In preparation for preaching on Acts 9. Saul's conversion I was struck by Paul's response to being blinded and hearing the voice of Jesus.
The first point is that Saul calls him Lord. Have you ever wondered why? Some might think is it the nature of the encounter that convinced him, yet our text hints that it is more. It starts with the voice calling Saul Saul. Why the repetition? Saul was blinded, he wasn't made deaf!
Being a Pharisee Saul knew his Scriptures. He knew how God had called to Abraham who was about to sacrifice his son. Genesis 22:11 Then in Genesis 46:2 God called to Jacob, it's "Jacob, Jacob. - don't be afraid to go down to Egypt" Again in Exodus 3:3 when God calls to Moses from the burning bush .. it's "Moses, Moses." He knew how also when God called to Samuel in 1 Sam 3 it's the repetition of the name again. "Samuel Samuel". [ This pointed calling is also significant in Jesus' words to Martha Martha in Luke 10:38-42 ] Scripture tells us that this repetition was common in the way God called to people for whom He had a significant part for them to play in His Plan. I am not detracting at all from God's self authenticating authority by pointing this out, merely to say When God himself revealed himself to people in the Old Testament this characterised the encounter.
A second thing that strikes me as unusual is that Saul on having his blindness removed, in the next verse, vs 18, then he arose and even before he'd eaten he gets baptised. Context shows us that this is not Baptism in the Spirit, and anyway such Spirit Baptism would not require one to get up and be baptised before eating! That being the case it is water baptism being spoken of here. What is unusual about this is that baptism was only required of gentiles who wanted to come into the covenant fold of Israel and Worship the God of Israel. They needed cleansing but the Jews did not consider that they themselves needed it. That's why when John the Baptist came preaching and baptising it was confronting to Israel.
We read nothing in our text in chapter 9 that stands out as the reason for Saul to be baptised.
Yet there is a reason when one again considers context. When one remembers that Saul was at Stephen's stoning as recorded in Acts 7 things take on a different perspective. The witnesses laid their garments at the feet of young Saul as we are told in Acts 7:58. As John MacArthur says, the fact that the witnesses laid their garments at the feet of Saul, [ following Levitical law ] highly suggests Saul was at the forefront of the proceedings.
Now what had enraged the religious leaders was Stephen's declaration that he saw the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God 7:56. But almost passed over here in Stephen's speech is verse 51. where he calls them a stiff necked people, uncircumcised in hearts and ears. that is - just like gentiles and what follows is that if they are just like gentiles [ the uncircumcised ] they the Sanhedrin, are in need of cleansing! And this is just what Saul himself had been like!
Paul's Proclamation:
The last "anomaly" in our text, something that confronts us, is found in verse 20 The first recorded proclamation of Jesus to the Jews is to declare Him the Son of God. We know from reading and studying the Pauline letters a bit about Paul, and what figures as central in his teaching is the Messiah, the Christ. But that's not the first word on his lips, something we would have thought would be given his Jewish hearers. Here is something in need of deeper research. Indeed the Son is intimately tied up with the Messiah in Paul's writings, not merely as the same person but in conceptual terms. Now besides being intelligible to the Jews who saw Moses as a son, Israel as a son, angels as sons, more importantly given Nathans oracle in 2 Sam 7:14 God himself would adopt David's Royal descendants as heirs, "his house" of 2 Sam 7:11. Then it has been found that certain circles of the Qumran fellowship link the Davidic Messiah as Son of God. Scripturally, Paul's emphasis in Romans 1:3-4, Heb 1:5, 5:5 are focusing more on enthronement than birth ... see again the specifics of Acts 13:33 concerning this aspect.
In this regard also one cannot again bypass Acts 7 with Stephen's speech where he accuses the religious leaders of slaying the righteous one, who Stephen's declares he now sees standing at the right hand of God, a declaration that enrages the Sanhedrin who take him out of the city and stone him.
This isn't to say the Son does not signify the one of unique standing and intimate favour in God's Work. It is to suggest that enthronement, Jesus as God, is the focus here.
Some of the gems of Acts 9
In Christ
Gary
Showing posts with label Exegetical Notes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Exegetical Notes. Show all posts
Saturday, October 4, 2014
Saturday, September 20, 2014
Preaching Noah from Genesis 9vs1-17 Exegesis and Application
When we come to Genesis 9 verses 1-17 what we immediately ask is what is the point of this passage and how we would preach it?
