Thursday, March 22, 2012

The Gospel of Peace: Making It Real - Lesson 16 - “Those Who Hate You” - Luke 6:27-38

Lesson 16 - “Those Who Hate You” - Luke 6:27-38
ID: Inductive Questions (Asking the text questions like who, what, where, when, why, & how?”) 
CR: Cross References (Comparing Scripture to Scripture, understanding the vague by the clear.) 
WS: Word Study (Understanding definition, theological meaning, and usages in other passages.)
The WORD: What does the Bible say?
 1.      Context:   Read Luke 6:20-49 and think about how it compares with Matthew.  What does he include and leave out (especially verses Luke 6:27-36 with Matthew 5:39-46)?
2.      ID: (27-28) What are the four types of people in these verses?  What responses should we have to these four types of people? (What are other Scriptures that reinforce these statements? Also, think about how each response fits its particular offence?  Are other pairs not mentioned?).
3.      ID: (29) Does smiting the cheek refer primary to an attack or an insult? (Check the commentaries for help.)
4.      ID: (30) What should we do if someone takes something from us?  Why might this statement make us so uncomfortable? Does this mean we should never attempt to recover stolen property?
5.      CR: (30) Who should we give to?  (Job 31:16-23; Proverbs 21:25-26; Matthew 5: 40-42; Ephesians 4:28; 1 John 3:16-17)  How do we reconcile or synthesize this verse with 2 Thessalonians 3:10 and the verses from Proverbs condemning slothfulness.
6.      ID (35-36) What reasons are given for loving and loaning (giving) to your enemies?
7.      WS: (36) What does it mean to be merciful (oiktirmon)?  (Romans 9:15; James 5:11)  (Tip: Compare this word with other Greek words translated mercy).
8.      ID: (37-38) What general kind of disposition or spirit does the statements in verses 37-38 describe?
The WALK: What should I do?
1.      Can you think of anyone who is your enemy, who dislikes you, who curses you, or who spitefully uses you?
2.      Can you remember a time you have done something “nice” or good to/for someone who dislikes you, curses you, or spitefully uses you?
3.      If loving those who love us doesn’t count for much, how much “love credit” are you building up by loving difficult people in your life?
4.      In verses 32-36 we find the phrase “what credit is that to you” three times before saying in verse 35 that if we will love like this our reward will be great.  Why the focus on credit and reward?
Ponder this:  “The important thing is not that we are vindicated before our enemies but that we become more like God in our character (Luke 6:35).”  ---Warren Wiersbe in The Bible Exposition Commnetary 

Page 3-----------------------------

Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics with commentary by Norman L. Geisler

Article X

WE AFFIRM  that Scripture communicates God's truth to us verbally through a wide variety of literary forms.
WE DENY  that any of the limits of human language render Scripture inadequate to convey God's message.
This Affirmation is a logical literary extension of Article II which acknowledges the humanity of Scripture. The Bible is God's Word, but it is written in human words; thus, revelation is "verbal." Revelation is "propositional" (Article VI) because it expresses certain propositional truth. Some prefer to call it "sentential" because the truth is expressed in sentences. Whatever the term--verbal, propositional, or sentential--the Bible is a human book which uses normal literary forms. These include parables, satire, irony, hyperbole, metaphor, simile, poetry, and even allegory (e.g., Ezek. 16-17).
As an expression in finite, human language, the Bible has certain limitations in a similar way that Christ as a man had certain limitations. This means that God adapted Himself through human language so that His eternal truth could be understood by man in a temporal world.
Despite the obvious fact of the limitations of any finite linguistic expression, the Denial is quick to point out that these limits do not render Scripture an inadequate means of communicating God's truth. For while there is a divine adaptation (via language) to human finitude there is no accommodation to human error. Error is not essential to human nature. Christ was human and yet He did not err. Adam was human before he erred. So simply because the Bible is written in human language does not mean it must err. In fact, when God uses human language there is a supernatural guarantee that it will not be in error.

Article XI

WE AFFIRM  that translations of the text of Scripture can communicate knowledge of God across all temporal and cultural boundaries.
WE DENY  that the meaning of biblical texts is so tied to the culture out of which they came that understanding of the same meaning in other cultures is impossible.
Simply because the truth of Scripture was conveyed by God in the original writings does not mean that it cannot be translated into another language. This article affirms the translatability of God's truth into other cultures. It affirms that since truth is transcendent (see Article XX) it is not culture-bound. Hence the truth of God expressed in a first-century culture is not limited to that culture. For the nature of truth is not limited to any particular medium through which it is expressed.
The Denial notes that since meaning is not inextricably tied to a given culture it can be adequately expressed in another culture. Thus the message of Scripture need not be relativized by translation. What is expressed can be the same even though how it is expressed differs.

Article XII

WE AFFIRM  that in the task of translating the Bible and teaching it in the context of each culture, only those functional equivalents which are faithful to the content of biblical teaching should be employed.
WE DENY  the legitimacy of methods which either are insensitive to the demands of cross-cultural communication or distort biblical meaning in the process.
Whereas the previous article treated the matter of the translatability of divine truth, this article speaks to the adequacy of translations. Obviously not every expression in another language will appropriately convey the meaning of Scripture. In view of this, caution is urged that the translators remain faithful to the truth of the Scripture being translated by the proper choice of the words used to translate it.
This article treats the matter of "functional" equivalence. Often there is no actual or literal equivalence between expressions in one language and a word-for-word translation into another language. What is expressed (meaning) is the same but how it is expressed (the words) is different…
The Denial urges sensitivity to cultural matters so that the same truth may be conveyed, even though different terms are being used. Without this awareness missionary activity can be severely hampered.

No comments:

Post a Comment