Psalm 56 David; 13 vs.; --??
A response to when the Philistines seized him in Gath.
This psalm starts anguishing over enemies, turns to calling to God, and then reaffirming his intention to follow God.
56.8 kept my tears n your bottle. God remembers our struggles and hard times and the tears we have cried. The word tears is a poignant metaphor for our struggles.
56.13 that I may walk before God in the light of life. The words light of life seem to be the key here. The seem to articulate God's desire to have a relationship with God that is open to all.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Friday, July 24, 2009
fri 090724 pm Psa 54-55
Psalm 54 David; 7 vs.; --??
about deliverance for David.
54.7 interesting switch to third person
Psalm 55 David; 23 vs.; --??
55.19 they do not change and do not fear God. This is an interesting pair of statements put together. It would be interesting to do a minor word study on change and fear.
about deliverance for David.
54.7 interesting switch to third person
Psalm 55 David; 23 vs.; --??
55.19 they do not change and do not fear God. This is an interesting pair of statements put together. It would be interesting to do a minor word study on change and fear.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Thurs 090723 pm Hermeneutics Chapt 2
Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation
Chapter Two: "History of Biblical Interpretation"
1. Ancient Jewish Exegesis
...every incidental detail of the text possessed spiritual significance.
Literal: This type of commentary was expected to be known by everyone.
Midrash: comparison of ideas, words, or phrased without proper attention to their contexts.
Pesher: Everything the ancient prophets wrote had a yielded prophetic meaning.
Allegorical: Beneath the literal meaning of Scripture lay the true meaning.
2. New Testament use of the Old Testament:
The New Testament writers present the typology not as the meaning of the Old Testament text but as a contemporary event analogous to God's past actions.
3. Patristic Exegesis:
The School of Alexandria-Scriptures hid their true meaning which were available only to those who understand the deeper spiritual sense. (The body is the literal sense, the soul the moral or ethical sense, and the spirit the allegorical or mystical sense.--Origen)
Syrian School of Antioch-Theodore of Mopuestia staunchly defended the principle of grammaical-historical interpretation.
The Western School-In practice Augustine forsook most of his own principles and tended toward excessive allegorizing. (Scripture had a fourfold sense; historical, etiological, analogical, & allegorical.)
4. Medieval Exegesis:
Interpretation was bound by tradition, and the allegorical method was prominent. Four levels of meaning: letter shows us what God and our fathers did, allegory shows us where our faith is hid, moral meaning gives us rules of daily life, and analogy shows us were we end our strife.
5. Reformation Exegesis:
Luther believed Scripture itself should determine what the church teaches, the Bible is a clear book. Calvin believed that spiritual illumination is necessary and regarded allegorical interpretation as a contrivance of Satan to obscure the sense of Scripture.
6. Post-Reformation Exegesis:
With Confessionalism exegesis became the handmaid of dogmatics and often degenerated into mere proof-texting. Later many Pietists discarded the grammatical-historical basis of interpretation and depended instead on an "inward light." In Rationalism human reason stood in judgement over God's Word.
7. Modern Hermeneutics:
In Liberalism and the Historical-Critical Method reason determined what parts of revelation (if any) were accepted as true. Neoorthodoxy held that Scripture was just mankind's response to god's revelation of himself. When a person reads the words of Scripture and responds to God's presence in faith, revelation occurs.
8. The Mid-Twentieth Century and Beyond:
The "new hermeneutic" (Bultmann, Fuchs, and Ebeling) asserted that the author of the text is inaccessible to the reader, so the reader should not and cannot arrive at the author's intended meaning. Second, the reader is a contributor to the interpretive process through their core beliefs, life experience, etc. Structuralism analizes the structure to discover the paradigm of a text and the underlying literary myth in which the meaning resides. Reader Response feels each reader is to derive meaning through his or her interaction with the text because the text is incomplete until the individual reader participates in it. Deconstructuralism holds that it is impossible to determine an fixed meaning of the text so it is open to multiple interpretations.
9. Orthodox Christianity:
The task of the interpreter is to understand more fully the intended meaning of the original author.
