguous about his response? The next section (vv. 44-45) describes the brief interchange between Philip and Nathanael. How would you describe the two characters attitudes?

Note that Philip disappears from the passage! The story culminates in the interaction between Jesus and Nathanael (vv. 46-51), a passage as remarkable by all it excludes as much as it includes. Note what is absent from between the episodes? What is the effect? In light of Nathanael’s first response about Jesus, how does Jesus respond? Nathanael’s second response to Jesus seems a little “over-the-top.” What has prepared him to see Jesus as the “Son of God,” “the King of Israel”? What is the significance of the last saying of Jesus? How does it complete Nathanael’s call? How does Nathanael’s call compare to Philip’s?

1 Corinthians 6:11b-20

Read v. 11b and vv. 19-20 first. How does this frame the particular teachings in the middle? Note the order here: washing (baptism), sanctification, justification (being made righteous). Why this order?

It seems that Paul quotes and corrects certain teachings in Corinth in the middle that have a tremendously contemporary sound – “All things are lawful for me. Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food.” What behavior is being justified by such teaching and how does Paul’s additions (“but not all things are beneficial”; “but I will not be dominated by anything” and “God will destroy both one and the other” seek to modify this justification? What is the difference between this self-justification and the justification that arises out of “being washed and sanctified”?

What is the end of the body? What does it mean to have our bodies “members of Christ”? How does this relate to Jesus’ body crucified, raised and ascended? To the Lord’s Supper? To the congregation? What happens in sexual practices outside of marriage? How does it effect? How? Whose body does the “fornicator” sin against (and it may be several and are distinct and related!)?

“You are not your own.” How do the OT and Gospel passages show that? How does this relate to the call? What is the call for? What does the call itself presuppose from the passages? How does this relate to the predominant ethic today? How does what we do with our bodies have to do with our sanctification?

Have a wonderful evening!