Deeper Truths: A study with lessons from Kenneth Bailey’s book,
Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes
A 12-week study: This on 9 April 2026
Lesson 6: The Dramatic Actions of Jesus (Part 2 of 3)
Preliminaries
Tonight, I plan to discuss the section that Bailey began and teach you in detail about Jewish evidence and testimony, about contradictions and the call of both Peter and Jesus, basically featuring the dramatic actions of Jesus. Lots to cover, so let’s pray.
Prayer
What Might the Phrase Mean?
Last week I told you that every time, or at least most every time, that Yeshua encountered people one-by-one that at least some of four things occurred. They are the following:
1) Reveals who He is (Messiah, Servant, Judge)
2) Confronts hypocrisy and empty religion
3) Visually communicates spiritual truth
4) Often echoes Old Testament prophetic symbolism
Bailey on the Dramatic Actions of Jesus
Kenneth Bailey highlights three episodes to showcase what he calls “The Dramatic Actions of Jesus.” Those are 1) The call of Peter to be the apostle, 2) The inauguration of the public ministry of Jesus and 3) The stories of the Blind man and Zaccheus in Jericho.
Last week we discussed the 3rd of those-- the Blind man and Zaccheus, and tonight we will embark on the first two. Remembering that if his parables are spoken stories, then his dramatic actions are lived stories. Next week, I’m going to dig into John chapter 9 and see one of the greatest dramatic actions of Jesus ever. And all its implications.
The call of Peter
First then is his unpacking in the Gospel of Luke of the call of Peter to be the apostle. Now if you can imagine this without the star of the TV series “The Chosen” in your mind, you are doing well. Things we know about Peter from both tradition and Scripture. He was a burly, strong fisherman. He was used to leading the pack, or at least his family and his boat to bring in the catch, to provide for those in his world, and he was not a religious man. When later we read his two epistles in the Newer Testament, we are often surprised to imagine the fisherman writing all these words. A blue-collar worker in those days didn’t have the luxury to attend Bible classes or seminary like a yeshiva.
We know him from the Gospels as an impulsive man who at times wavered under pressure. We also see him as a bold man, who wanted to make the Good News well known.
Spirit vs Body?
Bailey brings Peter and his inauguration into public ministry to the front by introducing the ancient battle between spirit and body, that is the argument of mind vs matter. You will hear that argument fleshed out in our days in the language of the ultra-Orthodox Jews who follow kabbalah as well as the New Age people who love their crystals, their meditations, their spirituality rather than institutional religion and the material world of flesh and food. So although it’s an ancient contest, it persists in 2026.
Mind you, some Christians get caught up in this battle. Catholic ascetics and self-deniers often emphasize body vs soul, and seek to diminish the flesh, in their mind, that means anything corporeal. You might know of the Opus Dei folks who beat themselves physically in order to be more spiritual. It’s out of line with biblical thinking, but it weaves its gnostic head into some Christians’ thoughts in our days.
I could continue in that discussion, but we need to press on to the Dramatic works of Yeshua, and if you want to discuss asceticism later, that’s perfectly ok with me.
Structure
Back to Peter. Once again Bailey’s first description involves the structure of Luke’s account. Again it’s chiastic with 7 ‘scenes’. First the boat out, then Jesus speaks to Peter, Peter speaks to Jesus, the catch of fish, Peter speaks to Jesus, Jesus speaks to Peter, and finally the boat returns. The CenterPoint is the catch of fish. Bailey says that the Centrepoint then is the highlight or point of emphasis. I disagree. Although I see the structure, the emphasis by Jesus is the new job that Peter is assigned. You will catch men! That, by the way, is my job, and I believe in some fashion, all of our jobs as well.
Quickly, let me say, serving the Lord comes with a cost, but it’s worth the price. We are called to serve the Lord with all our heart (Deuteronomy 10.12) and with joy and a glad heart (Deuteronomy 28.47, Psalm 100.2)
Bailey zooms in on what he calls a similar story in Isaiah 41. Again an inverted parallelism is noted. And he helps us learn about nature miracles to encourage the Jews of Isaiah’s day to put their trust in the Lord.