Chapter Two: "History of Biblical Interpretation"
1. Ancient Jewish Exegesis
...every incidental detail of the text possessed spiritual significance.
Literal: This type of commentary was expected to be known by everyone.
Midrash: comparison of ideas, words, or phrased without proper attention to their contexts.
Pesher: Everything the ancient prophets wrote had a yielded prophetic meaning.
Allegorical: Beneath the literal meaning of Scripture lay the true meaning.
2. New Testament use of the Old Testament:
The New Testament writers present the typology not as the meaning of the Old Testament text but as a contemporary event analogous to God's past actions.
3. Patristic Exegesis:
The School of Alexandria-Scriptures hid their true meaning which were available only to those who understand the deeper spiritual sense. (The body is the literal sense, the soul the moral or ethical sense, and the spirit the allegorical or mystical sense.--Origen)
Syrian School of Antioch-Theodore of Mopuestia staunchly defended the principle of grammaical-historical interpretation.
The Western School-In practice Augustine forsook most of his own principles and tended toward excessive allegorizing. (Scripture had a fourfold sense; historical, etiological, analogical, & allegorical.)
4. Medieval Exegesis:
Interpretation was bound by tradition, and the allegorical method was prominent. Four levels of meaning: letter shows us what God and our fathers did, allegory shows us where our faith is hid, moral meaning gives us rules of daily life, and analogy shows us were we end our strife.
5. Reformation Exegesis:
Luther believed Scripture itself should determine what the church teaches, the Bible is a clear book. Calvin believed that spiritual illumination is necessary and regarded allegorical interpretation as a contrivance of Satan to obscure the sense of Scripture.
6. Post-Reformation Exegesis:
With Confessionalism exegesis became the handmaid of dogmatics and often degenerated into mere proof-texting. Later many Pietists discarded the grammatical-historical basis of interpretation and depended instead on an "inward light." In Rationalism human reason stood in judgement over God's Word.
7. Modern Hermeneutics:
In Liberalism and the Historical-Critical Method reason determined what parts of revelation (if any) were accepted as true. Neoorthodoxy held that Scripture was just mankind's response to god's revelation of himself. When a person reads the words of Scripture and responds to God's presence in faith, revelation occurs.
8. The Mid-Twentieth Century and Beyond:
The "new hermeneutic" (Bultmann, Fuchs, and Ebeling) asserted that the author of the text is inaccessible to the reader, so the reader should not and cannot arrive at the author's intended meaning. Second, the reader is a contributor to the interpretive process through their core beliefs, life experience, etc. Structuralism analizes the structure to discover the paradigm of a text and the underlying literary myth in which the meaning resides. Reader Response feels each reader is to derive meaning through his or her interaction with the text because the text is incomplete until the individual reader participates in it. Deconstructuralism holds that it is impossible to determine an fixed meaning of the text so it is open to multiple interpretations.
9. Orthodox Christianity:
The task of the interpreter is to understand more fully the intended meaning of the original author.
Thurs 090723 am Hermeneutics Chapt 1
Hermeneutics: Principles of Biblical Interpretation
Chapter One:
1.
Hermeneutics is the art and science of biblical interpretation.
General Hermeneutics is the study of rules that govern interpretation of the entire Bible.
Special hermeneutics is the study of the interpretation of specific literary forms.
2.
canon-determining which books bear the stamp of divine inspiration
textual criticism-ascertaining the original wording of the text
historical criticism-studying the contemporaneous circumstances surrounding the composition of a particular book
exegesis-using hermeneutics in understanding the author's original meaning
biblical theology-organizes teachings in a historical manner
systematic theology-organizes teachings in a logical order
practical theology-explores the significance and application of teachings
3.
When obstacles such as a different culture, language, history, and/or philosophy block the spontaneous understanding of words, it is important to codify the process we normally used to understand the meaning of a communication. "Each of us sees reality though eyes conditioned by our culture and a variety of experiences."
4.
Liberal view of inspiration: Biblical writers were inspired in the sense that Shakespeare and other great writers were inspired. They reveal primitive understandings of God's workings. We develop theories about how ancient documents were pieced together and what they reveal about man's growing awareness of God.
