Lesson 17 - “The Duty to Forgive” - Luke 17.1-10
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: As you read today’s passage make note of the story of “Lazarus and the Rich Man” that comes before and the “Healing of the Ten Lepers” that comes after it. How do those stories color the tone and point of this passage?
2. CR: (1-2) What does it mean to offend (skandalizo) (or cause someone “to stumble”nasb or “to sin”esv)? (compare with Romans 14:15-16, 21; 1 Corinthians 8:13) Who are the “little ones” referred to in verse two?
3. ID: What is the relationship between verse 1-2 and verses 3-4?
4. WS: (3) When we take heed to (prosecho) (be on guard, pay attention to, or watch) ourselves, what are we taking heed of or watching for?
5. ID: (3) List the four steps in this verse? What does each one mean?
- _____________________________________________________________________________
- _____________________________________________________________________________
- _____________________________________________________________________________
- _____________________________________________________________________________
(Compare with Leviticus 19:16-18; Matthew 18:15-17; Ephesians 4:15, 32; Galatians 6:1; Matt. 5:43–48)
6. ID: (5-6) Why did the disciples ask the Lord to increase their faith? What were they asking Him to do?
7. ID: (6) What was the main point of this parable or illustration of the mustard seed and mulberry tree? (Matthew 17:20; Matthew 21:21; Mark 9:23; Mark 11:23)
8. ID: What are we commanded to do in this passage (1-6)? What should we expect from God in return (7-10)?
9. CR: Are there things we do that the Bible does say are exceptional? (example 1 Peter 2:20)
The WALK: What should I do?
1. What makes it difficult to forgive a person that has wronged you? How do you feel about forgiving a person again and again?
2. Can you recall a time that someone sinned against you repeatedly in the same day or week?
3. What can you do to increase your faith?
4. Why do we sometimes feel the things we have done for the Lord are so extraordinary or heroic?
Page 2 ----------------------------------------------------
Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics with commentary by Norman L. Geisler
Article XIII
WE AFFIRM that awareness of the literary categories, formal and stylistic, of the various parts of Scripture is essential for proper exegesis, and hence we value genre criticism as one of the many disciplines of biblical study.
WE DENY that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual.
The awareness of what kind of literature one is interpreting is essential to a correct understanding of the text. A correct genre judgment should be made to ensure correct understanding. A parable, for example, should not be treated like a chronicle, nor should poetry be interpreted as though it were a straightforward narrative. Each passage has its own genre, and the interpreter should be cognizant of the specific kind of literature it is as he attempts to interpret it. Without genre recognition an interpreter can be misled in his understanding of the passage. For example, when the prophet speaks of "trees clapping their hands" (Isa. 55:12) one could assume a kind of animism unless he recognized that this is poetry and not prose.
The Denial is directed at an illegitimate use of genre criticism by some who deny the truth of passages which are presented as factual. Some, for instance, take Adam to be a myth, whereas in Scripture he is presented as a real person. Others take Jonah to be an allegory when he is presented as a historical person and so referred to by Christ (Mat. 12:40-42). This Denial is an appropriate and timely warning not to use genre criticism as a cloak for rejecting the truth of Scripture.
Article XIV
WE AFFIRM that the biblical record of events, discourses and sayings, though presented in a variety of appropriate literary forms, corresponds to historical fact.
WE DENY that any event, discourse or saying reported in Scripture was invented by the biblical writers or by the traditions they incorporated.
This article combines the emphases of Articles VI and XIII. While acknowledging the legitimacy of literary forms, this article insists that any record of events presented in Scripture must correspond to historical fact. That is, no reported event, discourse, or saying should be considered imaginary.
The Denial is even more clear than the Affirmation. It stresses that any discourse, saying, or event reported in Scripture must actually have occurred. This means that any hermeneutic or form of biblical criticism which claims that something was invented by the author must be rejected. This does not mean that a parable must be understood to represent historical facts, since a parable does not (by its very genre) purport to report an event or saying but simply to illustrate a point.
Article XV
WE AFFIRM the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text.
WE DENY the legitimacy of any approach to Scripture that attributes to it meaning which the literal sense does not support.
The literal sense of Scripture is strongly affirmed here. To be sure the English word literal carries some problematic connotations with it. Hence the words normal and grammatical-historical are used to explain what is meant. The literal sense is also designated by the more descriptive title grammatical-historical sense. This means the correct interpretation is the one which discovers the meaning of the text in its grammatical forms and in the historical, cultural context in which the text is expressed.
The Denial warns against attributing to Scripture any meaning not based in a literal understanding, such as mythological or allegorical interpretations. This should not be understood as eliminating typology or designated allegory or other literary forms which include figures of speech (see Articles X, XIII, and XIV).
No comments:
Post a Comment