Compare and contrast
Back to Peter. All four Gospels tell of the early encounters of Jesus and Simon Peter. Let’s put them in chronological order. First, John 1.35-42
- Andrew meets Jesus first
- Then brings his brother Simon to meet Jesus
- Jesus says: “You will be called Cephas (Peter)”
This is not a full call to follow, but a personal introduction and naming.
Then Luke 5.1-11, that which Bailey uses in our chapter today:
- Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat
- There is a miraculous catch of fish
- Peter falls in humility: “Depart from me, I am a sinful man”
- Jesus says: “From now on you will catch men”
This is the moment of conviction, surrender, and commission to the task.
Finally, the immediate call in both the first two Gospels (Matt 4:18–22; Mark 1:16–20)
- Jesus walks by the Sea of Galilee
- Says: “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men”
- They immediately leave their nets
This emphasizes obedience and decisive action.
What about contradictions?
This week I’ve been working on answering a couple of problems that people have with times and days related to Easter and Passover and the seder and the Last Supper and the 3 days and 3 nights issue. In fact, we might have time to unpack one of those in our Question time later. And I’ve been dealing with the bigger issue of biblical contradictions. Some of you will have been taught about handling common contradictions in the Scriptures. Let me use Peter’s call as a clear example of the problem of possible contradiction.
But first, one of the evidences of real story telling by witnesses to events, and assurances by police and defence or prosecution attorneys that people are telling the truth is when their stories are not duplications. What? You might wonder…how can this be? Shouldn’t all stories by eyewitnesses be exact recounting of the events as they unfolded? Yes, but corroboration is not duplication.
A Jewish excurses on Law and testimony
We must take a slight detour just now and cover this problem from the Jewish point of view. Please try to stay with me. After tonight I will send you the manuscript of this talk and you can go over it again and again, if you need. I want you to have this to answer the challenges people make when you give a truth claim about Jesus being the Messiah, or about the Bible being true, or any number of ideas. This framework I’m going to give you just now will change your argumentation, I believe, and help you significantly.
Jewish law about witnesses begins with the Torah. “A matter shall be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” (Deuteronomy 19:15) Then it’s found six more times in common practice in the Church, (Matt. 18.16, 18.20, 1 Cor. 14.29, 2 Cor. 13.1, 1 Tim. 5.19, Heb. 10.28)
From the start, the issue is not quantity of identical testimony, but whether there are independent, valid witnesses.
In the Talmud, the key concern is this: Are the witnesses independent observers, or are they effectively repeating each other? (Sanhedrin 30A, 30B, 37B, 40A, 41A, Makkot 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B)
✔ Valid Testimony
- Two witnesses who each personally saw the event
- Even if their testimony is identical in wording
- Even if it sounds “duplicate”
This is not rejected. In fact, agreement strengthens credibility.
❌ Invalid Testimony
The Talmud disqualifies testimony when it is not truly independent, such as:
1. Hearsay (עד מפי עד)
o One witness says: “I heard from someone else”
o This is rejected outright
2. Coached or Coordinated Testimony
o Witnesses who appear to be echoing a script
o Judges cross-examine to detect this
3. Dependent Observation
o One witness only saw because the other pointed it out
o That weakens independence
4. Contradictory Details
o If witnesses contradict each other on key facts, testimony can collapse
There is a concept that might sound like “duplicate evidence is thrown out,” but it’s actually different:
“עדות שאי אתה יכול להזימה”
(Testimony that cannot be refuted) If testimony is structured in a way that cannot be tested or challenged, it may be invalid. The system requires testimony to be verifiable and falsifiable
So the issue isn’t duplication—it’s lack of testability.
Example from Rabbinic Logic
If two witnesses say, “We saw him commit the act at 2 PM in Jerusalem” That’s valid—even if word-for-word identical. But if one says: “I saw it” and the other says: “Yes, same as him,” that second witness may be disqualified as derivative, not independent.