Neoorthodox view of inspiration: The Bible is a human understanding of the significance of God's actions. The Bible becomes the Word of God when when individuals read it and the words become meaningful. We remove the mythological packaging and have a personal encounter with the truth.
Historic view of inspiration: God worked through individual writers and their personalities, etc. to produce words that were "God breathed."
5.
Is the question of hermeneutics what it means to me or what the author intended?
Did the intended meaning of the divine author exceed that of the human author?
How can we determine when the text is to be understood literally, figuratively, or symbolically?
Do spiritual factors affect our ability to accurately perceive the truths contained in Scripture?
Is the Scripture without error in all it says (even history, geography, and science) or only in matters of faith and practice?
#.
Five examples of how Christ accepted the teachings of the O.T.
* He treated the historical narratives of the O.T. as straightforward records of facts.
* He based his teaching on the very stories modern critics reject.
* He appealed to the O.T. as authoritative in controversies.
* He taught nothing could pass from the law until all had been fulfilled.
* He used Scripture to rebut Satan.
Inerrancy objections.
* Jesus used the O.T. for illustrative puroposes only. (What about Matt 12:41?)
* Jesus accommodated his teaching to the prescienfific views of His time. (But, Jesus did not hesitate to refute other aspects of Jewish tradition that were in error.)
* Jesus emptied himself and became a product of his conditioning. ( He claimed full truth and authority for his teaching. Matt. 7:24-26; Mark 27:8:38)
* Views of Jesus in the gospels belong to the Gospel writers not to Jesus himself. (This view denies the historical reliability of the Gospels and leaves us unable to make any historical statements about the Lord Jesus Christ.)
* Since inerrancy is claimed only for the original autographs, which are gone, inerrancy is a moot question. (There is a very high degree of accuracy.)
* We should not claim freedom from errors in those arease that were only incidental to the author's primary interest. (Scriptures themselves never make this claim. This diminishes either the inspiration "God breathed" or honesty of God.)
* The only important issue is a saving Christ, not to hold to an innerrant Scripture. (If Jesus know portions to be false and taught otherwise, then he wouldn't be fit to be our saviour.)
* Some passages seem to contradict each other or science.
Chapter One:
1.
Hermeneutics is the art and science of biblical interpretation.
General Hermeneutics is the study of rules that govern interpretation of the entire Bible.
Special hermeneutics is the study of the interpretation of specific literary forms.
2.
canon-determining which books bear the stamp of divine inspiration
textual criticism-ascertaining the original wording of the text
historical criticism-studying the contemporaneous circumstances surrounding the composition of a particular book
exegesis-using hermeneutics in understanding the author's original meaning
biblical theology-organizes teachings in a historical manner
systematic theology-organizes teachings in a logical order
practical theology-explores the significance and application of teachings
3.
When obstacles such as a different culture, language, history, and/or philosophy block the spontaneous understanding of words, it is important to codify the process we normally used to understand the meaning of a communication. "Each of us sees reality though eyes conditioned by our culture and a variety of experiences."
4.
Liberal view of inspiration: Biblical writers were inspired in the sense that Shakespeare and other great writers were inspired. They reveal primitive understandings of God's workings. We develop theories about how ancient documents were pieced together and what they reveal about man's growing awareness of God.
Neoorthodox view of inspiration: The Bible is a human understanding of the significance of God's actions. The Bible becomes the Word of God when when individuals read it and the words become meaningful. We remove the mythological packaging and have a personal encounter with the truth.
Historic view of inspiration: God worked through individual writers and their personalities, etc. to produce words that were "God breathed."
5.
Is the question of hermeneutics what it means to me or what the author intended?
Did the intended meaning of the divine author exceed that of the human author?
How can we determine when the text is to be understood literally, figuratively, or symbolically?
Do spiritual factors affect our ability to accurately perceive the truths contained in Scripture?
Is the Scripture without error in all it says (even history, geography, and science) or only in matters of faith and practice?
#.
Five examples of how Christ accepted the teachings of the O.T.
* He treated the historical narratives of the O.T. as straightforward records of facts.
* He based his teaching on the very stories modern critics reject.
* He appealed to the O.T. as authoritative in controversies.