For many, the text is simply Noah and his family get a "fresh start" with God "recreating" after the destruction of the flood with the Lord God forming a new Covenant with them. It's almost like a rerun of Genesis 1 & 2.
Yet is it?
Even though there are parallels between Genesis 9 and Gen 1 & 2, still there is more at play here.
After the destruction of the world by the flood God does again direct man as to his role on the earth "be fruitful and multiply" and as we read this is again mentioned in verse 7. Here one needs to ask "why the repetition?"
Is it merely an emphasis on the new beginning?
I don't believe so. Just look closely at the literary flow of the text.
After the command to be fruitful and multiply in verse 1, God indicates that unlike in the garden Gen 1-2, the animals will now fear mankind, vs 2.
Secondly, now everything is edible, not merely the green plants, vs 3. And given that, one must make sure the animal is dead, that there is no life blood, before eating. vs 4.
Also importantly, if a person is killed by another man or animal they will be held accountable. vs 5-6. Indeed whoever sheds the blood of man [ death ] will forfeit his life! After this our text repeats the command to be fruitful and multiply! Why?
I'd suggest it is telling you that even though sin will continue, man is to be fruitful and multiply.
After the massive judgment upon mankind because of man's sin, even after that, with a new beginning the sin problem remains. One may have been tempted to give up. In the face of the affirmation that man will still commit evil, that he will still kill his fellow man, man is still called upon to covenantal obedience and be fruitful and multiply.
So we need to ask, What will God do?
Well, the following verses tell us that he will not ever again flood the earth and destroy everything. and he confirms this promise by the sign of a rainbow.
[ as an aside here we note for those who suggest that the flood was local in extent doesn't gel with the text because it makes God to a liar since there have been destructive local floods with great loss of life since then. ]
So how do we go about seeing the application here?
The first is to see God keeps his promises. After the fall Genesis 3, God gave a promise to defeat Satan through His seed. Gen 3:15. The promised one, won't eventuate if all mankind is destroyed. so even though Man does his utmost to destroy each other and break relationship with God, to reject Him, and in all this satan works to stop the coming seed, despite all this God works to fulfil his promise! that encourages you doesn't it? From the beginning God allows nothing to thwart his gracious promises, so that we see Jesus crucified for our sin, for all mankind's sin and resurrected. That God keeps his promises should make us delight in the promise of His return.
A second application here has to do with man created in the image of God. That makes him special so that even though we see in the flood the Sovereign judgment of God, still He will persevere with man, until Jesus, the perfect image of God. it's not an ogre God, a judgmental God but one who also shows great patience and Grace.
Third, one cannot ignore that the commands to be fruitful and multiply is a demand of obedience so that with relationship comes responsibility.
In Christ,
Gary
For many, the text is simply Noah and his family get a "fresh start" with God "recreating" after the destruction of the flood with the Lord God forming a new Covenant with them. It's almost like a rerun of Genesis 1 & 2.
Yet is it?
Even though there are parallels between Genesis 9 and Gen 1 & 2, still there is more at play here.
After the destruction of the world by the flood God does again direct man as to his role on the earth "be fruitful and multiply" and as we read this is again mentioned in verse 7. Here one needs to ask "why the repetition?"
Is it merely an emphasis on the new beginning?
I don't believe so. Just look closely at the literary flow of the text.
After the command to be fruitful and multiply in verse 1, God indicates that unlike in the garden Gen 1-2, the animals will now fear mankind, vs 2.
Secondly, now everything is edible, not merely the green plants, vs 3. And given that, one must make sure the animal is dead, that there is no life blood, before eating. vs 4.
Also importantly, if a person is killed by another man or animal they will be held accountable. vs 5-6. Indeed whoever sheds the blood of man [ death ] will forfeit his life! After this our text repeats the command to be fruitful and multiply! Why?
I'd suggest it is telling you that even though sin will continue, man is to be fruitful and multiply.
After the massive judgment upon mankind because of man's sin, even after that, with a new beginning the sin problem remains. One may have been tempted to give up. In the face of the affirmation that man will still commit evil, that he will still kill his fellow man, man is still called upon to covenantal obedience and be fruitful and multiply.
So we need to ask, What will God do?
Well, the following verses tell us that he will not ever again flood the earth and destroy everything. and he confirms this promise by the sign of a rainbow.
