Hard to say at this point. They’re young professionals, though (mid 20s), so they ought to have some teeth for chewing on the tough meat. (And if they don’t get some tough meat every once in a while, how will they ever develop stronger teeth? 
)
Some are already quasi-seminary level (like myself); at least one is actually starting seminary training; some have almost no training. Most have at least been in church studies all their life; some are relatively new converts; some are relatively new re-converts. Most, interestingly, are actually teachers themselves in the local metro school system. One is an army engineer (though she wasn’t there that night–which was too bad because not only is she a good commenter, she’s cute too. 
). At least two grew up in heavily intellectual Christian households and so typically comment well (but neither of them were there that night; one was down the hall going through a Beth Moore Bible study. I never did get to point out that what I was arriving at was the same as BM’s result from studying Romans. )
All or almost all of them earn their living doing ‘intellectual’ things, though. If that had been different, I’d’ve asked the teacher I was subbing for if I could do something else than grand finale what is arguably the most difficult NT text (other than RevJohn) with an emphasis on arguably the most notorious text in the NT.
(Heck, preparing for it so exhausted me–plus also seasonal chronic illness this time of year; plus the effort of doing 60 pages of in-depth replies to AaronR’s comments on the Trinity in the OT (or in his case the lack of)–I’ve been taking a mental vacation from doing creative/analytical things since then. Still not quite recouped today… But better.)
I was very happy that toward the end there was a sharp upswing in questions and inter-class discussion, though we barely had time for any. (But I warned them in advance that in effect we would be summing up a hugely difficult epistle whose commentators tend to go all over the map in interpretation of the meaning due to those difficulties.) Naturally I would have preferred more; but sometimes there has to be strategic tradeoffs. Ideally I would spend next class (this Wednesday) taking questions and discussing various issues pro and con, and giving some idea how various broad schools of Christian salvation-theory deal with the issues. I was glad I was able to work in a little of that along the way (which isn’t directly reflected in either type of notesheet.) For sake of ecumenical peacemaking I think it’s a good idea to show up the strong points on various sides as well as where they have problems that can help be solved by each other.
(And besides, as Calv and Arm theologians are often both well aware: if both sides are respected as having important contributions and corrections to make, then universalism will be the result. 
)
The presentation sheets were a lot quicker and less detailed than what I actually talked about. I don’t subscribe to the theory that the whole lesson can be given by turning on a powerpoint presentation and going off to drink a Mountain Dew while shooting bad guys. (Was it Real Genius where a study montage culminated in a professor leaving a tape recording to lecture to a bunch of tape recorders the students had left behind? Same principle but the other way around. 
)
Which doesn’t mean a million birds still didn’t fly over their heads. More detail isn’t going to make it less complex after all. But it might help the pieces fit together better.
On the accompanying two-page study sheet, the blanks typically include hints as to what the answers are. Still obscure sometimes of course. But that’s what the teaching is for: deciphering all the notes.
Ha! I hadn’t known that!–considering how much I leaned on Deut 32 elsewhere, I wish I had had that to add in too!
Though it’s an interpolation in the LXX, you know; that phrase isn’t really there. Whereas, the exhortative phrase is there (with LXX translation over to ‘angels’ and thus to the Greek) in Ps 97:7b; and the ‘coming Day of YHWH’ theme is much stronger in local contexts there, which again fits the Hebraist’s application.
That’s definitely the rhetorical point to Psalm 97’s use of the concept. (Psalm 96 in the LXX, but still 97 in the Hebrew.) Those who worship false gods will be embarrassed when YHWH comes to chastise His enemies, for all gods will worship YHWH instead! The rhetorical point is lost if this does not include the false gods, too (and devotedly so).
Yes, the LXX translates it over to “angels”, and the Hebraist follows suit.
That was something I wanted to discuss ‘in person’, if we managed to get to that point. But as it is, I’m just as happy we didn’t: at the end of an already challenging lesson, it might be aneurism-inducing to learn that even rebel gods will become loyal servants again. Providentially speaking, it might be better for them to find that out for themselves (or perhaps not, as the case may be. 
)
That reference at the end was supposed to synch up with the prologue analysis, to the effect that to believe angels gave the law while claiming ultimate divine identity, is to immediately fail the first commandment given in the law, namely DON’T WORSHIP NOT-GOD ENTITIES! This was one of the three possible overlapping meanings of the Hebraist’s statement at the beginning of chp 2; another possible meaning being that if we insist on being judged by lesser judges (i.e. angels) we’ll be neglecting the salvation of the greatest judge (i.e. the Son), Who is worshiped and served by the angels He created to be His servants–and even eventually by rebel angels, per Psalm 97:7 via Heb 1:6.)
Thus, if we neglect so great a salvation that will save even rebel angels, what are we left with as an option?!
(Answer: something less than so great a salvation, by any account. )
This would have been brought out in discussion; it isn’t overly obvious in the notes. Only hinted at.