* He taught nothing could pass from the law until all had been fulfilled.
* He used Scripture to rebut Satan.
Inerrancy objections.
* Jesus used the O.T. for illustrative puroposes only. (What about Matt 12:41?)
* Jesus accommodated his teaching to the prescienfific views of His time. (But, Jesus did not hesitate to refute other aspects of Jewish tradition that were in error.)
* Jesus emptied himself and became a product of his conditioning. ( He claimed full truth and authority for his teaching. Matt. 7:24-26; Mark 27:8:38)
* Views of Jesus in the gospels belong to the Gospel writers not to Jesus himself. (This view denies the historical reliability of the Gospels and leaves us unable to make any historical statements about the Lord Jesus Christ.)
* Since inerrancy is claimed only for the original autographs, which are gone, inerrancy is a moot question. (There is a very high degree of accuracy.)
* We should not claim freedom from errors in those arease that were only incidental to the author's primary interest. (Scriptures themselves never make this claim. This diminishes either the inspiration "God breathed" or honesty of God.)
* The only important issue is a saving Christ, not to hold to an innerrant Scripture. (If Jesus know portions to be false and taught otherwise, then he wouldn't be fit to be our saviour.)
* Some passages seem to contradict each other or science.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Wed 090722 pm 1 cor 11-13 Psa 52
1 Corinthians 11
11.1 imitators... This is a hard verse.
11.10 because of the angels... I'm not sure how often I think about what the angels are going to think about what I do. Interesting thought. Maybe I'll bring it up in a meeting sometime. :o)
11.22 despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing... This is something that is a real travesty (sometimes unintended) in churches that have more affluent saints. God has a special place in his heart for the poor saints and we should too. (Abraham Lincoln said: "God must have loved the common people, he made so many of them.")
11.34 so that when you come together it will not be for judgment... We think of church as always being good and a positive thing, like God is just happy that we will both to make it out. This seems to indicate that sometimes we might be better off staying home.
11.34 the other things... that God did not see fit to include in the Scriptures.
1 Corinthians 12
The word body is used at least 15 times in this chapter.
God has appointed is another theme.
1 Corinthians 13
13.4-8 Lots of not's in the definition.
13.13 faith, hope, love
It is interesting that there is not explicit mention of God in this chapter.
Psalm 52 David; 9 vs.; --??
Description of an evil man.
Doeg, the edomite... This guy was a scumbag.
52.7 sought refuge in his own destruction... Often characteristic of evil men and intentions.
11.1 imitators... This is a hard verse.
11.10 because of the angels... I'm not sure how often I think about what the angels are going to think about what I do. Interesting thought. Maybe I'll bring it up in a meeting sometime. :o)
11.22 despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing... This is something that is a real travesty (sometimes unintended) in churches that have more affluent saints. God has a special place in his heart for the poor saints and we should too. (Abraham Lincoln said: "God must have loved the common people, he made so many of them.")
11.34 so that when you come together it will not be for judgment... We think of church as always being good and a positive thing, like God is just happy that we will both to make it out. This seems to indicate that sometimes we might be better off staying home.
11.34 the other things... that God did not see fit to include in the Scriptures.
1 Corinthians 12
The word body is used at least 15 times in this chapter.
God has appointed is another theme.
1 Corinthians 13
13.4-8 Lots of not's in the definition.
13.13 faith, hope, love
It is interesting that there is not explicit mention of God in this chapter.
Psalm 52 David; 9 vs.; --??
Description of an evil man.
Doeg, the edomite... This guy was a scumbag.
52.7 sought refuge in his own destruction... Often characteristic of evil men and intentions.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Tues 090721 pm Psa 50-51
Psalm 50 Asaph; 23 vs.; --??
50.14-15 great "condition" and promise
50.16 What right have you to recite my statues... This is a very interesting verse. It seems at odds with the common attitude among Christian of sometimes almost being desperate to have a pagan show any interest in spiritual things. It raises the question of what gives you the right to recite His statutes.
50.23 The way this verse sets offers thanksgiving as his sacrifice and orders his way rightly alongside each other is a promising subject for thought and meditation.
Psalm 51 David; 19 vs.; 51.4--??