No—the Talmud does not teach that “duplicate evidence is tossed out.” Instead, it teaches:
- ✔ Consistent, matching testimony = good
- ❌ Dependent or second-hand testimony = rejected
- ✔ Independence is the key criterion
Rabbinic law doesn’t reject duplicate testimony—it rejects derivative testimony.
NOW we turn again to Peter
From the Talmud and Torah law, we learn that truth is established by independent witnesses, that agreement is good, but independence is essential and that testimony must be three things: 1) Firsthand, 2) testable and 3) not derivative.
The Jewish system values multiple angles on the same event, not robotic repetition.
The Gospels as Witness Testimony
The four Gospels-- Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—function much more like witness accounts than modern biographies. They are not trying to give: 1) Identical wording 2) Identical structure or 3) Identical detail. They are giving independent testimony about the same Messiah.
Peter’s Call: A Perfect Case Study
Let’s compare:
A. Matthew / Mark (Parallel Accounts)
- Jesus calls Peter while fishing
- “Follow me, I will make you fishers of men”
- Immediate response
These read like concise legal testimony summaries
B. Luke (Expanded Scene)
- Adds the miraculous catch
- Shows Peter’s reaction: “Depart from me, I am a sinful man”
- More emotional and theological depth
This is supplemental detail from another angle
C. John (Earlier Encounter)
- Andrew brings Peter to Jesus
- Jesus renames him “Cephas” (Peter)
- No fishing scene yet
This is a different moment entirely—an earlier stage of the relationship
What a Rabbi Would Notice
A trained rabbinic thinker would not say, “These accounts are different—therefore unreliable.” He would say, “These are independent witnesses describing overlapping and sequential events.” Why? Because they are not artificially identical. If all four Gospels said the exact same words in the exact same order: That would raise suspicion of collusion. But actually, these include different details.
One emphasizes calling (Matt/Mark), while another emphasizes miracle (Luke) and the other emphasizes identity (John). This is exactly what independent testimony looks like. Together they give the complete calling.
A rabbinic judge would say, “These testimonies support each other. They are not redundant, they are layered.”
Finally, the Gospel writers are not just witnesses—they are interpreters of events, theologians, as well as eyewitnesses (direct or sourced). This matches Luke’s own claim in Gospel of Luke 1:1–4.
- He investigated
- He compiled accounts
- He organized testimony
That’s very close to a case-building process
Bottom Line
The Talmud values independent testimony. The Gospels provide independent testimony. Their differences are not a weakness, rather they are exactly what a Jewish legal mind would expect
That’s the way I want you to consider how to answer folks who dismiss the record of scripture because they see only different details and not Jewish corroboration.
Who does he think he is?
Remember, in Luke, the people of the land cried out, ‘Who does he think he is?’ After all, what would a land lubber who is a carpenter’s son who is not a fisherman, what would he know about fishing? How dare he tell a seasoned veteran fisherman how and when and how to fish? Who does he think he is?
That question is more of a dismissal than a serious enquiry.
Back to Peter and the final takeaway
Bailey highlights this opening call in the Gospel of Luke. I want to show you a couple other moments in Peter’s life when a call was issued. First is in Matthew 16. There we see Yeshua speaking to the returning missionaries after their first journey in the cities of Galilee, Samaria and Judea. He enquires, “Who do people say that I am?” (.13). Different disciples speak at once saying, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” (By the way, each of those men are dead, and the public is thinking that Yeshua might just be a reincarnated or new-and-improved version of these historic Jewish heroes). Then Yeshua speaks directly… “Who do you say that I am?” And it’s Peter who leads the responders with “You are the Messiah, the son of the Living God.” (.16). Jesus doesn’t simply say, “Spot on” or “Gold star to you, young man.” He uses a most unusual speech device, as he commends him with the way Jewish ceremonies and prayers often begin, “Blessed are you.” Then to top it off, he uses Simon’s formal Hebrew name, “Shimon bar Yonah.” That’s the way Jewish people are called to the Torah in synagogue or are buried in Jewish cemeteries, called by their name as son of their father.
