Getting What Was Said
It can be hard to go from a text to a sermon. The line from past to present can be hard work. But at the root, one must hear clearly what was said. Dave Black looks at a text.
It can be hard to go from a text to a sermon. The line from past to present can be hard work. But at the root, one must hear clearly what was said. Dave Black looks at a text.
Their hearts are clogged with fat;I delight in your instruction (Torah). A very literal alternative for the first half of the verse would be “fattened with fat are their hearts.” The REB translates: [T]hey are arrogant and unfeeling,but I find my delight in your instruction. With the heart being more the seat of thought than…
This will continue the discussion, dealing more with definitions. In the area of soteriology (the study of salvation) we frequently make the same statements in terms of words and structure, yet mean something quite different by it. “Jesus died on the cross to save us from our sins” means quite different things, depending on who…
It has been that kind of a day. I apologize for not posting this earlier. You can find out more about this discussion on the Google+ Event Page or view it using the YouTube embedded below.
This post relates to my follow-up on my second session of studies on the Gospel of John. First, I’d like you to read my earlier Textual Criticism – Briefly. This dates from 2006, but I don’t see anything I need to correct. I would like to expand on a few points, however. On the matter…
A key element of the participatory study method is getting up close and personal with the application. Since God indicated in Exodus 19:6 that his intention for Israel was that they should be a nation of priests, and that a similar goal was expressed for Christians in 2 Peter 2:9, the question I want to…
An excellent technique for digging deeper into a Bible text is to formulate questions about the text, and then look for answers to those questions. I discuss this briefly in my essay Reading the Text Precisely. A starting point for this is simply to ask basic fact questions about the text. Many difficult and angry…
This is well done—but only if you take the Bible literally. I am particularly referring to Dr. Black’s 6th point: “We can endure suffering and persecution because we have placed our hope in Jesus and in His coming back to earth.” Interestingly, Paul could say this because he believed Jesus was to return in his (general) lifetime. But he didn’t. Apocalyptic theology which permeates Paul and most of the New Testament mislead many, including those today who knowingly or unknowingly incorporate the ancient (and now discredited) cosmology of a three-tiered universe where Jesus is located “up there” and will come “down here” sometime. Exegesis that lives only in the ancient world and not in ours where there is nothing outside the cosmos including God, led Paul and continues to lead many others to a false conclusion.
It’s revealing that only Luke’s Gospel has a literal ascension with a projected literal return. In the others, Jesus just fades away. (I know, I know—one is enough.) And Matthew just declares that Jesus never goes away and will be with the church to the end of the age. Seems he need not return because he never left. All this is to say that we have reason to doubt a literal Second Coming based on faulty cosmology.
To move from the first century or from 1000 BCE to our day is no easy thing. Especially if you don’t clarify biblical misconceptions (and they abound) along the way. Imagine the difficulty Abraham would have negotiating our world. Well, we have the same difficulty negotiating his. Yet the move from the text to sermon seems too often to ignore this.