Great psalm of confession and repentance.
51.3 my sin is ever before me... This is almost always the case with me. I will be glad when I see Jesus and am perfect and holy like him. Thank God for His unspeakable gift.
51.11 Cast me not away... my prayer too.
51.12 the joy of Your salvation... is so sweet.
51.17 broken ... contrite That doesn't seem like a very good self esteem exercise.
50.14-15 great "condition" and promise
50.16 What right have you to recite my statues... This is a very interesting verse. It seems at odds with the common attitude among Christian of sometimes almost being desperate to have a pagan show any interest in spiritual things. It raises the question of what gives you the right to recite His statutes.
50.23 The way this verse sets offers thanksgiving as his sacrifice and orders his way rightly alongside each other is a promising subject for thought and meditation.
Psalm 51 David; 19 vs.; 51.4--??
Great psalm of confession and repentance.
51.3 my sin is ever before me... This is almost always the case with me. I will be glad when I see Jesus and am perfect and holy like him. Thank God for His unspeakable gift.
51.11 Cast me not away... my prayer too.
51.12 the joy of Your salvation... is so sweet.
51.17 broken ... contrite That doesn't seem like a very good self esteem exercise.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Mon 090720 pm 1 Cor 10 Psa 48-49
1 Corinthians 10
10.1-10 I love the allusion to the old testament stories.
10.17 On bread ... one body I love the part of communion that emphasizes our unity.
Psalm 48 Sons of Korah; 14 vs.; 48.2--Matthew 5.35..7
A Israel-centric song of praise.
48.2 the city of the great King. I am not sure this is specifically alluded to by Matt. 5.35 even though a phrase it repeated. I wonder if this is a name for Jerusalem that both "happened" to use or if Matthew had this passage in mind.
48.10 a nice verse of praise
Psalm 49 Sons of Korah; 20 vs.; ---??
Foolishness of those who trust in wealth.
49.7 no man can ransom another... This is a good verse for why couldn't someone else die for my sins.
49.15 Amen. Great promise.
49.20 It is so sad being lost.
10.1-10 I love the allusion to the old testament stories.
10.17 On bread ... one body I love the part of communion that emphasizes our unity.
Psalm 48 Sons of Korah; 14 vs.; 48.2--Matthew 5.35..7
A Israel-centric song of praise.
48.2 the city of the great King. I am not sure this is specifically alluded to by Matt. 5.35 even though a phrase it repeated. I wonder if this is a name for Jerusalem that both "happened" to use or if Matthew had this passage in mind.
48.10 a nice verse of praise
Psalm 49 Sons of Korah; 20 vs.; ---??
Foolishness of those who trust in wealth.
49.7 no man can ransom another... This is a good verse for why couldn't someone else die for my sins.
49.15 Amen. Great promise.
49.20 It is so sad being lost.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Sun 090719 pm Psa 44-47
Psalm 44 Sons of Korah; 26 vs. 44.22-Romans 8:36
44.1-8 Praise for God's faithfulness.
44.9-26 Prayer for God to arise and deliver His people.
44.22 Some days are just like that.
Psalm 45 Sons of Korah; 17 vs.; 45.6-7--Hebrews 1.8-9
A love song.
45.6-7 Some of the references in this verse are confusing especially in light of its use in Hebrews.
Psalm 46 Sons of Korah; 11 vs.; ---??
46.1 a favorite verse and great promise.
46.6 the kingdoms totter... never more true
46.10 be still
Psalm 47 Sons of Korah; 9 vs.; ---??
General psalm of praise.
44.1-8 Praise for God's faithfulness.
44.9-26 Prayer for God to arise and deliver His people.
44.22 Some days are just like that.
Psalm 45 Sons of Korah; 17 vs.; 45.6-7--Hebrews 1.8-9
A love song.
45.6-7 Some of the references in this verse are confusing especially in light of its use in Hebrews.
Psalm 46 Sons of Korah; 11 vs.; ---??
46.1 a favorite verse and great promise.
46.6 the kingdoms totter... never more true
46.10 be still
Psalm 47 Sons of Korah; 9 vs.; ---??
General psalm of praise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)