I believe in this moment that Yeshua is conferring on Peter an apostolic mandate to be a priest, a representative, an ambassador of Messiah. It’s a new calling. It’s a repeat, but greater of the earlier call. And a formal one at that. Perhaps this is where the Catholics get the idea that he is the first pope.
Peter is given keys, announced to be one who could release people of their sins, and on Peter’s confession of faith, Yeshua would build his kehillah, his ecclesia, his community of faith. Wow.
The other moment of calling is in the book of Acts, so for a moment we step outside the Gospels in which Bailey wants us to remain. But only for a moment.
Chapter 10 of Acts is landmark for most of you on this call. There may be another Jewish person who is live with us tonight in Singapore, but it’s likely that Jewish people will watch this on YouTube at another time. For you, then on this call, who are Gentiles, Acts 10 is a great chapter of hope for you and yours. This is the one where Peter is subpoenaed to go north to Caesarea from his visit in Joppa, and he is invited to preach to Cornelius. I preach whole sermons on this one chapter but will only mention a couple items here.
Of note, is that Peter, the one with the keys, who is able to travel representing both the Lord and the church, goes and preaches only after a sheet comes down from heaven three times in his visions, and reminds him that he is to take the message to the non-Jews of the Roman empire. That dramatic action of Jesus highlights (as we learned last week) 1) reveals who Yeshua is (Saviour of the world, that is, Gentiles as well as Jews). It 2) confronts hypocrisy and empty religion that prevents Gentiles from becoming part of the commonwealth of Israel. 3) It visually communicates spiritual truth as Gentiles are represented by the forbidden foods they eat, and 4) this echoes Older Testament prophetic symbolism throughout Deuteronomy, Isaiah, the Psalms and Amos 9.
The inauguration of the ministry of Yeshua: Who does he think he is?
Bailey’s 2nd story in this section is about Jesus’ inaugural ministry. But I want to highlight a phrase used again and again, not only regarding our Messiah, but about several biblical people of note. It is a dismissive question, a challenging question that carries with it a shake of the head. The question is “Who do you think you are?” or “Who does he think he is, anyway?” When the Jewish people said that to Moses, directly, they said through the observers in early Exodus who said, “Who made you a judge and a ruler over us?” The situation was tough for them and this Egyptian Moses who suddenly wanted to be Jewish was a bit much.
Stephen the deacon and first Christian martyr cited this story in his sermon before his murder in Acts 7. (.27, .35) Twice! Once to tell the episode and the 2nd time to demonstrate the people’s role in rejecting the sent one, the deliverer.
Bailey’s story (Page 237) showcases Jesus taking of the scroll of Isaiah to read and really to interpret, to change, to edit the reading that morning. And you can and should read this section to understand the details of elimination of half a verse, the inclusion of another verse, and all those structural details. This is NOT done in modern synagogues, in fact, if anyone didn’t read either the Torah or even the Haftorah passage exactly correctly, a gabbai, who is near him in the reading, and following along at the desk where he is chanting, would immediately correct even the slightest variation, the vowel, the wrong word, and then the reader would continue. But back in Bible days, things were different.
A commentary from the Word Biblical Commentary series says this of the reading, and the combination of words.
“The natural sense in the Isaianic context is prophetic. The Targum makes this explicit: “The spirit of prophecy from before the Lord Elohim is upon me” (Stenning, Isaiah, 202). A prophetic anointing finds support from the Qumran documents. “Anointed” seems to be used collectively of the prophets in CD 2.12, 61. 1QM 11.7 speaks of a (past) figure in the community as “God’s anointed,” while 1QH 18.14 applies Isa 61:1 to probably the same figure. 11QMelch applies Isa 61:1 to an eschatological figure (line 6) who is called the “anointed of the Spirit” (line 18). A prophetic identity for Jesus is of importance to Luke in this pericope and elsewhere (see on v 24 below).”