[ as an aside here we note for those who suggest that the flood was local in extent doesn't gel with the text because it makes God to a liar since there have been destructive local floods with great loss of life since then. ]
So how do we go about seeing the application here?
The first is to see God keeps his promises. After the fall Genesis 3, God gave a promise to defeat Satan through His seed. Gen 3:15. The promised one, won't eventuate if all mankind is destroyed. so even though Man does his utmost to destroy each other and break relationship with God, to reject Him, and in all this satan works to stop the coming seed, despite all this God works to fulfil his promise! that encourages you doesn't it? From the beginning God allows nothing to thwart his gracious promises, so that we see Jesus crucified for our sin, for all mankind's sin and resurrected. That God keeps his promises should make us delight in the promise of His return.
A second application here has to do with man created in the image of God. That makes him special so that even though we see in the flood the Sovereign judgment of God, still He will persevere with man, until Jesus, the perfect image of God. it's not an ogre God, a judgmental God but one who also shows great patience and Grace.
Third, one cannot ignore that the commands to be fruitful and multiply is a demand of obedience so that with relationship comes responsibility.
In Christ,
Gary
Saturday, April 19, 2014
Exegetical Notes John 20:19-31
I thought it would be helpful to summarize the exegetical points on John 20:19-31 which I used for my sermon on that passage.
1. Twice we are told in this passage vs 19 & vs 26 that Jesus came to the disciples who were meeting behind locked doors, and in verse 19 we are told why "for fear of the Jews". the Jews had crucified their Lord and they feared being next on the list.
2. Did then Jesus words "peace" = shalom not dissolve this fear? well there is no rebuke of the disciples the second time for being behind locked doors. so in the passage perhaps the locked doors function to point out two things. First that Jesus resurrection body is both physical, one could touch the wounds in his hands and side, and yet supernatural - it passes through physical objects. Secondly that the circumstances of the appearance of Jesus to the disciples ( missing Judas who hung himself and Thomas ) are the same when Jesus appeared to Thomas, thus "informing" Thomas that what they had told him during the week wasn't a con! They hadn't colluded and fabricated the whole thing.
3. Peace for the Jews this alludes to the well being of God’s Kingdom people in His end time Kingdom.
4. During the week the disciples continually told Thomas of what had happened. elegon – an imperfect tense of repeated action “they kept saying".
5. Jesus shows the marks in his hands and his side, not hands and feet. for his was an unusual case of crucifixion. the spear thrust into his side to make sure he was dead so the body could be taken down and buried before the Sabbath.
6. it has been reported historically that during the Roman occupation of Israel that over 1 million people were killed and possibly of those 200,000 were crucified. Now the point is that of the incredible large number crucified very few would have had a spear mark in their side.
7. one in a million or at least one in 200,000? the following statistics were found on Body count of the Roman Empire
8.Is Doubt something a Christian should not have? Well Thomas only asks for what the other disciples already experienced. Thomas thus gets a bad rap for being singled out.
9. What is Thomas' character? was he a hard nosed skeptic? a pessimist? We need to look at context and John 11:16f and John 14.
It is more likely Thomas was totally devoted to Jesus. He would go and die with him! so he didn't want to led on by the other disciples? after the crucifixion he was a shattered man.
10. Jesus said “be not unbelieving but believing”. how do we take this? as a command to stop doubting - like almost repent? a rebuke as such or is it a command to move on from your doubt - the sufficient evidence is before you.
11. We are not saying someone can intellectually work their way into heaven / salvation rather the emphasis is God has made man in His image with ability to reason, and this is what the Holy Spirit convicts. Luke 16:19-31 tells us that even miraculous resurrection one could deny because of hardness of heart. what is required is the work of the Holy Spirit. Significantly in both Luke and here It tells us Scripture is sufficient!
12. and that's the important thing about verse 29-31. in context they appear right after the Thomas encounter. John teaches us that Scripture is sufficient to be blessed of God.
13. lastly it isn't merely knowing about Christ, even Satan and his demons know Christ is God. it's about right relationship. one that means life - Jesus came to give fullness of life. not mere existing. getting by.
As you can see, much of the above attempts to deal with the literary structure, and context of the passage.
1. Twice we are told in this passage vs 19 & vs 26 that Jesus came to the disciples who were meeting behind locked doors, and in verse 19 we are told why "for fear of the Jews". the Jews had crucified their Lord and they feared being next on the list.