What I want to comment on involves the response of the people, which Bailey also zooms in to discuss. That is, the rejection, the hostility, even the desire to bring to an end this showboat Yeshua. For that, we have to visit the Gospel of Mark, chapter 6 for ease of clarity. To be fair, the Joachim Jeremias quote in Bailey (page 243) asserts two translations of the Greek phrase “emartryoun auto” but since most of us are not Greek scholars, I want to look at Mark 6 to see the parallel passage and gain the same insight.
Remember, when Yeshua said, “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” And then he sat down. He’s done. He has made his pitch. He has handed out his business card, and now it says, “Messiah, Son of David, Lord of all.”
The crowd said, “Who does he think he is?” They said, “Isn’t that Jesus? Isn’t that Joseph’s son?” In other words, “we knew him when!”
“Isn’t that Jesus? Isn’t that Joseph and Mary’s son? Didn’t he grow up right here—he played with our children. What? He must be kidding. Thinks he’s a prophet. Prophets don’t grow up from little boys, do they? Do they?”
Or like I began this section. “Who does he think he is?” It’s dismissal; it’s pompous and elitist and they simply won’t have it.
The Word commentary goes on to say, “words in Mark 6:3 are evidently critical, and the flow in Luke’s narrative requires that these words express an objection to Jesus’ claims. They are using the question to evade the message.”
In 1980 I ached when I heard Keith’s song. I too had Jewish parents. They also had rejected me and the message of faith in Jesus. And I was meant to bring the Gospel to them? And to the community in Kansas City… who does he think he is? Is he smarter than our beloved rabbi? Thinks he’s a prophet? Prophets don’t grow up from little boys, do they?
You see, the ministries God gives us will all come with a cost. Personal, corporate, something and with regularity, we will be tested, and dare I say it, often by those closest to us. But when those testings come, please, don’t take those as final. Sometimes it takes many years for those close to us to hear the message, often from others, and then we can rejoice in a deep way.
I think of my friend and colleague named Stuart whose son was in his mid30s when he finally gave up his hostility to the Gospel in which he had been raised, gave up his intellectual rejection, and surrendered to Yeshua. His son, Chaim, is now leading a messianic congregation in Brooklyn, is married to the daughter of another colleague of mine, and they have a new baby. It’s a great story; one which I pray will happen to so many of my kids and colleagues in ministry. Lord, may it be so. The day is far spent, but it’s not over.
Five Summary Thoughts from tonight:
1) Different biblical accounts of the call of Peter corroborate the story rather than demonstrate weakness.
2) The call of Peter isn’t one time; it continued through the Gospels, and even into the book of Acts as he is called to serve the Lord all the days of his life
3) (a repeat of Bailey’s 6th point in this chapter) “When Peter is confronted with a value system and a set of commitments radically different from his own, he is attracted, awed and challenged to make a choice, and he does so the rest of his life.”
4) As Yeshua taught, “A prophet is often without honour in his own hometown” (Luke 4.24) Don’t be surprised if your close friends give your new beliefs a miss.
5) Each of us has a call on our lives to serve the Lord with gladness, with singleness of heart, with a full heart.
QUESTIONS people asked between sessions
TWO Questions come up in calendar confusion related to Passover. Let's get these sorted and remember what the holiday is all about. And what Christians can learn from this Jewish holiday. But first, what day was it?
Passover is the holiday that celebrates 'once we were slaves, now we are free.' Deliverance after hundreds of years of slavery in Egypt. God rescued the Jewish people and set a date, 14 Nisan, for us to remember the anniversary under a full moon each year.
Christians also have a day in this season related to Holy Week, the time of the death and resurrection of the Saviour Yeshua/ Jesus.
There is some overlap and then of course, some real questions. Here are two of them asked,and hopefully answered for you.
QUESTION 1: 3 Days and 3 Nights in the grave
People often ask, “If Jesus said he would be in the ground three days and three nights… how does this work if Good Friday was when he was killed and buried to Easter Sunday when he arose?” That’s more like 36 hours.
Here’s the key:
The Bible uses Jewish time reckoning, not modern Western precision. This is not a Swiss watch.
In Jewish thinking, “Passover” can mean more than one thing.