2. Did then Jesus words "peace" = shalom not dissolve this fear? well there is no rebuke of the disciples the second time for being behind locked doors. so in the passage perhaps the locked doors function to point out two things. First that Jesus resurrection body is both physical, one could touch the wounds in his hands and side, and yet supernatural - it passes through physical objects. Secondly that the circumstances of the appearance of Jesus to the disciples ( missing Judas who hung himself and Thomas ) are the same when Jesus appeared to Thomas, thus "informing" Thomas that what they had told him during the week wasn't a con! They hadn't colluded and fabricated the whole thing.
3. Peace for the Jews this alludes to the well being of God’s Kingdom people in His end time Kingdom.
4. During the week the disciples continually told Thomas of what had happened. elegon – an imperfect tense of repeated action “they kept saying".
5. Jesus shows the marks in his hands and his side, not hands and feet. for his was an unusual case of crucifixion. the spear thrust into his side to make sure he was dead so the body could be taken down and buried before the Sabbath.
6. it has been reported historically that during the Roman occupation of Israel that over 1 million people were killed and possibly of those 200,000 were crucified. Now the point is that of the incredible large number crucified very few would have had a spear mark in their side.
7. one in a million or at least one in 200,000? the following statistics were found on Body count of the Roman Empire
Durant, Caesar and Christ
Revolt of 68-73 CE: 1,197,000 Jews killed acc. to Josephus ix 3. 600,000 killed acc. to Tacitus v 13.
Revolt of 115-116 CE: 220,000 people k. in Cyrene and 240,000 k. in Cyprus
Revolt of 132 CE: 580,000 k.
[TOTAL: Adding gives a total of 1,920,000 ± 300,000 k. in the Jewish Wars according to ancient sources]
Most historians assume that Palestine simply couldn't support a population large enough to produce death tolls as large as these. Among the population estimates are
Anthony Byatt, "Josephus and population numbers in first century Palestine." Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 105:51 (1973): 2,265,000 inhabitants
C. C. McCown, 'The Density of Population in Ancient Palestine', Journal of Biblical Literature, 66:425 (1947): less than 1,000,000 inhabitants
Harnack, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums (1924): 500,000 inhabitants
Seth Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E. (2001): 500,000 inhabitants
8.Is Doubt something a Christian should not have? Well Thomas only asks for what the other disciples already experienced. Thomas thus gets a bad rap for being singled out.
9. What is Thomas' character? was he a hard nosed skeptic? a pessimist? We need to look at context and John 11:16f and John 14.
It is more likely Thomas was totally devoted to Jesus. He would go and die with him! so he didn't want to led on by the other disciples? after the crucifixion he was a shattered man.
10. Jesus said “be not unbelieving but believing”. how do we take this? as a command to stop doubting - like almost repent? a rebuke as such or is it a command to move on from your doubt - the sufficient evidence is before you.
11. We are not saying someone can intellectually work their way into heaven / salvation rather the emphasis is God has made man in His image with ability to reason, and this is what the Holy Spirit convicts. Luke 16:19-31 tells us that even miraculous resurrection one could deny because of hardness of heart. what is required is the work of the Holy Spirit. Significantly in both Luke and here It tells us Scripture is sufficient!
12. and that's the important thing about verse 29-31. in context they appear right after the Thomas encounter. John teaches us that Scripture is sufficient to be blessed of God.
13. lastly it isn't merely knowing about Christ, even Satan and his demons know Christ is God. it's about right relationship. one that means life - Jesus came to give fullness of life. not mere existing. getting by.
As you can see, much of the above attempts to deal with the literary structure, and context of the passage.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Exegetical Notes on 1 Peter
I thought it would be good to work through some book of the bible exegetically and look at a bit closer what is being said. So I have chose 1 Peter.
A great resource for 1 Peter which I will be using is 'First Peter - An Expositional Commentary' by D Edmond Hierbert.
Consider 1:1 "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion.."
First we notice how Peter says he is merely an apostle, not the apostle of Jesus Christ. Humility? He mentions both his given name and Title, Jesus "because he will save his people from their sins" and Messiah, the expected prophesied one of the Old Testament, the one who brings God's plan to fruition.
Much debate has been given to the word elect here. It simply means chosen. Is it a seperate noun or an adjective modifying the following noun, Sojourners?
Hiebert suggests the latter and points out arguments that favour this.
Implications then are Peter is focusing here on them being "elect sojourners of the dispersion."