1. The meal itself (the Seder, 15th of Nisan evening)
1. The lamb sacrifice (14th of Nisan daytime)
1. The entire festival week (Passover + Unleavened Bread)
the Passover lambs were being sacrificed. Different calendars; one fulfillment.
In Jewish thinking, any part of a day counts as a whole day. So look at the timeline: Jesus is buried on Friday before sunset — that’s Day 1 which includes Thursday night. He is in the tomb on Saturday, the Sabbath — that’s Day 2 which includes Friday night. And He rises early on Sunday — that’s Day 3 which includes Saturday night.
So Friday, Saturday, Sunday… three days.
Now what about “three days and three nights”? Two answers. 1) As I showed you just now, Friday daytime IS part of the same day as Thursday night. And similarly, Saturday day is Friday night. And Sunday day is Saturday night. Three days: Friday, Saturday, Sunday. Three nights, Thursday to Saturday.
But I prefer unpacking this in a 2nd way. Why? Since this phrase is a Hebraic expression—a common Jewish way of saying a period spanning three days, not necessarily 72 hours. In fact, no matter what day you start with (and some start with Wednesday, you will never get 72 hours on the dot. He died in the afternoon, and he arose early in the morning.
But the Hebraic expression is not about 72 hours. It’s a common Jewish way of saying a period spanning three days. Esther fasts and leads the people to fast for “three days, night and day” → yet goes in on the third day (not after 72 hours) (Chapter 4, verse 16)
The Bible itself says repeatedly…He would rise “on the third day.” so there’s no contradiction. It’s not about counting hours—it’s about understanding how Jewish people counted time. And when you do…Friday to Sunday fits perfectly. Sometimes the answer isn’t changing the Bible— it’s understanding the culture in which it was written.
Question 2… Was the Last Supper a Passover meal?
People often notice something in the Gospels that seems to be a contradiction, but it isn’t. Let me explain. Matthew, Mark, and Luke say the Last Supper took place on Passover. And many believers see similarities between the Jewish Passover seder and the Last Supper.
But the apostle John seems to say Jesus died before Passover. So which is it? Who is right? Or can both of them be accurate?
Here’s the key:
The Synoptic Gospels are focusing on the meal, that is, Jesus eating Passover with His disciples. But John is focusing on the timing of the sacrifice. In fact, in John’s Gospel, Jesus is crucified at the very time the Passover lambs are being slaughtered in the Temple.
That’s not a contradiction—that’s theology. Jesus didn’t just celebrate Passover. He became the Passover Lamb. It’s very possible that Jesus followed a Galilean reckoning of Passover, celebrating it with His disciples—while the Temple in Jerusalem followed a different schedule, so that when Jesus died, the official Passover lambs were being sacrificed.
Jesus kept the meal… and became the Lamb.
How do we explain the different timings of Passover in the Gospels?
Here’s a possibility many people don’t know:
In the first century, not everyone kept the calendar exactly the same way. Jesus and His disciples were from up north in Galilee, while the Temple authorities were in Jerusalem. Some scholars believe Galileans may have reckoned the day differently, thus allowing them to celebrate Passover a little earlier.
That means Jesus could eat a true Passover meal, the seder, with his disciples, and then, the next day which was the same Hebrew calendar date, as the official lambs were being sacrificed in the Temple, Jesus is on the cross. So again, not a contradiction, but a convergence. He keeps the Passover meal, and then he becomes the Passover Lamb. Different calendars, one perfect fulfilment.
Wait; were there actually different calendars in Jesus’ day?
The answer is yes. In the first century, not all Jewish groups followed the same calendar. For example, the community at Qumran—the Dead Sea Scrolls group—used a solar calendar, not the lunar one used in Jerusalem.
That meant their festivals—like Passover—could fall on completely different days. Other groups, including those connected to the Temple, followed the official lunar calendar. So when we read the Gospels, we’re stepping into a world where more than one way of counting time existed.
That helps explain how Jesus could share a Passover meal, and still be crucified at the very time
Because no matter the calendar—Yeshua is the Lamb. History may have had multiple calendars…but God had one perfect timing.
No comments:
Post a Comment