As Hierbert points out "Peter thus fuses heavenward and earthward relationships."
They are chosen "but" sojourners.
If this is so we could put it this way, whilst sojourners or aliens in the land of the disporia, still even in that situation they are chosen by God. He knows it.
Try putting this in context, if the readers of Peters letter were Jewish Christians, then being out of the promised land still is tough for people of the promise. There is some weight to be given that they are Jewish Christians, the use of Old Testament, [ especially concepts ] that Peter is minister of the circumcision Gal 2:10 etc yet even if not they are a people suffering difficulties and perhaps persecution, see the purpose of the letter 1 Peter 5:12 where they are encourgaed by God's grace.
What then about that word election? Should a sermon here expound the doctrine of election? Perhaps it does well to say some things about it, such as how ofter people will pit election against understanding man's "free will" both of which are taught in the Bible. eg God saying through His prophet to the people of Israel "choose this day whom you will server, Baal or YHWH." Yet we do well to point out as some have that this notion of election arises in contexts where it's given as a basis for comfort in extreemely difficult circumstances. If you don't say this then you perhaps have missed the point. Theology must always be contextual, I seem to find these days people who rip a verse out of context and make a theology.
See how here elect is passive, meaning the readers are the objects of God's electing action and as verse 4 tells us, in order that they might be partakers of the heavenly inheritance being reserved for them.
Consider again "elect sojourners", they are resident aliens in a places where they do not belong. We could say, they now belong with Christ, they are God's chosen people heading towards their heavenly home.
Research: does Peter's use of sojourners here conflict with Hebrews use of it to refer to Old Testament saints giving rise to some "replacement theology of Israel? Not likely. Perhaps Peter is merely using it metaphorically?
Don't forget also that we need to continue to look at the idea of elect in regard to Peter's comment of foreknowledge in verse 2.
In Christ,
Gary
A great resource for 1 Peter which I will be using is 'First Peter - An Expositional Commentary' by D Edmond Hierbert.
Consider 1:1 "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion.."
First we notice how Peter says he is merely an apostle, not the apostle of Jesus Christ. Humility? He mentions both his given name and Title, Jesus "because he will save his people from their sins" and Messiah, the expected prophesied one of the Old Testament, the one who brings God's plan to fruition.
Much debate has been given to the word elect here. It simply means chosen. Is it a seperate noun or an adjective modifying the following noun, Sojourners?
Hiebert suggests the latter and points out arguments that favour this.
Implications then are Peter is focusing here on them being "elect sojourners of the dispersion."
As Hierbert points out "Peter thus fuses heavenward and earthward relationships."
They are chosen "but" sojourners.
If this is so we could put it this way, whilst sojourners or aliens in the land of the disporia, still even in that situation they are chosen by God. He knows it.
Try putting this in context, if the readers of Peters letter were Jewish Christians, then being out of the promised land still is tough for people of the promise. There is some weight to be given that they are Jewish Christians, the use of Old Testament, [ especially concepts ] that Peter is minister of the circumcision Gal 2:10 etc yet even if not they are a people suffering difficulties and perhaps persecution, see the purpose of the letter 1 Peter 5:12 where they are encourgaed by God's grace.
What then about that word election? Should a sermon here expound the doctrine of election? Perhaps it does well to say some things about it, such as how ofter people will pit election against understanding man's "free will" both of which are taught in the Bible. eg God saying through His prophet to the people of Israel "choose this day whom you will server, Baal or YHWH." Yet we do well to point out as some have that this notion of election arises in contexts where it's given as a basis for comfort in extreemely difficult circumstances. If you don't say this then you perhaps have missed the point. Theology must always be contextual, I seem to find these days people who rip a verse out of context and make a theology.
See how here elect is passive, meaning the readers are the objects of God's electing action and as verse 4 tells us, in order that they might be partakers of the heavenly inheritance being reserved for them.
Consider again "elect sojourners", they are resident aliens in a places where they do not belong. We could say, they now belong with Christ, they are God's chosen people heading towards their heavenly home.
Research: does Peter's use of sojourners here conflict with Hebrews use of it to refer to Old Testament saints giving rise to some "replacement theology of Israel? Not likely. Perhaps Peter is merely using it metaphorically?
Don't forget also that we need to continue to look at the idea of elect in regard to Peter's comment of foreknowledge in verse 2.
In Christ,
Gary
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)